Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Jimmy Carter is absolutely nuts! He openly supports terrorists and villiams that strap bombs to their children and send them into buses, pizza shops, markets to kill inocent individuals. <a href="http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=2214&eeid=5095083&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=0&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt" target="_blank">http://home.bellsouth.net/s/ed itorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=2214&eeid=5095083&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=0&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt</a> <<He said he chose the title to shine light on the festering conflict and give Americans a different point of view than what they're used to. "I wanted to provoke debate," Carter said. "I wanted to provoke discussion." Carter's book follows the peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians during his presidency in 1977-1980. He's critical of all players in not reaching a better accord, but he's especially critical of the Israelis. He previously told The Associated Press that Americans are rarely exposed to anything other than pro-Israeli views in the news media. Koppell said Carter's word choice was "gratuitously provocative" and meant to add fuel to an already incendiary subject and sell more books. "I don't really see the book as helpful," said Koppell, who has read it.>>
Originally Posted By friendofdd He didn't do well as President, but he has done some good things with Habitate for Humanity, etc. It is truly sad, in his declining years, to see him come across as anti-semitic. It's is too bad he doesn't have a good friend to step up and say stop now.
Originally Posted By jonvn He is an imbecile. He has always been an imbecile, and will continue to be an imbecile.
Originally Posted By friendofdd <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=imbecile" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.co m/search?r=2&q=imbecile</a> Your reasoning may be seen as irrational when you resort to such exaggeration, Jonvn.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I really don't think it has anything to do with the fact that Jimmy Carter is a Southerner. What particularly makes this appaling is that Jimmy Carter is a former President of the United States and the fact that he is a Nobel "Peace" Prize winner. How is there suppose to be any pleace in the middle east as long as one group of individuals central to the "peace process" continually say that their mission is to kill every member of the other group central to the peace process? You can't have peace as long as one group demonstrates time and time again their desire to kill Jews. This entire peace deal is so one sided. Israel gave up the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Only to have the so called Palastinies move into those areas to set up missles launched at Israel school children. Hamas actively recruits homicidal bomb killers. We recently had a palastinian grandmother blow herself up in an attempt to take out a couple Israeli soldiers with her. Jimmy Carter should choose his friends and allies more carefully.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It is truly sad, in his declining years, to see him come across as anti-semitic.>> I don't see his statements as anti-Semitic. I think it is the undeniable truth that Americans have been given primarily the Israeli point of view on problems in the Middle East. That type of one-sided reporting is not exclusive to Israel. For the most part Americans consider the "civilized" world to be the Europe, Canada, the United States, and Israel. Once you get beyond that we kind of write everyone off. That is what has led to so much Middle Eastern resentment of the U.S. in the first place. I'm not saying the U.S. should abandon Israel because I don't think we should. But I think it would do everyone some good to also take a look at things from the Palestinian point of view. As with almost any conflict, there is right and wrong being done on both sides. I think that is all Carter is trying to get people to do.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<As with almost any conflict, there is right and wrong being done on both sides.>> OK, so what is Israel doing wrong?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad It is poor of you to call all southerners anti-semetic. Even you know that isn't true.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Here is what Liberal Havard Professor Alan Dershowitz has to say. <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2006/12/04_dershowitz.php" target="_blank">http://www.law.harvard.edu/new s/2006/12/04_dershowitz.php</a> <<A mere listing of all of Mr. Carter's mistakes and omissions would fill a volume the size of his book. Here are just a few: Mr. Carter emphasizes that "Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times," but he ignores the fact that Jews have lived in Hebron, Tzfat, Jerusalem, and other cities for even longer. He claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the centre of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank. Mr. Carter faults Israel for its "air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor" without mentioning that Iraq had threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if Iraq built a bomb. Mr. Carter even blames Israel for the "exodus of Christians from the Holy Land," ignoring the Islamization of the area by Hamas and the comparable exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon as a result of the increasing influence of Hezbollah. It's obvious that Mr. Carter just doesn't like Israel or Israelis. He lectured Golda Meir on Israeli's "secular" nature, warning her that "Israel was punished whenever its leaders turned away from devout worship of God." (Does Carter really think that Israel should become more religious, and that this would increase the chances for peace? Or would he criticize Israel even more strongly if it accepted his parochial advice?) He has little good to say about any Israelis -- except those few who agree with him. But he apparently got along swimmingly with the very secular Syrian mass-murderer Hafez al-Assad. Mr. Carter and his wife Rosalynn also had a fine time with the equally secular Arafat, a man who has the blood of hundreds of Americans and Israelis on his hands: "Rosalynn and I met with Yasir Arafat in Gaza City, where he was staying with his wife, Suha, and their little daughter. The baby, dressed in a beautiful pink suit, came readily to sit on my lap, where I practiced the same wiles that had been successful with our children and grandchildren." Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is so biased that it raises the question of what would motivate a decent man like Jimmy Carter to write such an indecent book. His authorship of this ahistorical, one-sided brief against Israel forever disqualifies him from playing any positive role in fairly resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. That is a tragedy because the Carter Center, which has done much good in the world, could have been a force for peace if Jimmy Carter were as generous in spirit to the Israelis as he is to the Palestinians.>>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Looks like one of Jimmy Carters long time aides has quit over this book. <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CARTER_CRITICISM?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-06-16-18-06" target="_blank">http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s tories/C/CARTER_CRITICISM?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-06-16-18-06</a> <<Kenneth Stein, the Carter Center's first executive director and founder of its Middle East program, sent a letter that bluntly criticized the book to Carter and others. Stein wrote that the book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid," was replete with factual errors, material copied from other sources and "simply invented segments," according to an excerpt of the letter published by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It is not the first time Carter and Stein have disagreed over Middle East policy, said Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Tulane University and the author of the 1988 Carter biography, "The Unfinished Presidency." "They've never been on the same page in the Middle East. They've been in an almost constant state of disagreement," Brinkley said. Stein "doesn't trust the Palestinians as much as Carter.">>
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Not meant to discount your posts K Tom, I didn't see them there before I posted, however I still feel that way.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip In the early part of the 21st century there was greatly increased immigration by Mexicans into California. This caused enormous resentment on the part of Californians who were now being told they were supposed to work side by side and share their state with these people. The Californians reacted by passing new laws and making things increasingly uncomfortable for the Mexican immigrants. Soon things had degraded to the point where there was outright conflict between the two groups. The California Minutemen who previously had just tried to prevent illegal immigration were now engaging in firefights with those trying to cross the border. The substantial immigrant population in Southern California saw this happening and started the worst rioting Los Angeles had seen since 1992. The United Nations and Great Britain viewed all this with great alarm. Surely this type of conflict in California could not be tolerated any longer. In an attempt to resolve the issue the UN and Great Britain decreed that the portions of California south of Monterey, King, Tulare and Inyo counties would be given to the Mexican immigrants. Prior Californians would be allowed the counties north of that line. Now of course this plan had the support of neither the Californians nor the United States of America. It made little difference though. With the support of the United Nations and expressed British willingness to support the decree by military force if necessary, Californians were given little choice but to comply. Of course they did not comply silently. Decades later Northern Californians were still engaging in border battles with the Mexican Southern Californians in an attempt to force an agreement that would be fairer to the prior residents of Southern California. Now back that up about 100 years and locate it on the other side of the globe and you have the beginnings of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm sure there are southerners who are not anti-semitic. They are probably both nice people. Of course that is an exaggeration, but in Mr. Carter's case, the stereotype is true. Stereotypes usually are based on something. I meet people. And when I ask them about these sorts of things, it always comes to the fore. Perfectly nice folks otherwise. My favorite thing one person said was "I just don't get why the Jews don't accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior." I had to agree with him. I don't understand why they don't, either. "In the early part of the 21st century there was greatly increased immigration by Mexicans into California. This caused enormous resentment on the part of Californians who were now being told they were supposed to work side by side and share their state with these people." Most of the Jews who live in the area are from the area. Jews have lived in this region for millenia. Pre-dating the Arabs who live there. Weren't you also the one who questioned evidence regarding the holocaust? Now, how come that and being hostile to israel always seem to go hand in hand?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I don't believe for a minute that Mr. Carter hates Jews.>> I am convinced that with this book he is anti-semetic.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Okay I am going to read it. I'll allow that I am beginning the book with some bias, but I will give my best effort to be objective. If I am wrong about the book, I will be the first to admit it. You have to allow that there is a difference between claims that Israel is wrong or uncooperative with foreign policy, and outright making anti-semitic claims. To disagree with Israel's policies, does not at all make someone racially prejudiced against the people of that nation. But alas, I will read it myself with all fairness on both accounts in mind.
