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?

[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.

[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.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF, bugmenot extension.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]

Your description of the Times article is not fair.... the article seems to be very fair in its treatment of the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem isn't with the article but with the critic it quotes, who said he found all kinds of errors, and "In due course, I shall detail these points."

There's going to be harping about all sorts of little pedantic points, but little engagement with the main arguments, such as Israel's flaunting of universal international opinion that it should give back the conquered areas.

The link provided by elschorcho is a good example. The editorial claims the book is rife with errors, but the example it gives is over what Israel's borders are -- a political dispute, a difference of opinion, not a glaring factual inaccuracy.

One clearly misleading point however is the attempt to enlist Norman Finkelstein in trashing Carter. Finkelstein responds: "It seems Israel's "supporters" have conscripted me in their media lynching of Jimmy Carter. Count me out."

Notorious self-hater Norman Finkelstein continues...

And in case someone wants to what the man himself has to say: Carter responds to inevitable kneejerk calumny