In Defense of Jimmy Carter: A Letter that Speaks for Itself

The following letter speaks for itself. I was in Israel during Carter's visit and the interesting thing was how even my far left friends thought of it as a stunt by Carter and not something that would in any way move the peace process further..

Ugly old yenta,

As the following article* makes clear - President Cater's recent meeting with Hamas in Damascus opened the door for the EU (and soon the U.S.) to include the organization in future peace talks. Shouldn't you be extending an aplogy and an olive branch to the Nobel Peace Laureate for the bilious resentment and virulent anti-Gentile hate you spewed towards him after his fine book: "Israel - Not Apartheid"? When will you account for your canards against the man? Or, are you still clinging to the position that Israel is "The Land of Milk and Honey" and that the Palestinians are "filthy shvatz goyim" that need to be "done away with"?

One Proud Jew
Dean Chancery [deanchancery@gmail.com]

*No article was included in this eloquent message.

"The Israel Lobby": A devastating critique from Foreign Affairs

Despite bending over backwards to try to be kind to Walt and Mersheimer, Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations has written a devastating critique of their book.

Mead notes that while he does not think Walt and Mersheimer are antisemites he repeatedly acknowledges that the book will give great comfort to antisemites.

The Washington Post, Jimmy Carter, Senator Lindsey Graham speak out against the Armenian Genocide Resolution: Yet all the attention is on Abe Foxman

The Washington Post has severely condemned the Armenian Genocide resolution, as has Jimmy Carter [this a.m. on CNN], Senator Lindsey Graham, Juan Cole, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

This represents people from the far left, the blatantly anti-Israel, the Republican right, and the left of center.

Why then all the attention to Abe Foxman's position??? I have been inundated with emails critical of Abe Foxman and the ADL. So many of them are so overtly antisemitic that I have not posted them.

Various towns in Massachusetts want to drop the ADL's anti-prejudice programs because of its stand on the Armenian genocide. Are they also going to condemn Jimmy Carter when he comes to town???? Why does he get a free pass?

By the way, Carter also refuses to call what is happening in Darfur a genocide. But Israel practices apartheid? What am I missing here?

And why all the talk about the Jewish Lobby controlling foreign policy when 7 of the 8 Jewish members of the House Foreign Relation Committee voted FOR the resolution? Did these Representatives not get the message? Were they missing the day the Lobby handed out its marching orders?

Something is out of whack here.... seriously so.

New York Times on boycotts of Israel

Today's New York Times has a provocative and disturbing article on the attempt by some professional groups, trade unions, and artists are being pushed to boycott Israel.

It mentions the apartheid model of protest in relation to Israel. The idea of using this model in relation to Israel was not invented by Jimmy Carter but it has gotten a great of traction from his book.

Jimmy Carter: There he goes again [trying to rewrite history]

Once again Jimmy Carter is trying to rewrite history. In this case it's his own history he's trying to rewrite.

Carter was quoted in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as calling the Bush administration the "worst in history."

When he was subjected to a barrage of criticism [former Presidents usually don't openly attack current administrations) instead of standing his ground he blamed others and said his "words were taken out of context."

He then twisted himself into a pretzel saying he was comparing this administration's foreign policy with that of Richard Nixon's. According to Carter, Nixon had a productive foreign policy.

In fact his words were not taken out of context. What he actually said was:

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Irrespective of what people might think of the Bush administration, what this demonstrates is how Jimmy Carter is always quick with some excuse or ready to blame others for his problems.

A bookstore window in Amman

The book on the left most readers of this blog will identify as Jimmy Carter's manifesto on the Arab/Israeli situation. The book on the right is Hitler's manifesto, Mein Kampf.

To be sure: I am not drawing comparisons between the two. That would be inaccurate and unfair. What I find interesting is that the store chose to link the two.

Even more striking is, working from the supposition that stores put their big sellers in the window, that Mein Kampf is in such demand in Jordan.

