Has anyone read Jimmy Carter's book that came out very recently? I haven't.

Seems like Mr Carter is not very happy with the reviews. Here's Mr President defending his book.

Israel, Palestine, peace and apartheid


Americans need to know the facts about the abominable oppression of the Palestinians

Jimmy Carter
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations - but not in the United States. For the past 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticise policies of the Israeli government is due to the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defence of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.

What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the US exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

My new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status. It is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organisations 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. Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions". A former Carter Centre fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent". Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine, to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what black people lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonise choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the casualties on both sides.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbours.

Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.

· Jimmy Carter was US president from 1977-81. His book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid was published last month. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in the Los Angeles Times

Bathroom Coffee - I just checked out the news that Prince Bandar had resigned his post - thanks for the heads up.

Yes, Iran's power is becoming an interesting topic. As Tom Friedman argues it is helped by of the price of oil, amongst other things. Have you read this article, from a while back, about war games and the planning of an invasion of Iran? It's a bit long but makes for an interesting read. I suppose now with Iraq in the boondoggles, the US might tread a little less violently on Iran, but it is fascinating to see what some people were thinking. Here is the link, if you want to check it out when you have some time: - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

Poonte - Agreed. It says a lot about the situation when hope is what we have to wish for.

Later folks.

"So, one way to make the radicals realize the reality is to help them get a taste of governance too. "

Couldn't agree more.

Bathroom Coffee -

On the lighter side,if it can be called that, I read this in the Washington Post:

Seeking Iran Intelligence, U.S. Tries Google
Internet Search Yields Names Cited in U.N. Draft Resolution

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A01

When the State Department recently asked the CIA for names of Iranians who could be sanctioned for their involvement in a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the agency refused, citing a large workload and a desire to protect its sources and tradecraft.

Frustrated, the State Department assigned a junior Foreign Service officer to find the names another way -- by using Google. Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000959.html

Hey Poonte bro,

Good to see you back and as always its great to learn your views on the Middle East because you have had some formal training on analyzing the situatuation there.

I have refrained from making any comments on the issue after a dressing down from LFC for my misguided judgement. :=)

If Poonte bro is here, its Beer + Jack + Stelechnya

Hamas, Fatah clash in deepening violence By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

Gunmen allied with Hamas and Fatah clashed at a West Bank mosque and in Gaza Strip streets on Friday, deepening factional violence a day after gunmen shot at the convoy of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas.

The street battles came as Hamas accused a powerful Fatah leader of orchestrating the attack on Haniyeh — and a powerful Hamas politician called for the Fatah strongman's assassination. Leaders of both groups have warned that the spiraling violence threatens to bring the Palestinians to civil war.

The clashes in Gaza City and the West Bank town of Ramallah marred celebrations Friday marking the 19th anniversary of Hamas' founding. However, the Islamic militant group pushed ahead with its rallies, and about 70,000 loyalists gathered at a stadium in Gaza City, cheering wildly, sobbing and firing in the air when Haniyeh arrived flanked by more than 50 armed bodyguards.

"We joined this movement to become martyrs, not ministers," Haniyeh declared in a fiery speech, referring to the attack on his entourage the previous day.

The fighting Friday in the normally peaceful city of Ramallah began when Hamas supporters tried to march toward the town center, where Fatah-allied police had deployed to prevent a planned Hamas celebration.

In a scene witnessed by Associated Press photographers, police formed a cordon around a Hamas mosque to prevent those inside from marching, then beat them with clubs and fired their rifles in the air when the activists tried to leave. The marchers fought back, throwing stones and bottles at the police, some of whom fired into the crowd.

Thirty-two people were wounded by stones and gunfire, hospital officials said.

In Gaza City, masked Hamas gunmen waged battle with Fatah-allied police near a security post. The four-minute shootout sent civilians running for cover. There were no reports of injuries.

The showdown, a block from the home of Mohammed Dahlan, broke out shortly after Hamas accused the Fatah strongman of orchestrating the attack on Haniyeh on Thursday at the Gaza-Egypt border terminal.

