Jimmah Carter runs off Advisory Council

[Drbio]

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter's controversial book and subsequent remarks about the Israel-Palestinian conflict have prompted the resignations of 14 people from an advisory board of the Carter Center, the 25-year-old Atlanta-based humanitarian organization.
The 14 explained their concerns, which reflect an uproar in the U.S. Jewish community over Carter's Mideast stance, in separate letters sent Thursday to fellow Board of Councilors members and Carter.
"We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position," the letter to Carter said. "This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support."
The letter to the fellow Board of Councilors, with more than 200 members, was brief and less detailed but expressed concern about Carter's book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."
"We are deeply troubled by the president's comments and writings and are submitting the following letter of resignation to the Carter Center," the letter said.
The letters were signed by Alan Abrams, Steve Berman, Michael Coles, Jon Golden, Doug Hertz, Barbara Babbit Kaufman, Liane Levetan, Jeff Levy, Leon Novak, Ambassador William B. Schwartz Jr., William B. Schwartz III, Steve Selig, Cathey Steinberg, and Gail Solomon.
The letter to Carter said while each person "has been proud to be associated" with the center and its work, "we can no longer in good conscience continue to serve the center as members of the Board of Councilors."
The Board of Councilors is separate from the center's board of trustees, which is its governing body, the center says.
The Board of Councilors "is an advisory body of community leaders and business people who are briefed quarterly on the center's work and serve as emissaries of the center to the greater community," the center said. "They are not engaged in implementing work of the center and are not a governing board."
The letter to Carter accused him of abandoning his "historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side." Carter's book confused "opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity and force for change with partisan advocacy," the letter said.
"Israelis, through deed and public comment, have consistently spoken of a desire to live in peace and make territorial compromise to achieve this status. The Palestinian side has consistently resorted to acts of terror as a national expression and elected parties endorsing the use of terror, the rejection of territorial compromise and of Israel's right to exist. Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during your own presidency when they snubbed your efforts."
The center's initial response to the departures expressed appreciation for the members' efforts but did not address the concerns.
"We are grateful to these Board of Councilors members for their years of service and support for The Carter Center in advancing peace and health around the world," the center said.
Many Jewish groups say it is unfair to equate Israel or its policies in occupied territories with the old South African apartheid system that divided the races.
Carter has said the term refers to Israeli policies in occupied territories, not to Israel itself.
The former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner has been busy speaking out on the issue since the book was published.
Brandeis University in Massachusetts -- a nonsectarian school with a Jewish heritage and a large Jewish student body -- said Thursday that Carter will speak there and take questions.
The school said he "has accepted an invitation from a student and faculty committee" there "to speak on campus, perhaps as soon as January 23, although the date may be subject to change."

[dude1394]

I apologise, most profusely and unreservedly for voting for this pathetic excuse for a president.

Nobel Prize winner however...along with Arafat.

[kg_veteran]

Didn't he refuse to debate Dershowitz about the opinions expressed in his book?

What a pathetic, weak old mouthpiece for anti-Semitism.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Didn't he refuse to debate Dershowitz about the opinions expressed in his book?

Yup.. Nobel Peace Prize Winners don't have to debate their bigotry.

[Big Shot Rob]

I also regret that I voted for him over President Ford.

I agree that we need a balanced discussion of the Middle East--but Carter has really jumped off the deep end.

If I could take just one vote back--I would definitely take that vote back.

Amazing how their lives differed so much lately. President Ford is respected by members of both political parties. President Carter--well--you know...

[Mavdog]

I've read portions of the book, and carter has gone over the edge on this. for some unknown and difficult to understand reason, carter has allowed the arab view to permeate his writing and influence his descriptions of events and their consequences.

most impactful, he has put the israelis at fault for not seeing peace with the palestinians and leading us to where we are today in the greater mid east.

here is an interview with carter on the book:

JIMMY CARTER: Some people have said the title is provocative, and I accept that categorization, but I don't consider the word "provocative" to be a negative description, because it's designed to provoke discussion and analysis and debate in a country where debate and discussion is almost completely absent if it involves any criticism at all of the policies of Israel. And I think the book is very balanced.