Editor of Creative Loafing responds to me

Ken Edelstein, the editor of Creative Loafing has responded to my criticism of John Sugg's attacks on me.

Doesn't sound to me like he is giving Sugg's views a ringing endorsement....

Those of you interested in the Jimmy Carter book might be interested in Edelstein's comments about the book.

Bill Clinton says Carter's book is factually incorrect

In this week's Forward Bill Clinton voices some pretty critical remarks about Carter's book. The most important of them is that he simply gets it wrong, particularly in relation to Camp David 2.

Creative Loafing, Atlanta's "alternative" paper attacks me

Creative Loafing's editor, John Sugg, has penned a vitriolic attack on me. I am used to that. Problem is that it is full of fabrications. Here's the letter I just sent to Creative Loafing.

John Sugg has penned an attack on me which is full of inventions and distortions of my words. I would not mind his vitriol if he had his facts straight. He writes: “She basically said that any action by Israel – however horrific, violent and at odds with international law – was justified by the Holocaust.” Will John Sugg show me where in my article I said anything to that effect? I made no such statement.

I argued that in a chronology of incidents relating to the Arab/Israeli situation Carter fails to include anything of any importance happening between 1939 and 1947. The Holocaust is one of the primary events which makes many Israelis and Jews worldwide feel that a Jewish state is an absolute necessity. To write a book trying to advance the cause of peace and ignore this is to show either a total unfamiliarity with the situation or a terribly unbalanced view… or both.

Mr. Sugg says that I “makes much of the fact that Carter's critics are "being silenced" (so obviously untrue that it defies any response).” Could he show me anyplace where I said that? Carter claimed that people with his view were being silenced. I pointed out that he has appeared on every relevant show on television. I did argue that Carter refuses to debate anyone who criticizes his book. If Mr. Sugg could show me that that is wrong, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Sugg then goes on to argue that that I am “an architect of silencing debate” because I supposedly tried to convince C-SPAN “not to air a speech Irving made to a Buckhead audience.” Once again Sugg gets it all wrong. I told C-SPAN that I would neither appear “with” Irving, as they proposed, or wanted my talk paired with his. I do not debate deniers because, as we showed in my 6 year court battle, deniers are, to quote the judge, “liars” and "falsifiers of history.” The “distort” and their version of history is a “travesty.” [Actually the judge was talking about Irving specifically but his comments can be extrapolated to pertain to all deniers.] I observed that C-SPAN had the right to air Irving anytime they want to. I just did not want to be paired with him.

Finally, in his ringing defense of “free speech,” Mr. Sugg ignores the fact that I have been one of the leading critics of laws against Holocaust denial. I criticized Mr. Irving incarceration in Austria and have spoken out forcefully, including on Al Jazeera TV, against the proposed EU legislation against genocide denial. All this is recorded on my blog, www.lipstadt.blogspot.com. Seems that is part of the story too.

Free speech is one thing. Making up facts to fit your argument is what deniers do. I would expect more of John Sugg. I was wrong.

Sincerely,

Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ph.D.

Jimmy Carter Oped in Sacramento Bee

The Sacramento Bee has republished my oped on Jimmy Carter which appeared in the Washington Post last month.

One more thing about Jimmy Carter... really strange

When Carter was referring to former Secy of State Madeline Albright he noted that she was "of Jewish origin."

What was that about?

Can anybody enlighten me????

Some Final [I hope] thoughts on Jimmy Carter

This should be it. I have helped Jimmy Carter sell enough of his slim, mistake laden book. I want to move on to other things.

Since, however, I wrote so much before he appeared here at Emory, some thoughts after.

I shall ignore pointing how much he obfuscated and did not answer questions. How much he disembled and rewrote history. I am tired of parsing his words.

Ultimately, the irony is that he and I do not disagree on the bottom line. We both favor and believe in the necessity of a two-state solution. That is the only promise there is for some kind of peace to come to this region.