The latest round of fighting erupted Monday with a drive-by shooting that killed the three small children of a Fatah security official and continued Wednesday with the gangland-style execution of a Hamas judge.

On Thursday, Haniyeh rushed home from a trip abroad to try to quell the violence.

But Israel ordered the Rafah crossing closed to keep Haniyeh from bringing in an estimated $35 million he had collected abroad to help alleviate the Palestinian financial crisis. Israeli officials said Haniyeh could return to Gaza without the money, which it said was to be used for terror attacks. Maria Telleria, spokeswoman for European monitors at the crossing, said Haniyeh left the funds in Egypt.

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh told Israel's Army Radio that government officials made the right decision not to let Haniyeh bring the money into Gaza, adding that if Haniyeh had been killed, "I wouldn't put up a mourning tent."

While Haniyeh was delayed at the crossing, angry Hamas militants stormed the border terminal and fought with security forces stationed there who are loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah's leader.

When Haniyeh finally crossed, unidentified men began firing toward him. One of his bodyguards was killed and his son and 26 others were wounded.

At the bodyguard's funeral, Khalil al-Hayeh, head of the Hamas bloc in parliament, told mourners that Dahlan was trying to instigate a coup against the government and called for his head.

Al-Hayeh exhorted the crowd to "get us the plotters of the coup."

"We will, we will," the crowd replied.

Dahlan rejected the allegations as "false and baseless," calling them an attempt by Hamas leaders "to mask their sweeping failure to manage Palestinian political and social life." He also called on Fatah supporters to avoid any confrontations with Hamas.

Various other Hamas officials accused Palestinian collaborators with Israel, Abbas and the U.S. of involvement in the shooting.

The violence came amid a political deadlock between Abbas and the Hamas-led Cabinet and parliament following failed efforts to form a unity government. Abbas hoped such a government would end crippling international economic sanctions imposed on the Palestinian Authority after Hamas won January elections.

Hamas, responsible for dozens of deadly suicide bombings in Israel, is listed as a terror group by the U.S. and EU.

Abbas, a relative moderate, was to address the Palestinians on Saturday on his plans for ending the impasse and was expected to threaten early elections. A call for new elections, which Hamas says is illegal and has likened to a coup attempt, would likely further inflame the situation.

And so the showdown begins.
Since US and its allies have cut off funds to Palestine, Hamas has emerged more like a social organization rather than a terrorist organization as tha west would like to portray them. With Iran pumping in $$4 for ther schools, medical needs, water supply and basic amenities through Hamas. Remeber they won a legit democratic election(as they say be careful what you wish for). Now Fatah people are getting antsy because Hamas has the Palestinian people's support. They ae not getting their cut of the peice of the pie too as they were used to getting when Arafat was in charge(in other words they were all corrupt and that was ONE of the reason US cut off its fund).

If things continue as they are ..he he AND if Iran achieves Nuclear capabilities... Isreal better be ware... cause it will be surrounded by Iran as its allies.

Iso,

I wanted to write on "Pan Arabism" a while ago, but I got bogged down with other issues. Now that you've brought it up again, allow me to divulge.

You are not too off the mark when you said Pan Arabism may be re-gaining it's peak in recent times, although you may have been misguided to term it "nascent".

I think it is imperative here that we understand the distinction between Empirical Expansionism, which leads to unity of peoples of one nation based on a single, expanded state, and "Pan-ism", which is the unity of multiple independent states for a perceived common purpose, based on similar nationhood, or language, or culture, or religion, or political aspirations, or one or more of these combined.

Even though Arabism based on expansionism dates back to the times of Turkish Empire, Pan Arabism is relatively nascent (I told you you were not too far off the mark!), having experienced birth after the creation of multiple independent Arab states after the World War II, particularly in the 1950's, 60's, and the early 70's.

Two important movements comes to mind when we talk about Pan Arabism: rise of Ba'thists in Syria and the rise of Nasirists (named after the first Egyptian leader after independence). In later years, Iraq also made serious attempts to exert its influence and become a leader of Pan Arabism, but their movement can be considered an off shoot of Ba'thists in Syria.

