Nadene Goldfoot
The book by former president Jimmy Carter, Palestine--Peace Not Apartheid, was published by Simon & Schuster in November 2006. I note that this was our first president to attack Israel, in a whole book yet. Since he had won the 2002 Peace prize, this makes his book almost biblical in admiration.
It is acclaimed to be a great book by amazon readers today.
Hamas terrorists marching in street
In January 2006, the Palestinians held parliamentary elections. In a surprise victory, Hamas ousted the Fatah government, but Abbas remained PNA president. The two factions briefly formed a national unity government, but, in June 2007, Hamas took control of Gaza, routing Fatah forces and killing more than 100 people. Israel responded to Hamas' seize by maintaining even tighter control on the goods and people entering and exiting the territories.
International Fallout 
Getting Shalit back from Terrorists
In June 2006, Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups took Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier, from Israeli territory and dragged him into Gaza. Despite prisoner exchange attempts, Shalit has been held hostage ever since. On July 12 2006, Hezbollah militants crossed the Lebanon-Israel border and attacked an Israeli army patrol, killing three soldiers and kidnapping two others. The incident coincided with a series of mortar and rocket attacks on northern Israel by Hezbollah. Both incidents provoked a month-long war in which 1,200 Lebanese and 128 Israelis were killed. Both sides stopped fighting on August 14, 2006.
The UN and international human rights groups condemned Israel for using cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon. The war was criticized within Israel and sparked more resentment from the Arab world.
Ha'aretz stated as fact: "The ground invasion was preceded by large-scale artillery shelling from around 4 P.M., intended to "soften" the targets as artillery batteries deployed along the Strip in recent days began bombarding Hamas targets and open areas near the border. Hundreds of shells were fired, including cluster bombs aimed at open areas."
All of these claims are based on the appearance of the shell bursting,
and none of the sources indicate that actual cluster bomblets have been found. This looks like a case of mistaken identity showing "multiple projectiles" is actually a white phosphorus round or similar, used to
create a smokescreen. Of course WP is also very controversial.
However, when Carter's book first came out, that was not the case.
There were strong critiques against it, thank goodness. Some people were seeing the inaccuracies thrown against Israel.
Julie Bosman is a national correspondent who covers the Midwest. Born and raised in Wisconsin and based in Chicago, she joined The Times in 2002 and has written extensively about politics, education, law enforcement and literature. Bosman had been with the Times for 12 years, beginning as Maureen Dowd's news assistant in 2002. She'd also covered the 2008 presidential race, education and metro. Her latest role took her to Chicago.
Critical response to Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid has been mixed. According to Julie Bosman, criticism of the book "has escalated to a full-scale furor," much of which has focused on Carter's use of the word "apartheid" in the subtitle. Some critics, including several leaders of the Democratic Party and of American Jewish organizations, have interpreted the subtitle as an allegation of Israeli apartheid, which they believe to be inflammatory and unsubstantiated.
Tony Karon, Senior Editor at TIME.com and a former anti-Apartheid activist for the ANC, said: "Jimmy Carter had to write this book precisely because Palestinian life and history is not accorded equal value in American discourse, far from it. And his use of the word apartheid is not only morally valid; it is essential, because it shakes the moral stupor that allows many liberals to rationalize away the daily, grinding horror being inflicted on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza".
The truth is that the American students have not been educated about The Holocaust, Jews or Israel either. People only believe what they see in print, which was in those days, the newspaper and their church and of course, the TV news with reporters themselves being slanted in their opinions. Even the book used at Portland State U, Middle East-Past & Present by Yahya Armajani and Thomas M. Ricks, is highly slanted in their chapters covering Israel. I took the course. I read the whole book.
Former President Bill Clinton wrote a brief letter to the chairman of the American Jewish Committee, thanking him for articles criticizing the book and citing his agreement with Dennis Ross's attempts to "straighten ... out" Carter's claims and conclusions about Clinton's own summer 2000 Camp David peace proposal. Carter's meetings were a failure whereas Clinton's were successful.