Neither side will have all of what they want but that is what is necessary.

However, in Carter's view all that it takes for this to come about is for Israel to make concessions, Israel to accept, Israel to withdraw etc. etc. There was no compelling urgency in his voice for the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim neighbors to stop terror attacks against Israel.

In fact, he brushed off Israeli losses by noting that whenever 1 Israeli is killed 750 [he used that number twice] Palestinians are killed.

There was no sense that the Palestinians have, to quote Abba Eban, missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

He accepts all their protestations about peace and acceptance of Israel at face value. He sets the bar very low for them. It reminds of a phrase George W. Bush used in reference to his education bill, No Child Left Behind. [A bad bill that puts all its trust in testing... but that's not for this blog.]

He spoke about the "bigotry of low expectations." That's what you have here. Don't expect much from the Palestinians but expect lots from the Israelis. Truth be told, I expect more from the Israelis but when it comes to concessions and negotiations both sides have to give.

Jimmy Carter does not believe that.

Some thoughts on Jimmy Carter's performance

You have to hand it to the guy. He knows how to win over an audience and to sound benign and reasonable. If you don't know the details it's hard to pick out the untruths, e.g. the fence has not helped Israel's security.

Huh? It's stopped the "suicide" bombings almost completely.

Shderot has had a few missiles shot into it as a result hundreds of Palestinians have been killed.

Everytime an Israeli is killed 750 Palestinians are killed.

Too many to go into detail.

He says he has never refused to debate and tonight will debate Dennis Ross' boss, Madeline Albright, who is "of Jewish origin." I am not sure what that has to do with anything.

Listening to Jimmy Carter

I am sitting watching Carter on a remote feed. He just attacked me by name for accusing him of being afraid to debate. Says he never turned down the opportunity to debate.

This guy really knows how to spin a topic.

Israel and Apartheid: My prediction comes true faster than I thought

A few weeks ago I had an oped in the London Jewish Chronicle in which I observed that:

For the past few years there has been an attempt on both college campuses and in the churches to divest from Israel. The model for this policy is drawn from the struggle against apartheid. Carter describes Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories as “worse than apartheid”. Though he protests that he is talking about land acquisition in the occupied territories and not racial policy in Israel, the distinction has been lost on the general public.

Carter has given those who support divestiture a needed imprimatur. No longer can supporters of Israel say that, whatever you think of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, it is ludicrous to compare it to apartheid. Carter has.

[....]

I predicted that:

So begins a new stage in the assault on Israel’s legitimacy. It is serious and frightening — and I don’t frighten easily. I have no doubt that it will soon migrate to these [UK] shores.

So it seems that this is already happening. According to the Canadian Jewish News, universities in Canada, Europe and the United States hosted “Israeli Apartheid Week,” a series of lectures on the topic “Zionist ethnic cleansing, colonization and occupation of Palestine.”

Jimmy Carter cannot get credit for these events. Some of them had been held prior to the publication of his book. But I am sure his book will give other universities the impetus to copy these events.

Lectures were held at universities in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, New York, Oxford, Cambridge and London.
One of the speakers was Jamal Zahalka, a Palestinian member of Knesset who attended the gatherings in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa to present his lecture titled “Debunking the Myth of Israeli Democracy.”

And, little surprise, one of the other speakers was Norman Finkelstein.

Question for Jimmy Carter: If I didn't hear it, it didn't happen

Question: You have been quoted as denying that Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel. Yet the Prime Minister of the PA- a Hamas leader, has repeatedly said that his organization does not and will never recognized Israel. [And did so again this past week when Secretary of State Rice was in Jerusalem.] When confronted by these statements, you said that you had not heard him make them. If you do not personally hear something, does that mean it does not exist?

KHOW-AM, The Caplis & Silverman Show (Denver), Dec. 12, 2006:
Carter flatly denied that Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader, swore never to recognize Israel.