In the beginning, the prospects of a strong Pan Arabism looked very promising -- the newly independent Arab states, weak by themselves, sought to strenthen their position in the world by making themselves parts of a larger movement. However, as it so often happens with "unity" among many different factions, classes, communities, etc., Ba'thism and Nasirism failed to unite the Arab world for real. Things would only get worse with the discovery of oil and a new found wealth that it brought with it -- Saudis and the oil rich Gulf states would have now wanted their share of leadership in the movement too.

The 1967 War, after which the Israelis occupied considerable parts of the Arab land (Palestine), Pan Arabism seems to have gained an added momentum. The Arabs now had a new and powerful cause to unite for, the cause being that of the Palestinians. However, continued factionalism, and the rivalry thereof, sadly never let the concept of Pan Arabism dig a strong foundation, thus they have failed to be of much hope for the Palestinian cause. US and Israel knew this well, and they have done well in translating this disunity to their own respective advantages.

You are also quite right in saying that the Iraq War gave another new impetus to Pan Arabism. I am doubtful, though, given the varying degrees (among the various Arab states) of economic successes, global relations (particularly with the US), and, most importantly, strong sense of factionalism, that Pan Arabism is to be counted as a viable tool of manipulating global and/or regional affairs. It may experience a rise at times, as it did after 1967 War, or the Gulf War, but I truly believe it is bound to fall back to it's weak position, if not collapse all together, sooner or later.

Pan Arabism never really took off in the Middle East. Its members from North Africa never felt they belonged to The Arab League. If the Brits and the Americans had not informed the Israelis in the 1967, the outcome of that war would have been totally different. Plus Syria was not getting along with the rest them because the compromise it had to make in the 1967 and lost its teeritory Goaln Heights(which is still under Israeli controll). Hafez Assad always thought the Pan ARAB LEAGUE let him down during that war Jordan & Egypt's resuming diplomatic relation with Israel made it even worse.

During this whole time Iran always stayed away from all this scuffle. Cause they were fighting a decade long war with Iraq. While Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Sunni countries lined up behind Iraq and Saddam Hussain. I don't think the Iranians ever forgave them for that.

BUt the final blow came when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Thats when shit hit the fans. From then on they've sort of become very hostile to each other. If you look at the current picture of Middle east the tables have totally turned. And major power player there like Saudi Arabia, UAE including Israel is getting nervous(esp knowing the fact that they are working of Nuclear capbilities). The other day the PM of Isreal had lil tongues slip about their own Nuclear capabilities, saying they might have to let their nuclear geenie out of the bottle too if Iran declares their own Nuclear capability.

"I have refrained from making any comments on the issue after a dressing down from LFC for my misguided judgement. :=) "

Isolated Freak, my friend, come on, you are not that thin skinned that you will let one interjection keep you from saying more! Ha ha ah ha ha ... Sajha has been bitten by the Loote bug it seems. LOL! Only joking, don't mid, ok? You have a lot to contribute and there is always an eager reader here :) And I am sure many more out there, who, alas, (sighs) are silent ... :P

Poonte - The idea of pan-arab nationalism re-surging is an interesting idea. The one chink in that argument, is has pan-arab nationalism not been extended to and perhaps even replaced by pan-Muslim sentiment? Islamic solidarity, if anything, is perhaps the one sentiment that seems to span borders these days from Indonesia to Morocco.

Just a thought.

Bathroom - Thanks for those articles. I agree Iran is the new troubled kid to watch for.

Have a good weekend all.

Folks - Some more interesting media coverage on Carter and the book, if you haven't already read it. This one involving Alan Dershowitz and Brandeis Univeristy.

- http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/15/carter_book_wont_stir_brandeis_debate/

Carter book won't stir Brandeis debate

Ex-president was to outline view on Palestinians
By Farah Stockman and Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff | December 15, 2006

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Have former president Jimmy Carter talk about his controversial new book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" at Brandeis University

But the idea ended, as many things on Carter's tumultuous nationwide book tour have, in disagreement and controversy.

