14 Carter Center Advisors Quit Over Palestine Book, From the Associated Press Options

[jonerik]

14 advisors to Carter Center quit over book

From the Associated Press
January 12, 2007

ATLANTA — Fourteen members of an advisory board to President Carter's human rights organization resigned Thursday to protest his new book, which has been attacked as unfairly critical of Israel and riddled with inaccuracies.

The resignations at the Carter Center are the latest backlash against the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," which has drawn fire from Jewish groups and fellow Democrats, and led to the resignation last month of Kenneth W. Stein, a center fellow and a longtime Carter advisor.

"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 center. It is not the group'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.

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 had "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.

Berman said the religious affiliation of the resigning members, which include Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area, did not influence their decision.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said in a statement Thursday that Carter "has only himself to blame" for the resignations because the book was "blatantly one-sided and unbecoming of a former president."

Also Thursday, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, which represents nearly 2,000 Reform rabbis, said it would cancel its visit to the Carter Center in protest over the book when the group holds its convention in Atlanta in March.

The resignations came a day after Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo and officials at Brandeis University said Carter would 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.

[mach313]

The truth is such a burden to zionists.

[allswellgirl]

How dare Carter choose a "side" and propose a specific plan????
Academics everywhere must running into walls rather than in circles.

[drumdad]

If the book had been written with a perceived bias going the other way, I suppose all the Palestinians on his board would have resigned in a huff.

[Fat Togue]

Mr. Carter, as a former president, you are not entitled to express your opinion...

How old is Carter?? MId 80's?? Already rich, and is not running again for any office in the future...why would he care??

[Charlemagne]

The truth is such a burden to zionists.

Jimmy Carter is a decent man but his comparison was a little off historically.

[smcd]

The problem is that Carter is doing more than chosing sides. He's painting a false picture by omitting facts. This is basically lying.


Now if someone like Noam Chomsky wrote this, it would be dismissed as blather. Problem is that Carter, an ex-president of the U.S., holds some credibility. At least among the naive.

In addition, Carter is seen as "nice guy Jimmy", a man you can rely on to be fair. When he writes something like this, it becomes a propaganda piece.

Could it be that he's gone bats?

[Brad Radkins]

Anybody read the book yet?

And is this a memoir-type deal or is one of those things that has been rigorously edited and re-edited for historical accuracy?

THE WORLD NEEDS MORE EDITORS AND FEWER EDITORIAL PHILOSOPHERS



This post has been edited by Brad Radkins: Jan 12 2007, 05:00 PM

[jonah]

I'm a Carter fan, no matter what, and he should express himself in any way that he wants.

I do think that the major failing of the UN and Palestinian proponents is a lack of condemnation for absolutely unconscionable acts, and rigid intolerance.

You will find a vast disparity between what the majority of Isralis are willing to accept, and what the majority of Palestinians (living in Palestine) are willing to accept in order to achieve peace.

I think Carter should debate it with Dershowitz, or Thomas Friedman. If the US gov't is "afraid of a strong Jewish lobby" then what is he afraid of from Dershowitz?

This post has been edited by jonah: Jan 12 2007, 05:04 PM

[smcd]

I think Carter should debate it with Dershowitz, or Thomas Friedman. If the US gov't is "afraid of a strong Jewish lobby" then what is he afraid of from Dershowitz?

Yet he does seem to fear Dershowitz. Dershowitz is hounding Carter at every opportunity to debate this under any circumstances, and Carter refuses to consider engaging him.

[Charlemagne]

Anybody read the book yet?

And is this a memoir-type deal or is one of those things that has been rigorously edited and re-edited for historical accuracy?

THE WORLD NEEDS MORE EDITORS AND FEWER EDITORIAL PHILOSOPHERS

I must admit that I have not read the book but I have been following the story of the book and the controversy. It does seem like Carter was taken aback by the whole controversy. I think his unwillingness to debate the book with Alan Dershowitz at Brandeis makes him seem like someone who thinks himself above the fray not willing to get involved in a debatable issue which this one clearly is.

[smcd]

I must admit that I have not read the book but I have been following the story of the book and the controversy. It does seem like Carter was taken aback by the whole controversy. I think his unwillingness to debate the book with Alan Dershowitz at Brandeis makes him seem like someone who thinks himself above the fray not willing to get involved in a debatable issue which this one clearly is.

You don't need to read the book to get a solid grasp on the controversy. The points of contention Dershowitz and others have have been outlined in great detail.