Silverman: "Didn't the head of Hamas, the elected leader of the Palestinians, go to Tehran last week and say ‘We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government ...’"
Carter: "No, he didn't."
Silverman: " ... ‘and we will continue our jihad-like movement ...’
Carter: "No, he didn’t do that."
Silverman: " ‘until the liberation of Jerusalem’?"
Carter: "No, he didn't do that. I saw no report about that."

Source: http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1273


FACT: Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, was quoted by the Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, Detroit Free Press, the Guardian (London), and others saying just that.

Follow the Money: Ask Carter about who supports the Carter Center

Question: Middle Easter Sheikh support of Carter Center: When Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan made a $2 million gift to Harvard Divinity School, Harvard eventually returned the money when it learned that Zayed Centre, ¬a think-tank funded by the Sheikh and run by his son¬ hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, stated that the Holocaust was a "fable," whose executive director, Mohammed Murar, proclaimed, “the truth is that the Jews are the enemies of all nations,” and which published a report stating, “the Zionists are the people who killed the Jews in Europe.”

You, in contrast, not only accepted money Zayed but said, in accepting the funds,

"This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan."

Can you explain your willingness to accept funds from such a man and such a center?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348713

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348172

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061220-092736-3365r.html

Another Question for Carter: Is this antisemitism?

Question: Accusation against Jews: In response to a petition signed by 25,000 people, you wrote a one-sentence note (in your own handwriting, on the official letterhead of The Carter Presidential Center) to Rabbi Marvin Hier, the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which reads in full:

“I don’t think Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds.” Jimmy Carter

Do you understand that scholars who study antisemitism consider accusing a leading rabbi and a respected Jewish organization of engaging in "falsehood and slander," i.e being a liar to get money as falling squarely within the definition of antisemitism?

Source: http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=245494&ct=3525205
Click here to see a copy of the handwritten note. Quite stunning.

Questions for Jimmy Carter

1. Question: Passage on p. 213: Could you please explain your now infamous passage on page 213 of your book where you condone acts of terror up until the point of Palestinian sovereignty?

Follow up: If you are sorry you wrote this passage how do you explain your subsequent comments to Al Jazeera on January 14th 2007 where you said “I wasn't equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism,"

Source: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1355

2. Question: Camp David 2: You stated on your interview with Larry King on CNN in November that Israel never accepted the Clinton plans for peace that were drafted at Camp David. Do you stand by that comment?

KING: Mr. President, didn't President Clinton have that all worked out and wasn't it Arafat that backed off?

CARTER: No. As a matter of fact, Clinton -- President Clinton did a great job the last term, the last part of his term in trying to bring peace to Israel. He made some very interesting proposals, none of which were accepted either by the Israelis or the Palestinians.

I describe that in my book and what President Clinton proposed was not acceptable to either Israel or the Palestinians but was the best effort he could make in the time that he had left in his term.

"Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/27/lkl.01.html

Follow up: If you do stand by that comment how do you explain then the Israeli cabinet, lead by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, accepting the Camp David proposal on December 27 2000 and that President Clinton, Ambassador Dennis Ross [both of whom were there] and Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority held Arafat responsible for the failure?

Sources:
1. Wikipedia: Clinton later stated "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." [3] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority. [4]

2. Mother Jones interview with Ambassador Dennis Ross:

MotherJones.com: In your opinion, Arafat squandered his chance at Camp David in 2000. How so?

Dennis Ross: In the book what I’ve done is I laid out not only verbally what we offered, but I’ve also produced a map that compares what Arafat says he was offered -- and continues to suggest he was offered -- with what he was actually offered. So I am making it clear that if what we offered was so bad, why lie about it? Why misrepresent it? Why say you were offered cantons when you weren’t? Why say that you didn’t have a border with Jordan when you did? Why say you weren’t even offered 90 percent when you were offered 97 percent? Why say that you did not get any of East Jerusalem when you were offered all of Arab East Jerusalem?