Brandeis president Jehuda Reinharz said he agreed with a trustee's suggestion to invite Carter last month, if Carter were willing to debate one of his most outspoken critics, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Carter, president from 1977-1981, vehemently rejected the idea. To Carter, the episode was proof that many in the United States were unwilling to hear an alternative view on what he says is the most taboo foreign-policy issue in the United States, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory.

But others say it shows that Carter himself is unwilling to debate his own best-selling book, which has sparked allegations of errors and omissions, charges of anti-Israel bias, and protests at his book signings.

"President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate; then why won't he debate?" Dershowitz said.

Carter, who brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt and who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, has said the goal of the book, including its provocative title, is to provoke dialogue and action.

"There is no debate in America about anything that would be critical of Israel," he said in an interview Wednesday night.

But a furor has erupted because of the use of the word apartheid, which seems to equate the oppression of Palestinians with that endured by black South Africans under that country's now-defunct system of state-mandated racial segregation.

Rabbi Marvin Heir, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish human rights organization, said Carter "should be ashamed of himself." And Kenneth W. Stein, one of Carter's former aides, dropped his association with the Carter Center in Atlanta, a human rights organization founded by the former president and his wife Rosalynn.

But Carter said: "Apartheid is the forced separation of two peoples in the same area and the forced subjugation of one to the other. No one can argue that that is not the situation in the Palestinian territories right now."

Others have praised the 39th president for raising important questions about the cost of the United States' unwavering support for Israel. His book tour is being chronicled by the same producer who made an "An Inconvenient Truth," which focused on global warming and featured Al Gore. The film about Carter will be titled "He Comes in Peace."

Brandeis, a nonsectarian university founded by American Jews, has also been at the center of controversy over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In May, the university removed an exhibit featuring art by Palestinian children, saying it was one-sided

The university was criticized in January for giving a research fellowship to a prominent Palestinian pollster.

The effort to bring Carter to Brandeis began Nov. 14, when computer science professor Harry Mairson, chairman of the Faculty Senate, sent Carter a letter asking whether he would be interested in coming to talk. Mairson called the letter a feeler, not an invitation.

Carter said he was inclined to say yes and would have done the lecture for free, as long as Brandeis sent a plane to pick him up at his home in Georgia. "I thought it would be a good idea to go to a campus that had a lot of Jewish students and get a lot questions," he said.

But before accepting, he called longtime friend and former adviser Stuart Eizenstat, a member of Brandeis's Board of Trustees, for advice.

Eizenstat said he advised Carter not to accept because he did not know whether the professor had an agenda.

A member of Carter's staff later asked whether Reinharz could extend an invitation, instead, so Eizenstat said he approached Reinharz with an idea: invite Carter to debate Dershowitz, who had recently reviewed Carter's book and who had previously expressed a desire to debate Carter several times.

A debate "would make this a real academic exercise," Eizenstat said. ". . . The president of the university is not in the business of inviting someone, even a former president, for a book tour."

Reinharz thought the debate was "a terrific idea," he said in a telephone interview.
Carter, however, was stunned by the proposal.

"I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz," Carter said.

"There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

Carter still could have accepted an invitation from a faculty member, Reinharz said.
"President Carter -- and indeed anyone -- is welcome to come on the campus of Brandeis University to talk about anything under the sun," he said.

Mairson received a written reply, dated Nov. 17, from Carter's appointment secretary, saying that he would not visit the campus.

And check out this Globe Editorial on the issue of Carter refusing to debate Dershowitz.

Talk in Saudi Arabia turns to 'Iranian threat'
By Hassan M. Fattah

Thursday, December 21, 2006
RIYADH
At a late-night reading earlier this week, a self-styled poet held up his hand for silence and began a riff on the events in neighboring Iraq, in the old style of Bedouin storytellers.

"Saddam Hussein was a real leader who deserved our support," he began, making up the lines as he went. "He kept Iraq stable and peaceful," he added, "And most of all he fought back the Iranians."

Across the kingdom, in both official and casual conversation, once quiet concern over the chaos in Iraq and Iran's growing regional influence has burst into the open.

