The reaction to his book is just sad.



Carter's Palestine book prompts resignations
14 advisory members protest former president's criticism of Israeli policy


Updated: 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
ATLANTA - Fourteen members of an advisory board to Jimmy Carter’s human rights organization resigned Thursday to protest his new book, which criticizes Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories.

The resignations from The Carter Center board are the latest backlash against the former president’s book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” which has drawn fire from Jewish groups, been attacked by fellow Democrats and led to the resignation last month of Kenneth Stein, a center fellow and a longtime Carter adviser.

“You have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side,” the departing members of the Center’s Board of Councilors told Carter in their letter of resignation.



The 200-member board is responsible for building public support for the Carter Center. It is not the organization’s governing board.

The board’s members “are not engaged in implementing work of the Center,” Carter Center Executive Director John Hardman said Thursday in a news release.

Blame all around, but mostly of Israeli policy
Deanna Congileo, a spokeswoman for Carter and the center, issued Hardman’s statement in response to The Associated Press’ request for comment from Carter.

The book follows the Israeli-Palestinian peace process starting with Carter’s 1977-1980 presidency and the peace accord he negotiated between Israel and Egypt. It doles out blame to Israel, the Palestinians, the United States and others, but it is most critical of Israeli policy.

Steve Berman, an Atlanta real estate developer among those who resigned, said members have “watched with great dismay” as Carter defended the book, especially as he implied that Americans might be afraid to discuss the conflict in fear of a powerful Jewish lobby.

That is the honest to goodness truth whether you like it or not, Mr. Berman. People are afraid to criticize Israel. ANTI-SEMITE!!!! AIEEEE!!!!!!

Berman said the religious affiliation of the resigning members, which include some prominent Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area, didn’t influence their decision.

The resignations came a day after Congileo and officials at Brandeis University said Carter will discuss the book at the Waltham, Mass., campus. The Nobel Peace Prize winner will not, however, debate the book with outspoken Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, as Brandeis originally proposed.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16579676/

At least the"powerful Jewish lobby" isn't sending suicide bombers. So they resign? You're all for free speech. Carter can go find some redneck Jew-baiters to take their places. THen everyone's happy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5081001796.html

Briefing Book Baloney

By George F. Will

Thursday, August 11, 2005; Page A23

A quarter of a century has passed since 44 states said "No, thanks" to Jimmy Carter's offer to serve a second term, yet he still evidently thinks his loss is explained not by foreign policy debacles, such as invading Iran with eight helicopters, and a misery index -- inflation plus unemployment -- of 22, almost triple today's index. Rather, he seems to think approximately this:

Ronald Reagan won because he won the only debate. He won it not because of Carter's debate performance ("I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was. She said she thought nuclear weaponry . . .") but only because Reagan had Carter's briefing book. And Reagan had it because this columnist gave it to him.


That last accusation, for which there is no evidence, is, as he has been told, false. But he is a recidivist fibber. Last Oct. 21, on National Public Radio, he said: "We found out later that one of Ronald Reagan's supporters inside the White House had stolen my briefing book, my top-secret briefing book that prepared me for the debate. And a very prominent news reporter was the one who took the briefing book to Ronald Reagan and helped drill him on the things that I might say if he said certain things." Asked who that reporter was, Carter replied, "It was George Will, and it was later known that he did that."

But one cannot know what isn't so, and "top secret" is a government classification inapplicable to campaign fodder. Still, Carter continues to retail -- and to embroider -- his fable. Recently in a Plains, Ga., church, he illustrated his aptitude for the virtue of forgiveness by saying that once, after columnist Will read a report of his telling his briefing book tale, Will wrote to him "asking for forgiveness."

Well. The only letter I ever wrote to Carter was in response to one he wrote to me on Oct. 29, 1993. His letter began: "For a number of years I have felt some resentment toward you because of the reports that you either knew about or actually used my personal briefing book in preparing Reagan for our campaign debates [sic]." He added:

"Because of this feeling, and despite my lifetime interest in baseball, I even refrained from reading your 'Men at Work.' Recently, in order to learn how to be a better Braves fan next year, I spent $1 in a used bookstore for the book, and really enjoyed it.

"Even if the news stories about the debate incident are true, I feel that we are even now.