MJ.com: What did Arafat object to at the time?

DR: Well, he never gave us a good answer. Part of the problem with Arafat was that when we were at Camp David, he would just say no. He wouldn’t come with counters and he wouldn’t come back with specifics.

Source http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/09_404.html


3. Question: Critics of book: On Al Jazeera television you stated that most of the critics of your book have been representatives of Jewish organizations. Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, and Tom Teepen--liberals all--are not Jewish but have criticized your book severely. Other critics include Ambassador Dennis Ross, Professors Deborah Lipstadt, Kenneth Stein, and Michael Oren; New York Times editor Ethan Bronner, Slate editor Michael Kinsley, New Yorker writer, Jeffrey Goldberg, and many other scholars, journalists and statesmen who have expertise in this area.

None of them is a representative of a Jewish organization. Why did you make this false statement on Al Jazeera? Do you consider Jews who criticize your book to, ipso facto, be “representatives of Jewish organizations?

Source: Al-Jazeera TV on January 14, 2007: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1355
Jimmy Carter: Most of the condemnations of my book came from Jewish American organizations….

4. Question: Use of Apartheid: Veteran congressman John Conyers, a co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Carter’s “apartheid” libel "does not serve the cause of peace, and the use of it against the Jewish people in particular, who have been victims of the worst kind of discrimination, discrimination resulting in death, is offensive and wrong."

Irshad Manji, the courageous Muslim-Canadian columnist and respected critic of terrorists, has said almost the same thing. Why do you persist in using this word to slander Israel?

Source::http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21194124-7583,00.html
Absurd to Call Israel an Apartheid State - Irshad Manji
I respectfully challenge Jimmy Carter's recent critique of Israel as an apartheid state. Would an apartheid state have several Arab political parties, as Israel does? Would the vast majority of Arab Israeli citizens turn out to vote in national elections, as they've usually done? Would an apartheid state extend voting rights to women and the poor in local elections, which Israel did for the first time in the history of Palestinian Arabs? Would an apartheid state award its top literary prize to an Arab? Israel honored Emile Habibi in 1986. Would an apartheid state encourage Hebrew-speaking schoolchildren to learn Arabic? Would an apartheid state be home to universities where Arabs and Jews mingle at will, or apartment blocks where they live side by side? Would an apartheid state ensure conditions for the freest Arabic press in the Middle East?

The writer is the author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith. (Australian)

Follow-up: If by use of the term Apartheid you did not mean Israel’s “racial” policies and you were only talking about land on the West Bank, do you feel that was unnecessarily inflammatory and do you understand why critics have accused you of engaging in “bait and switch”?

5. Question: Rwanda: You stated on MSNBC Hardball in a December interview that described conditions for Palestinians as "one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation" in the world. You didn’t want to compare this to the suffering of the Rwandans 12 years ago. Where would you rank the conditions of the Palestinians?
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/

CARTER: So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—
SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?
CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
SHUSTER: Yes.
CARTER: Yes.
SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?
CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.
CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.
SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to.

Follow up: Would you say that the situation in Darfur is worse?

Follow up #2: How is that the Carter Center has no human rights activities in Saudi Arabia, where women don’t even have the right to drive and non-Muslims cannot worship publicly. Nor for that matter do you have any human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan, or Syria. Do not the human rights abuses there far outweigh those in Israel?

http://www.cartercenter.org/countries/israel_and_the_palestinian_territories.html

Emory Wheel story on student petition

The Emory Wheel has a number of stories, editorials, and opeds on Jimmy Carter's visit to campus. One is a news story on the petition. The lead editorial, Our Opinion: Kowtowing to Carter represents an about face on the part of the Wheel editorial staff on this matter. Most importantly, they recognize how avoidable this situation was. There are a number of other opeds, some of which support our position and some of which do not.