Jimmy Carter book controversy

[Copernicus]

Too bad it didnt happen before the travesty of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

[iron81]

I haven't heard about this. Link?

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad it didnt happen before the travesty of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

"He's history's greatest monster!"

[Poofler]

Carter being called an anti-Semite on CSPAN

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Carter being called an anti-Semite on CSPAN

[/ QUOTE ]

So, a wacko thinks Carter is an anti-Semite, and he disagrees ("with enthusiasm" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). What, if anything, am I missing that makes this interesting?

[Poofler]

If you hadn't noticed, this thread is not a gold mine of intellectual debate. Copernicus just wanted to take a jab. This was news a few days ago, so I shared it. The link was clear, you didn't have to watch it.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't heard about this. Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, he calls out Israel and compares their treatment of Palestinians to Apartheid.

"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid", By Jimmy Carter

Might as well lock this thread now, though.

[Bill Haywood]

There was a New York Times article where a critic said he had evidence of massive inaccuracies, and he'd reveal them soon. He proceeded to give one example of Carter getting chronology wrong and putting one event before another.

The NYT -- the best imaginable forum, and the guy says he'll get back to us with the evidence.

This is going to be one of those cases where people keep shouting smoke, but no one ever checks for the fire.

Carter takes a very moderate position -- he favors maintaining the ethnic purity of Israel, and says only that the promised Palestinian state should be delivered. Now he's going to be excoriated for not being sufficiently hostile to Arabs. Only in America.

[Copernicus]

I didnt see it a couple of days ago , but its a lot more than a "wacko calling him an anti-semite". His aide, close friend and first executive director of the Carter Center resigned over factual inaccuracies (that = lies, unless JC has alzheimers and truly doesnt remember, which of course doesnt excuse his editors).

it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

[niss]

Here is the Times article. You may need to register to read it.

Your description of the Times article is not fair. There is more to the criticism of the former president's book, according to the article, than what your post says. You will also note that the article includes a brief discussion that the motivation of the critic might not be entirely substantive. The point being the article seems to be very fair in its treatment of the issue.