Secondly, the words “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” were carefully chosen by me. First of all, it's Palestine, the area of Palestinians. It doesn't refer to Israel. I’ve never and would imply that Israel is guilty of any form of apartheid in their own country, because Arabs who live inside Israel have the same voting rights and the same citizenship rights as do the Jews who live there.

And the next word is “peace.” And my hope is that the publication of this book will not only precipitate debate, as I’ve already mentioned, but also will rejuvenate an absolutely dormant or absent peace process. For the last six years there's not been one single day of good faith negotiations between Israelis and their neighbors, the Palestinians. And this is absolutely a departure from what has happened under all previous presidents since Israel became a nation. We’ve all negotiated or attempted to negotiate peace agreements. That has been totally absent now for six years. So “peace.”

And then the last two words, “not apartheid.” The alternative to peace is apartheid, not inside Israel, to repeat myself, but in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinian territory. And there, apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, that Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights. Their land has been occupied and then confiscated and then colonized by the Israeli settlers. And they have now more than 205 settlements in the West Bank itself. And what has happened is, over a period of years, the Israelis have connected settlements with highways, and those highways make the West Bank look like a honeycomb and maybe a spider web. You can envision it. And in many cases, most cases, the Palestinians are prevented from using the highways at all, and in many cases, even from crossing the highways.

I'm all for a discussion on the mid east and israel, and I would say that carter makes some good points about some counterproductive policies of the israelis in their treatment of the palestinians in the occupied territories. yet he is not accurate to say his work is "very balanced". it's not.

at the same time, we should be careful of equating criticism of israeli policy as anti-semitism. while many anti-semites will cloak themselves in the clothes of "just supporting the palestinians", there can be criticism of israel without anti-semitism.

and yes, carter backed out of a debate with alan dershowitz. apparently he's still sharp enough to know to avoid a contest when he is incapable of winning.

[MavKikiNYC]

Isn't it paradoxical how contermporaries repudiate Republican presidents (Nixon*, Ford, Reagan, GHWB) and history vindicates them?

And how Democratic presidents like Kennedy, Carter and Clinton are the darlings of their contemporaries, but have thier administrations utterly repudiated by history.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Isn't it paradoxical how contermporaries repudiate Republican presidents (Nixon*, Ford, Reagan, GHWB) and history vindicates them?

And how Democratic presidents like Kennedy, Carter and Clinton are the darlings of their contemporaries, but have thier administrations utterly repudiated by history.

Paradoxical indeed.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Isn't it paradoxical how contermporaries repudiate Republican presidents (Nixon*, Ford, Reagan, GHWB) and history vindicates them?

And how Democratic presidents like Kennedy, Carter and Clinton are the darlings of their contemporaries, but have thier administrations utterly repudiated by history.

Yes..quite.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Isn't it paradoxical how contermporaries repudiate Republican presidents (Nixon*, Ford, Reagan, GHWB) and history vindicates them?

And how Democratic presidents like Kennedy, Carter and Clinton are the darlings of their contemporaries, but have thier administrations utterly repudiated by history.

I do notice the askerisk on nixon as history certainly has NOT vindicated him.

let us know how history has vindcated GHWB, or for that matter how history has "repudiated" kennedy and clinton...

[Big Shot Rob]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I do notice the askerisk on nixon as history certainly has NOT vindicated him.

let us know how history has vindcated GHWB, or for that matter how history has "repudiated" kennedy and clinton...

JFK and WJC were fantastic Presidents.

[Motofoto]

I havent read the book yet but from what i have seen on the news, I think the main offense that many in the jewish-community have taken from carter is the assertion that groups like aipac pretty much dictate american foreign policy. In all honesty, there is some truth in that.
Ofcourse, if you say this you are walking a tightrope because you dont want to be seen as pushing the stereotype that jews control the government. Just my two cents.

[dude1394]

I thought the brotha's controlled the country?