"Best wishes,

"Jimmy Carter"

My Nov. 10 reply was untainted by any request for forgiveness:

"Dear President Carter:

"I am delighted that you have at long last overcome your repugnance and given yourself the pleasure of 'Men at Work.' I am distressed, as I suspect you naughtily knew I would be, to learn that this masterwork was found in a used bookstore. That is more evidence of the decline of Western civilization."

Then, to the point:

"Regarding your briefing book, I will tell you what I have told many others. When I got to David Stockman's house on the day he was preparing to play the role of you in the debate preparations, he had on his kitchen table what I gather was the briefing book. I do not know how he got it; more to the point, I do not know who thought having it would be helpful. Frankly, you deserved better. My cursory glance at it convinced me that it was a crashing bore and next to useless -- for you, or for anyone else."

Even though, as a columnist, my support for Reagan was well-known, my participation in his debate preparation was as inappropriate as it was superfluous -- after three decades of public advocacy, Reagan was ready . And speaking of the inappropriate:

The role of ex-president requires a grace and restraint notably absent from Carter. See, for example, his criticism of the United States when he is abroad, as in England two weeks ago. Having made such disappointing history as president, Carter as ex-president should at least refrain from disseminating a historical falsehood.

So strong, however, is the human impulse to believe comforting myths that Carter probably will continue to promulgate the fiction that I gave Reagan the utterly unimportant briefing book, thereby catalyzing the 1980 landslide. But to be fair: As a candidate, Carter promised only that as president he would never tell a lie, thereby leaving himself a loophole for his post-presidential career as a fabulist.

George Will is Jewish. Any non-Jew's you can quote???

Sorry, I don't keep track of religions. Didn't know he was Jewish, don't care. Lefties quote him when they want a conservative that agrees with them, THEN he's good enough. It was all over when he said Iraq was a civil war.

Now he's just another lousy Jew. Again.

Just don't equate SherryB with all lefties, OK?

I consider her knee-jerk "he's Jewish" a bunch of cowdoody, and have told her so repeatedly.

Especially not Jewish ones, of which there are more than a few.

"They" tend to make up the core of the hated ACLU.

God bless 'em for it, too.

The thought he was Jewish came to me when I read the other thread and realized he looked like Howard Fineman.

Otherwise I never really thought about it.

Seems like many Jews are named after riches of some sort. Goldman, Silver, Will.

I was thinking if they had a heroic spy he'd introduce himself as Bond, Negotiable Bond. (too corny?)

Family reunion?

He's the short midget in the front.

Oh? Look see who's the one constantly biotching about Jews. Hypocrite mother farkers.

Same old same old.

Another case of redundance by Mrs. Malaprop.

Jews have been in the forefront of the fight for civil rights, worker rights, and many other truly good missions.

My problem is with the Jews who put their loyalty to Israel over the best interests of America. Zionists.

You didn't say that, SherryB. You merely said George Will is a Jew, and that you would want the opinions of a non-Jew.

Is George Will a zionist?

Another Jimmy carter thread?

About THE BOOK. All the people screaming about THE BOOK are Jewish. I can't find one instance where a non-Jew thinks it's wrong. That was my point, badly made. All the people that resigned over THE BOOK were Jewish. They were only invited advisers anyway. No big loss.

Yes, one not so obviously slanted against the man.

You are a malaprop. But I sure as hell have better choices than to be your "Mrs."

Don't flatter yourself, it's unseemly.

So what's the problem? Carter has the right to support Palestine over Israel, and Jews have the right to quit supporting Carter. I think a lot stopped long ago. As long as the book goes most people will never read it and have forgotten Carter ever existed.

That's just it. Carter hasn't put Palestine over Israel. Many in this country give Israel the benefit of the doubt on most if not all issues. The perception is Carter is playing favorites but he isn't. He is interested in human rights and peace. And the Israeli lobby is a powerful force that is turning it's wrath on him now for daring to say anything negative about them.

Call the Klan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7011101666.html

Jewish Membership in Congress at All-Time High

By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 12, 2007; Page A17

While Democrats celebrated the election of the House's first female speaker, another milestone passed more quietly: The 110th Congress includes more Jewish lawmakers than any other in history, and all but four are Democrats.

