Almo
Masterblazer
Just finished reading this book; it's an excellent overview of the sitution over there. It leans toward Israel being the main agressor, but does not excuse acts of violence from anyone.
Jimmy Carter: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
- Thread starter Almo
- Start date
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,560
And it's so full of holes and fabricated events (and even a little bit of plagiarism) that one of the fellows of and 14 advisors to the Carter Center resigned in protest.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
You haven't read it, have you.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,560
Are you claiming that the accusations of plagiarism and fabrication are false?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
"Are you claiming that..."
"Are you saying that..."
That's called "putting words in someone's mouth."
So again: You haven't read the book, have you.
davefoc
Philosopher
Do you have some specific examples of plagiarism and fabrication in mind?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,560
The plagiarism charge involves a map which originated from Dennis Ross, Mid-East envoy for Clinton. Not only was the map apparently copied, but critical information from Ross's map was omitted, creating a false impression. I believe the only defense Carter has raised is that he got the maps from other source. That's possible (though it doesn't speak well of Carter if he really wasn't familiar with the original, since the book it was published in is a major piece on the subject), but it would only make the plagiarism second-hand.
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2I1MTQxMWI3ZTgxZTc0ZTQ2ZjcwMWRhYWE4MGQ5MmU=
As for fabrications, Kenneth Stein, the Carter Center fellow who resigned, made some charges which I don't believe have been countered:
http://www.meforum.org/article/1633
"What Carter stated as his personal opinion in the 1990 press conference, he transmits as fact in 2006 in his book. He puts words in Assad's mouth. Carter invented the substance of this meeting to indicate that Assad was leaning toward flexibility. Assad only considered demilitarized zones in his negotiations with the Israelis after the Soviet Union's collapse removed his greatest patron. Assad certainly did not say that Syria would withdraw deeper from his side of the border. These are intentional changes that Carter made for the apparent purpose of misrepresenting Israeli intransigence and Arab state flexibility."
There are other criticisms within Stein's piece which are pretty damning as well.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
I find it somewhat ironic that Jimmy Carter worked so hard on the Camp David accords, to bring peace to the Middle East, or at least less potential for war, and then chooses to toss a grenade into the room. This work, given his recent rebuttal to the ad homs against him, is an effort to take another step toward the long and extremely difficult path to a more peaceful solution than the state of play as it stands on the date of publication.
(Or, maybe it is aimed at getting James Earl Carter a buck, or of staying publically relevant, and noticed.
) Oscar Wilde for fifty, Amy. 
I don't understand how inflammatory rhetoric, which the emotive word "apartheid" most certainly is, aids and abets the cause for peace that he so sincerely believes he serves.
The book is on my short list, but the library doesn't have a copy I can borrow yet. Seems a popular check out at the moment.
DR
I rad the book and I agree with Kenneth Stein, formerly of the Carter Center that the book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments." Mr. Stein never went so far as to accuse Carter of plagiarism and his article on the subject, which anybody who has read Peace Not Aprtheid should read, does not accuse Carter of Plagiarism. It does, however, accurately accuse Carter of skewing facts to "exculpate" Palestinian terrorism, a tendency I also note in the book. For example, Carter is sure to attribute acts of Israeli aggression to Israel or to individual Israelis (sometimes he improperly -- an in my opinion, inflammatorily -- uses the word "Jew" of "Jewish" instead of "Israel" or "Israeli"). However, he will shift to the passive voice whenever discussing acts of Palestinian acts of aggression. To me, that is a matter of spin, inappropriate for a factual discussion of what is occurring or has occured in the region.
That is only one example when Carter's bias is manifested, and is not something of which someone using the book to educate themselves about the history of the area might be cognizant.
(The "copied materials not cited" refers to some maps in the book that Carter did not properly attribute to a pretty commonly used atlas. My recollection is that Carter has acknowledged that error and it really doesn't amount to plagiarism -- nobody really thinks Carter is a cartographer.)
And here is an article about the 14 Carter Center advisers who resigned in protest over the tenor and substance of the book.
That is only one example when Carter's bias is manifested, and is not something of which someone using the book to educate themselves about the history of the area might be cognizant.
(The "copied materials not cited" refers to some maps in the book that Carter did not properly attribute to a pretty commonly used atlas. My recollection is that Carter has acknowledged that error and it really doesn't amount to plagiarism -- nobody really thinks Carter is a cartographer.)
And here is an article about the 14 Carter Center advisers who resigned in protest over the tenor and substance of the book.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Having dealt with Stein personally on several occasions, I will only say that he is the last person who is qualified to cast aspersions on others' honesty.
I would have to see which part you are referring to to comment. Sometimes the differentiation makes sense; for example, settlements are restricted to Jewish people, not necessarily Israelis. I, as a non-Israeli Jew, could buy property in a settlement.
I will note, however, that often when someone criticizes "Israel" or "Israelis," Israel's cheerleaders quickly rephrase it using the term "Jews." It's a rhetorical trick to try and cast said criticism in an anti-semitic light. So I'm skeptical that this is really an issue.
