Get Carter
Jimmy Carter’s book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” seems to have caused a bit of controversy and ultimately led to the resignations of 14 members of the Carter Center’s Board of Councilors.
In a letter to President Carter, the group wrote that the former president had abandoned his role as a peace broker in favor of malicious partisan advocacy, portraying the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a “purely one-sided affair,” which Israel bears full responsibility for resolving.
The letter also cites a “disturbing” passage from Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which appears to call for Palestinians to end acts of terrorism only if Israel abides by its obligations under international law and under the proposed road map — a peace plan guided by the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia. The passage appears to condone violence against Israelis, said the signatories.
“We can no longer support your strident and uncompromising position,” said the letter. “This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support.”
Equating Israel to a terrorist state seems to be an argument amongst the left and you can choose to agree with it or not. That being said, it’s no surprise that Jewish support for the Liberals in Canada is dwindling.
In a nutshell: Apartheid?! What the fuck?! Can you use a more loaded word, Mr. Carter?
Geez. Were I one the chosen people I’d probably quit too.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:06 AM
“Such backlash is triggered by Mr. Carter’s assertions that pro-Israel lobbyists have stifled debate in the United States over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; that Israelis are guilty of human rights abuses in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories; and that the editorial pages of American newspapers rarely present anything but a pro-Israel viewpoint.”
- from the New York Times Dec 14 ‘06
(perhaps a less directly biased source than the freaking Jewish Exponent!)
And deal with it - he’s accurate about the powerful lobbying, the human rights absuses, and the unwavering U.S. support of Isreal in the media.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:22 AM
The crux of the controversy would seem to be the word apartheid describing the suffering of the Palestinians. (This is strange, since unimpeachable sources like Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela have, for years, made the comparison to the struggle in South Africa).
Policies Carter objects to include the “honeycomb” of Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank serviced by exclusive roadways, the ubiquitous checkpoints endured by Palestinians, the annexation of additional occupied territory by the “separation” wall, and the holding of thousands of political prisoners in Israeli jails.
Carter is extremely moderate: he criticizes the use of violence by Palestinians in their resistance and emphasizes his own motivation of achieving peace for the people of Israel. Unlike many others, Carter does not criticize the discrimination against Arabs within Israel proper, which exists, for instance, in terms of land ownership and marriage rights.
For Carter, apartheid describes the misery he has seen on his many visits to the West Bank and Gaza. But in an era of “with us or with the terrorists”, it seems many have chosen to judge this book by its cover and its title.
- Derrick O’Keefe
from the Straight Book Review (Vancouver) January 4 ‘07
January 20th, 2007 at 12:09 PM
-Jeffrey Goldberg
Washington Post Book Review December 10, 2006
And if you think you’re getting heated over this debate? I thought Eisler was going to strangle me last summer when we debated the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. Seriously. That being said. How are things?
January 20th, 2007 at 13:28 PM
in defense of eisler, his disagreement with you was based on your unwavering support and lack of questioning partisan politics that favored violence over peace. no, not even peace, per se. it was over a simple request for a cease-fire which you were stringently against. CASE-FIRE. as in, “stop shooting the shit out of each other for a minuite”. agreeing to a cease-fire in no way favors one side over the other, it simply means that fewer people have to die (and how could that be a bad thing?).
perhaps a bit off topic, but as for that fucking wall that was built, are people so short sighted? does the public suffer from amnesia? given historical precedent, i find it impossible to suppport the erection of yet another wall, either physcial or conceptual, as a means to resolve conflict. and this is coming from someone who erects walls for a living.
January 21st, 2007 at 13:07 PM
yeah, i was going to say, Ang… As an up and coming architect, you’d better learn to stop worrying and love The Wall, dude. Oh man was that ever clever. Like, Pink Floyd meeting Stanley Kubrick in a blender. Dude.
Skilling - don’t you be getting on the dark side of Eisler! I dated his brother (a Marxist historian - you’d love him) and let me tell you, all members of the Eisler family are serious forces to be reckoned with! I totally tried to sink Mathew Eisler’s battleship, and failed miserably. I don’t mean that in the dirty way, so get you head out the gutter.