About 2 percent of Americans identify themselves as Jewish. But in Congress, the proportion of Jewish members is now four times that. Six new Jewish House members were sworn in last week, bringing the total to 30. In the Senate, the 13 Jewish members include freshmen Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) and Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), according to the National Jewish Democratic Council.


Other faith-related facts: This Congress includes its first Muslim member and, in Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), its highest-ranking Mormon ever. Catholics remain the largest single faith group in Congress, at about 30 percent -- slightly larger than their proportion of the U.S. population. Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians outnumber Jewish members, who outnumber Episcopalians.

In making its count, the NJDC, which bills itself as the national voice of Jewish Democrats, counted only those lawmakers who identify themselves as Jewish. (So even if he had won, Virginia's George Allen wouldn't have made the cut.)

"This is a recent phenomenon," said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. "Fifty years ago, politics was not a Jewish profession. People would say arts and entertainment, law and medicine, retail and things like scrap metals, but they would never say politics."

Forman attributes this success to the rise of issue-based politics, which has begun to supplant patronage-based party machines in boosting candidates to national office.

What's more, the new Jewish Democrats hail from states hardly seen as Jewish strongholds, including Tennessee, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. The House has one Jewish Republican, Virginia's Eric Cantor. In the Senate, Republicans Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.) are Jewish.

"Jewish members used to come from Jewish districts," said L. Sandy Maisel, a professor of government and director of the Goldfarb Center at Colby College in Maine who is co-author with Forman of "Jews in American Politics." "Now they come from wherever they've caught the feelings of people on the issues of the day. . . . That's going to be a continuing trend."

The Republican Party has sunk millions into wooing the Jewish vote, but Jewish voters, traditionally Democratic, have moved ever further from the GOP in recent years. In the midterm elections, nearly 90 percent of Jewish voters voted Democratic, according to exit polls, one of the largest proportions in history.

Specter is Jewish?

I'll be darned.

The Jeruselem Post noticed it first - that's where I got my numbers the other day.

All the time I thought Bush was just wooing Jews or under their influence.

Jews are used to being a minority and expect to have to excel just to get by and survive. Oppression and genocide either kill you or make you stronger. I think the holocaust was the last straw.

Say what? WTF?

His wife is Jewish, but I donut think he is.

And what's the diff?




Will is no Zionist.

Yes, yes they are, and yes, no doubt it was.

Can you understand why they are running in droves from THIS administration?

They've always been a little bit socialist. Ask Friend Judy, she's the expert.

And now it gets even nastier. The truth really brings out people like Dershowitz. But it's still the truth. Now Carter is bought and paid for with Arab money. Is he a terrorist sympathiser too, Alan?


Ex-President For Sale
Alan Dershowitz
Author: Alan Dershowitz
Source: The Family Security Matters Foundation, Inc.
Date: January 10, 2007

FSM could not resist publishing this astonishing exposé on former President Jimmy Carter. FSM has long believed that ex-President Carter hated our best and only true ally in the Middle East, Israel, but now through Alan Dershowitz’s intrepid investigative work, we know why. Read this shocker and join us in saying: “Shame on you Mr. Carter!”

Ex-President For Sale

By Alan Dershowitz

It now turns out that Jimmy Carter--who is accusing the Jews of buying the silence of the media and politicians regarding criticism of Israel--has been bought and paid for by Arab money. In his recent book tour to promote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter has been peddling a particularly nasty bit of bigotry. The canard is that Jews own and control the media, and prevent newspapers and the broadcast media from presenting an objective assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Jews have bought and paid for every single member of Congress so as to prevent any of them from espousing a balanced position. How else can anyone understand Carter’s claims that it is impossible for the media and politicians to speak freely about Israel and the Middle East? The only explanation – and one that Carter tap dances around, but won’t come out and say directly – is that Jews control the media and buy politicians. Carter then presents himself as the sole heroic figure in American public life who is free of financial constraints to discuss Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israelis.

Listen carefully to what Carter says about the media: the plight of the Palestinians is “not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country... You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis.” He claims to have personally “witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts.” He implies that the Jews impose these “severe restraints.” He then goes on to say that the only reason his book--which has been universally savaged by reviewers--is receiving such negative reviews is because they are all being written by “representatives of Jewish organizations” (demonstrably false!). So much for the media.