It might also have something to do with the fact that Israel, as an organized nation-state, should be held responsible for its actions. In contrast, the Palestinian "leadership" is divided among a number of warring factions, often within the same organization. "Israel" is a single entity, "Palestine" is not.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Well put.
Peeling back the onion, Israel political will is hardly monolithic, given the variety of internal dissent, but within context, I think your point is one more people ought to consider in their analysis, now that the Arafat front can no longer sustain the illusion of a relatively unified Palestinian political base.
DR
Well, I'd ask you for evidence, but since it's just relating personal dealings, I assume you would have none to provide.
No. He sometimes did it in mid-paragraph. Personally, I think that reflects poor editing as well as bad writing. It also didn't give me comfort that anybody was checking his research.
It's inappropriate when either side uses it. The fact that "cheerleaders" conflate Jews and Israelis does not justify critics doing it. It reflects each side's biases, and they aren't pretty biases either.
Sometimes, hoever, he does refer to Palestinians as a group. Usually, when discussing something laudable. If he were avoiding the term "Palestinians" because of perceived inaccuracy of the term, that usage should be uniform. It isn't. Moreover, he wouldn't be using the passive voice, but rather discussing the subgroup responsible for the action.
For example, in the timeline accompanying his book, when discussing the assassination of Begin, Carter describes the perpetrator as Israeli extremists. When discussing the assassination of Sadat, Carter merely states that "Sadat was assassinated". In context, if one were ignorant of Egyptian history, one would not know whether Sadat was assassinated by Muslims, Jews, Israelis, Egyptians, Americans, or communists. (That's the only specific example I can remember, although I saw this issue repeated several times in the book.)
When Israelis do something bad -- even if it is not the actions of the Israeli government and even when they are actions against the Israeli government -- Carter is careful to describe them as Israelis (and sometimes as Jews). When other actors in the area do something bad, Carter usually switches to the passive voice, avoiding attribution of the deed to any individual or group.
His language and content betray his biases. It's not unusual, but Carter pretends to be looking at things with a neutral eye.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I heard someone being interviewed about this on late night radio who was critical of the book. The interviewer mentioned, presumably from a pre-show chat, that they felt it downplayed the Holocaust. "Yes", they said " it didn't mention it at all". ?????
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
There are plenty of nit picks, I bet they don't mention the basic fact, Isreal is occupying and colonising the Palestinians, creating a situation that is little different to South Africa's apartheid.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Here we go again, same stuff, different day.
Why didn't you just link to one of the dozens of old threads where this explicit point is beaten into the ground by persons on both sides of that argument?
DR
Cain
Straussian
This stuff is just unbelievable. I love the "plagiarism" charge (see various threads on the detestable Alan Dershowitz for an instructive comparison). What did Carter plagiarize? Some maps, apparently. Am I to believe Carter wanted me to believe that he personally spent hours at a drafting table drawing up maps? These are risible charges.
Then there's all that nonsense about the 14 who resigned in protest to the book. It's my understanding there are something like over 200 advisers, so, as I recall one person pointing out, the headline could read: Ninety-Five percent of Carter Advisers stay on.
As for claims of distortion and bias -- that's to be expected by the nature of Carter's position. Apart from the fact no one can claim to be neutral -- it's epistemologically vacuous -- in this bitter and deeply divided debate virtually anyone staking out a "side" will be accused of bias. The real outrage is that Carter has a microphone and cannot be ignored. The (predictable) tantrums and character attacks from his critics are amusing because it gives us a bit of insight into their contempt for an image or narrative that more closely approximates the reality.
Then there's all that nonsense about the 14 who resigned in protest to the book. It's my understanding there are something like over 200 advisers, so, as I recall one person pointing out, the headline could read: Ninety-Five percent of Carter Advisers stay on.
As for claims of distortion and bias -- that's to be expected by the nature of Carter's position. Apart from the fact no one can claim to be neutral -- it's epistemologically vacuous -- in this bitter and deeply divided debate virtually anyone staking out a "side" will be accused of bias. The real outrage is that Carter has a microphone and cannot be ignored. The (predictable) tantrums and character attacks from his critics are amusing because it gives us a bit of insight into their contempt for an image or narrative that more closely approximates the reality.
There will never....ever...be peace..as long as Jews are unwilling to admit to their own mistakes and extremism when it comes to the Middle East. There will also never...ever..be peace...as long as Arabs are unwilling to compromise, admit to terrrorist acts, and continue to lie about Jewish historical and religous connections to the land. Both sides are going to have to take some heavy doses of humility pills.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Agreed, to an extent. Araba historical and religious connections will also have to be recognised.
Agreed. Too many Jews argue that Jerusalem has no religous significance to Muslems.
In all honesty, I am completaly blown away by the immaturity of both communities when it comes to the historical and religous issues. You would think a nation of Nobel Prize winners...and the nation that gave us Algebra..would be smarter.
In all honesty, I am completaly blown away by the immaturity of both communities when it comes to the historical and religous issues. You would think a nation of Nobel Prize winners...and the nation that gave us Algebra..would be smarter.