Critics claim that Carter crossed the line into anti-Semitism. My feeling is that the whole book was defaming Israel right from the title, and Israel was created for our remnant of Jews in the world, so in effect he was attacking Jews. What was happening in Israel was that Palestinians were trying to destroy the Jews-drive them into the sea, and have the country for themselves. It's obvious, not a time to be pussy-footing around with semantics--oh, he's calling Israel names but certainly not the Jews--oh yes, I know how much we are loved. For heaven's sake, the title of the book was accusing Israel of Apartheid, a terrible word used against British-held Africa. It has connotations of cruelty, hatefulness against a defenseless people. What more do you want in being anti-Semitic?
Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, initially accused Carter of "engaging in anti-Semitism" in the book; "Foxman told James Traub later that he would not call the former president himself an "anti-Semite" or a "bigot". Ethan Bronner also asserted that Carter's "overstatement" in the book "hardly adds up to anti-Semitism."
Some journalists and academics have praised Carter for what they believe to be speaking honestly about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a media environment described as hostile to opponents of Israel's policies. I argue, what about accuracy? The honesty comes only from
Carter in that he's writing about his own belief system; not from facts.
Some left-leaning Israeli politicians such as Yossi Beilin and Shulamit Aloni argued that Carter's critique of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories reflects that of many Israelis themselves.
Norman Finkelstein, a pal of Norman Chomsky, two of the biggest American-Jewish anti-Semites, did Israel ultimate harm who defends Carter's analysis in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid: "After four decades of Israeli occupation, the infrastructure and superstructure of apartheid have been put in place. Outside the never-never land of mainstream American Jewry and U.S. media, this reality is barely disputed." They have been so anti-against
Israel has said that they are no longer welcome in Israel. Finkelstein has eased up, but not Chomsky.
In this book Carter argues that Israel's continued control and construction of settlements have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East. That perspective, coupled with Apartheid in the titular phrase Peace Not Apartheid (which many regard as a subtitle) and allegations of errors and misstatements in the book, sparked criticism. Carter has defended his book and countered that response to it
Even the use of "settlements" is a mis-conscrewed term. Foreign writers such as Carter keep calling cities 50 years old as settlements. In USA, a settlement was used when forts were built in the wilderness, but then after a few years were called villages, towns and cities. A settlement feels like something that is only temporary.
Here's what Carter said about his title.
Regarding the use of the word "Apartheid" in the title of his book, Carter has said: It's his denial:
"Sorry but that's not distinction at all. A title refers to what you're writing about. The title said it all. This is double talk.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel.
Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic", and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions. A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."
Evidently Carter had to do a little apologizing-after the deed had been done.
He also wrote a "Letter to Jewish Citizens of America" explaining "his use of the term 'apartheid' and sympathizing with Israelis who fear terrorism."
As president, didn't he realize such reactions when using that title?
He's implying that Israel is apartheid against the Palestinians.
He was attacking Israel's integrity, purpose, all they stood for by
doing so.
He was giving ammunition to Israel's enemies to use against her.
Carter blamed his title. He chose that title.
From reading that title, I would not stoop to buy the book and read it. Millions did.
Today, the book store my friend just visited was full of Obama's book that also attacks Israel.
Bookstores can attract customers with such books, and the authors rake in the proceeds,
so that Israel's enemies gain more power and ammunition.
Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer from Georgia before he became President, not a historian and expert on Israel, though he was a Sunday School teacher.
Resource: https://www.politico.com/media/story/2014/03/times-julie-bosman-leaves-publishing-beat-for-midwest-gig-001802/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine:_Peace_Not_Apartheid
Facts About Israel, published by The division of Information, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem, Israel.
update: 1/3/21 2:30pm. addition at ending.
No comments:
Post a Comment