Now here is what he says about politicians:

“It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.”

Each of these claims is demonstrably false, as I have shown in detail elsewhere. The plight of the Palestinians has been covered more extensively, per capita, than the plight of any other group in the world, certainly more than the Tibetans and the victims of genocides in Darfur and Rwanda. Moreover, Carter totally ignores the impact of Arab oil money and the influence of the Saudi lobby. In numerous instances where the Arab lobbies have been pitted against the Israeli lobby, the former has prevailed.

Even beyond these nasty canards, the big story that the media and political figures in America have missed is how grievously they, themselves have been insulted and disrespected by our self-righteous former president. Carter is lecturing The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and the major networks about how they are incapable of reporting the news objectively because they are beholden to some Jewish cabal. He is telling Pulitzer Prize winning writers such as Tom Friedman and Samatha Power that they did not deserve their prizes. He is telling George Will that his reporting is controlled by his Jewish bosses (sound a little bit like Judith Regan?). And he is denying that Anderson Cooper is capable of filing an honest report from the West Bank.

As far as our legislators are concerned, he is accusing Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Patrick Leahy of being bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby. On Planet Carter, even congressmen with no Jewish constituents would be committing political suicide by taking a balanced position on the Middle East. What an outrageous insult to some of the best journalists and most independent political figures in the world.

Still yet, there you have it. It's true. You may not like people calling attention to it, but it's the honest to goodness truth.

At the bottom, Carter is saying that no objective journalist or politician could actually believe that America’s support for Israel is based on moral and strategic considerations and not on their own financial self-interest. Such a charge is so insulting to every honest legislator and journalist in this country that I am amazed that Carter has been let off the hook so easily. Only the self-righteous Jimmy Carter is capable of telling the truth, because only he is free of financial pressures that might influence his positions.

It now turns out that the shoe is precisely on the other foot. Recent disclosures prove that it is Carter who has been bought and paid for by anti-Israel Arab and Islamic money.

Journalist Jacob Laksin has documented the tens of millions of dollars that the Carter Center has accepted from Saudi Arabian royalty and assorted other Middle Eastern sultans, who, in return, Carter dutifully praised as peaceful and tolerant (no matter how despotic the regime). And these are only the confirmed, public donations.

Carter has also accepted half a million dollars and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who “were the people who killed the Jews in Europe” during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11.

Another journalist, Rachel Ehrenfeld, in a thorough and devastating article on "Carter’s Arab Financiers," meticulously catalogues Carter’s ties to Arab moneymen, from a Saudi bailout of his peanut farm in 1976, to funding for Carter’s presidential library, to continued support for all manner of Carter’s post-presidential activities. For instance, it was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), founded in Pakistan and fronted by a Saudi billionaire, Gaith Pharaon, that helped Carter start up his beloved Carter Center. According to Ehrenfeld:

“BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. [Agha Hasan] Abedi wanted the bank to reflect the supra-national Muslim credo and ‘the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists.’

As Ehrenfeld concluded:

“[I]t seems that AIPAC's real fault was its failure to outdo the Saudi's purchases of the former president's loyalty. There has not been any nation in the world that has been more cooperative than Saudi Arabia," The New York Times quoted Mr. Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a major factor in U. S. foreign policy.

”Evidently, the millions in Arab petrodollars feeding Mr. Carter's global endeavors, often in conflict with U.S. government policies, also ensure his loyalty.”



It is particularly disturbing that a former president who has accepted dirty blood-money from dictators, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and supporters of terrorism should try to deflect attention from his own conflicts of interest by raising the oldest canard in the sordid history of anti-Semitism: namely, that Jews have dual loyalty and use their money improperly to influence the country they live in, in favor of the country to which they owe their real allegiance. Abraham Foxman responded to Carter’s canard as follows:

As disturbing as Carter’s simplistic approach is, however, even more disturbing is his picking up on the Mearsheimer -Walt theme of Jewish control of American policy, though in much more abbreviated form and not being the focus of his work. Referring to U.S. policy and the “condoning” of Israel’s actions, Carter says: “There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories.” In other words, the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government is rearing its ugly head in the person of a former President.