[Charlemagne]

You don't need to read the book to get a solid grasp on the controversy. The points of contention Dershowitz and others have have been outlined in great detail.

I might read it just to know more about the whole controversy. It is a very short read. I think Carter has built up this sainted image of himself when in fact he is very much worthy of criticism although he somehow thinks he is untouchable because he is "decent".

[jonah]

I'm sure it's nowehere nearly as biased as "the New Intefada," which I read and absorbed as a different perspective than my own. I'm not generally a Chomsky fan, so my least favorite part of it was the Chomsky foreword.

I'm sure Carter makes some great points, but he should realize more than many how much blame falls on the shoulders of Arafat for the plight of the Palestinians. Without his attempts at militancy and the resultant ignorance perpetuated by Arafat's actions (terroristic and conveniently aligning with if not promoting militant Islam) and even greater inaction, the Palestinians could not only have a state by now, but they could have the favor and support of the entire world, instead of pity or revulsion.

This post has been edited by jonah: Jan 12 2007, 05:48 PM

[jonerik]

I'm sure Carter makes some great points, but he should realize more than many how much blame falls on the shoulders of Arafat for the plight of the Palestinians. Without his attempts at militancy and the resultant ignorance perpetuated by Arafat's actions (terroristic and conveniently aligning with if not promoting militant Islam) and even greater inaction, the Palestinians could not only have a state by now, but they could have the favor and support of the entire world, instead of pity or revulsion.

To say nothing of Arafat's feathering of his own nest for decades and what that money could have done for his people.

[JodyThePig]

I think it's amusing that the people named as leaving the Center are named Stein and Berman, and that other bits of criticism in this article come from Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

I would never debate Dershowitz either, as he's a grandstanding yahoo who was once spied wearing Speedos by a friend of mine. Yick.

On the other hand, by subtitling his book Peace Not Apartheid, Carter's got some splainin' to do.

[jonah]

To say nothing of Arafat's feathering of his own nest for decades and what that money could have done for his people.

then there's that coupla billion or so, too, yeah.

[allswellgirl]

I think it's amusing that the people named as leaving the Center are named Stein and Berman, and that other bits of criticism in this article come from Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

I would never debate Dershowitz either, as he's a grandstanding yahoo who was once spied wearing Speedos by a friend of mine. Yick.

On the other hand, by subtitling his book Peace Not Apartheid, Carter's got some splainin' to do.

Your friend is lucky...I've seen him doing naked yoga on the Vineyard.

[JodyThePig]

Your friend is lucky...I've seen him doing naked yoga on the Vineyard.

Gah!!

I hate it when Jewish intellectuals go all nature boy.

In fact, the Vineyard was also the site of the Speedo Incident.

[Canned Air]

I believe Mr. Stein was the first to resign. This is from December 04, 2006



This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop. My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.

Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally.

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be.

In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year.

As ever,
Ken

Dr. Kenneth W. Stein,
Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science,
and Israeli Studies,
Director, Middle East Research Program and
Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel
Atlanta, Georgia

[luca brazzi]

I think it's amusing that the people named as leaving the Center are named Stein and Berman, and that other bits of criticism in this article come from Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

I would never debate Dershowitz either, as he's a grandstanding yahoo who was once spied wearing Speedos by a friend of mine. Yick.

On the other hand, by subtitling his book Peace Not Apartheid, Carter's got some splainin' to do.

the pig maketh sense.

[HereWeGoSouthie]

Jimmy go build some more Habitats for Humanity homes with Rosalyn and leave the politics to the young'ins.

I see nothing wrong with criticizing Israel, they most certainly have to bear some blame in the Palestenian bullshit.

I do see something inappropriate with a former U.S President even hinting towards taking sides.

[smcd]

Gah!!

I hate it when Jewish intellectuals go all nature boy.

In fact, the Vineyard was also the site of the Speedo Incident.

Yah. I've seen photos in the Herald of him and his wife walking naked on the Vineyard. They were wearing straw hats and nothing else. Even though the photos were published with modesty bars, I still bear the mental scar from that awful image.






And yes, Dershowitz is a yahoo. But the enemy of your enemy....

[JodyThePig]

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

Wow.

That's one damning statement.

I wonder if Carter's responded to any of these accusations publicly.

[CalGal]

the pig maketh sense.

Are you suggesting that since they are Jewish, their resignations don't mean as much?