As noted above, the most perverse aspect of Carter’s foray into bigotry is that as he pours this old wine into new bottles he is himself awash in Arab money. When a politician levels these kinds of cynical accusations against others, it would seem incumbent on him to show that his own hands are clean and his own pockets empty.

Accordingly I now call upon Carter to make full public disclosure of all of his and the Carter Center’s ties to Arab money. If he fails to do so, I challenge the media to probe deeply into his, his family’s, and his Center’s Arab ties so that the public can see precisely the sources and amounts of money he has received and judge whether it has corrupted the process of objective reportage and politics by Carter and others who have received such funds. Finally, I ask the appropriate government agencies to conduct an investigation into whether Carter should be required to register as a lobbyist for foreign interests.

Let’s stop invoking discredited ethnic stereotypes, look at the hard facts, and actually see who’s being bought and sold.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (Norton, 2006)

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=579479

I find it ironic that these idiots will criticize Carter for associating with Arabs. Have they ever heard of Bandar Bush or the House of Saud? Or their links to Bin (gasp!) Laden? Talk about sheer hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone criticized him just for associating with Arabs. (like "y'all" do to Bush), but for taking sides with terrorists and attacking a US ally who has been attacked on all sides already.

Whatever. It's no wonder our country is so divided.


Trrrsts lovers.

Too bad we just can't give bus fair to all of you that want to be Africans, Canadians, Venezuelans, Cubans. etc.

Who would those people be? You righties are so delusional you are just pulling BS from out of thin air. Continual lying and dishonesty is needed to fuel your delusional opinions, I suppose.

Pity we can't just deport you totalitarians to Iran, since that appears to be the type of government you prefer.

Then you can denounce all the "liberals" you like, and get rewarded, too.

I keep on trying to see things from the radical right point of view, but I can't get my head up my ass the way you people do

Too bad we can't fill a plane with all you totalitarians who hate the Constitution and freedom deposit yer ignorant asses just outside the Green Zone or even in Moscow where y'all would feel more at home.

darn ya bee.

go to hell, cletus

I think in all the time I've been here I've never seen you actually quote or discuss the Constitution. Only the little libertarian noob cadre did that.

Yeah, right. All the talk of Bush using executive privelidge and signing statements to circumvent law have nothing to do with the Constitution. Neither does warrantless wiretapping or a nationwide database of all calls. Or secret prisons, arrests, detentions, ect. I suppose the SCOTUS got involved because it had nothing to do with the big "C" either?

Nice try, it's always been about abuse and destruction of the Constitution.

You're a complete fool.

Lambchops might just exceed the considerable rightie record of posting non-sensical LIES as fact.

He's well on the way, today. He hasn't posted ANYTHING even remotely in the realm of reality.

It's all "lefties" this and that.

According to his logic, "lefties" make up better than 70% of the country, and Andrew Sullivan is a "leftie," too.

Between the rants it's easy to forget the obvious...thanks for pointing that out. A great line.

The bUSh jUSt bought down in Paraguay... perhaps you'd like to join him...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls...uay&spell=1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1928928,00.html

Bush will need that much land to destroy all the evidence from his complicity in 911...my guess is that he will use the same oil tankers for transporting it as he uses to milk the Iraqi oilfields.

January 15, 2007


The Carter trap

"If you ever have any questions or advice for me, just put Jimmy Carter, Plains, Georgia on the envelope," the then-presidential candidate told audiences in the 1970s. "I open every letter myself, and read them all." That claim, of course, was completely false, as the cover story of The Atlantic Monthly, which dealt with lies told by presidents, pointed out this week.

It is impossible to know whether Carter personally opened the letter he received last Thursday. The Carter Center sent a measured, noncommittal response to its contents, but the authors gained the attention they had sought. The press quoted from the letter and television networks discussed it. Its 14 signatories, members of the Carter Center's Board of Councilors, informed Carter that they had decided to resign - publicly and with great fanfare, albeit "with sadness" - due to publication of his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

This book has featured for weeks on the bestseller lists, and has also provoked a huge outcry. It is no small matter when a former American president accuses Israel of an "apartheid" policy in the territories, and also holds it largely responsible for the ongoing bloodshed. "Your book," wrote the resigning board members, "has confused opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity."

At almost the same time, a group of Reform rabbis announced that they had decided to cancel a planned visit to the Carter Center in March. In their announcement, they urged Carter to resume working to promote "peace, not prejudice."

Accusations have been leveled at Carter's book since the day it was published. Those well-versed in the details of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as the Clinton administration's peace envoy, Dennis Ross, have found in it a plethora of falsehoods, fabrications and half-truths. "Mr. Carter's presentation badly misrepresents the Middle East proposals advanced by President Bill Clinton in 2000," Ross wrote.

The resigning board members' letter cites several other lies Carter is trying to disseminate. For instance, his assertion in the book that UN Security Council Resolution 242 states that "Israel must withdraw from territories" - to which the letter responded: "But you know the word 'must' in fact is not in the resolution." Kenneth W. Stein, who was the Carter Center's first executive director, and resigned from his position as a fellow several weeks ago because of the book, told Haaretz that it contains "intentional falsehoods" and accused Carter of "irresponsible remarks."

These "irresponsible remarks," to use Stein's term, were the straws that broke the backs of many people who had admired Carter, even if they did not always agree with him. Two of the most prominent such remarks were Carter's claim, in the book, that "Palestinian groups" had promised to stop suicide bombings the moment Israel accepted the principles of "international law" and the "ultimate goals of the road map for peace;" and various statements that appear to allege a Jewish conspiracy aimed at silencing critics of Israel, such as a sentence that appeared in an article he wrote for the Los Angeles Times: "Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations." The 14 resigning board members said in their letter that they view the former statement as "condoning violence against Israelis." The latter statement elicited a harsh letter from Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who told Carter that such statements are "dangerous stuff." Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of the weekly The New Republic, wrote that the former president "will go down in history as a Jew hater."

It seems that the well-publicized resignation by the Carter Center board members and the Reform rabbis' letter, both developments of the past few days, have tipped the scales against Carter and his book. After all, neither the resigners nor the boycotters can be suspected of being enemies of the peace process. They are lily-white, proven doves for whom Carter simply went too far. A clear line has been drawn here, with Carter's help: a consensus that defines the boundaries of what cannot be said about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even in the eyes of fierce critics of Israeli policy.

Nevertheless, one problem remains: The critics, as Carter justly claims, are almost all Jews. That is the only card left in his hand, but it is a strong one, which embodies a trap from which there is no escape.

On one hand, this problem, too, could be solved: All it needs is one well-known, well-respected, non-Jewish critic to come out publicly against Carter. If such a person does emerge, it will be possible to completely undermine the legitimacy of this miserable book. But on the other hand, what lies behind the assumption that such a critic is needed? Is this not a disturbing admission that even in America, when it comes to Israel, the word of Jews is still not, and may never be, completely sufficient?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?

itemNo=813396&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1


Needs no further comment

That's what I said. One non-Jew critic. Find me one.

I know that's what you said. So Jewish comments aren't credible enough...

Well, how about this one?

QUOTE

"I feel very strongly that Jimmy Carter was a disaster, particularly domestically and economically. I have said more than once that he was certainly the poorest president in my lifetime."

Ford calls Carter 'disaster as prez'
The Times of India

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN: In 25 years of interviews with his hometown paper that could only be released upon his death, former President Ford once called Jimmy Carter a "disaster" who ranked alongside Warren Harding, and said Ronald Reagan received far too much credit for ending the Cold War.

"It makes me very irritated when Reagan's people pound their chests and say that because we had this big military buildup, the Kremlin collapsed," Ford told the Grand Rapids Press. Ford contended his own negotiation of the Helsinki accords did more to win the Cold War than Reagan's military buildup.

The best president of his lifetime, Ford said, was a more moderate Republican: Dwight D Eisenhower. Harry Truman "would get very high marks" for his handling of foreign crises, Ford said. He also praised Richard Nixon as a foreign policy master.

Ford considered John F Kennedy overrated and Bill Clinton average. He admired George H W Bush's handling of the Persian Gulf War and had mixed opinions of Carter. Ford said: "I think Jimmy Carter would be very close to Warren G Harding.

I feel very strongly that Jimmy Carter was a disaster, particularly domestically and economically. I have said more than once that he was certainly the poorest president in my lifetime."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/Wo...how/1174114.cms