Saudi newspapers now openly decry Iran's growing power. Religious leaders have begun talking about a "Persian onslaught" that threatens the existence of Islam itself. In the salons of Riyadh, the "Iranian threat" is raised almost as openly and as frequently as the stock market.

"Iran has become more dangerous than Israel itself," said Sheik Musa bin Abdulaziz, editor of Al Salafi magazine, a self-described moderate in the Salafi fundamentalist Muslim movement that seeks to return Islam to its roots. "The Iranian revolution has come to renew the Persian presence in the region. This is the real clash of civilizations."

Many here said they believed a showdown with Iran was inevitable. After several years of a thaw in relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, analysts said the Saudis were growing extremely concerned that Iran may build a nuclear bomb and become the de facto superpower in the region.

In recent weeks, the Saudis, with other Gulf countries, have announced plans to develop peaceful nuclear power; officials have feted Harith al Dhari, head of Iraq's Muslim Scholars Committee, which has links to the Iraqi insurgency; and have motioned that they may begin to support Iraq's Sunnis. All were meant to send a message that Saudi Arabia intends to get serious about Iran's growing prowess in the region.

"You need to create a strategic challenge to Iran," said Steve Clemons, senior fellow and director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. "To some degree what the Saudis are doing is puffing up because they see nobody else in the region doing so."

Yet a growing debate here has centered on how Iran should be confronted: Head on, with Saudi Arabia throwing its lot in with the full force of the United States, as one argument goes, or diplomatically, having been offered a grand bargain it would find hard to refuse.

The split burst into the open last week when Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, abruptly resigned after just 15 months in the job. The resignation set off rumors of a long-running battle over the kingdom's foreign policy.

On Tuesday, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the ailing foreign minister, confirmed Turki's resignation for personal reasons. Privately, Saudi royals and analysts with knowledge of the situation said Turki resigned because of deep differences with the national security minister, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, over the government's plan to deal with Iran.

Just days before President George W. Bush met with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq, the outlines of a new plan were made public by Nawaf Obeid, a Saudi security consultant who wrote in an op-ed article in The Washington Post that the Saudis would intervene and back the Sunnis "to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

Obeid was then fired from his job, but he is widely expected to return to the government in some capacity.

A member of the royal family with knowledge of the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the fight is between those like Bandar, who has sought to closely back the Bush administration as it seeks a toughened policy on Iran, and those like Turki who have sought to avoid taking clear sides in the sectarian conflict and believe the only solution to the problem is in negotiating with the Iranians.

"Neither King Abdullah nor the Faisals are American puppets," said the royal of the family that includes Turki and Saud. "Prince Turki's abrupt resignation was in fact to return to Saudi, to be face to face with Bandar and Abdullah."

"The possibility of having conflict is very high," said Abdlerahman Rashid, managing director of the Arab satellite news channel, Al Arabiya, and a respected Saudi columnist. "Who will face the Iranians tomorrow? Just the Israelis alone? I don't think that is possible."

Turki, Clemons and palace insiders said, lobbied Washington for a broader policy that eschewed a military confrontation in favor of a policy that will strike Iran's interests. In effect, Clemons said, Turki had sought a plan mirroring the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker, a former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, a former congressman, but with a harder edge.

"Turki is not playing nice guy at all," he said. "Essentially, the Saudis are engagers: They want to weave together a blurry ambiguity to what they want to do."

In November, the Saudi royal said, King Abdullah presented Vice President Dick Cheney with a plan to raise oil production — to effectively drop the price — in the hope of sparking economic turmoil for Iran and ostensibly to force it to slow the flow of funds to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to Shiite militias in Iraq without getting directly involved in a confrontation.

Shortly afterward, Obeid's op-ed was published, building on comments that Saudi Arabia intends to get serious about Iran and may back Sunnis in Iraq in the event of an abrupt U.S. pullout. The article publicly spelled out the oil strategy.

An adviser to Bandar said there were no divisions over policy and many officials have been at pains in recent days to prove there is no split.

Saudi Arabia's next ambassador to the United States will be Adel al-Jubeir, a young U.S.-educated diplomat who was drafted by the king in 2001 to repair the nation's image in America that had been shattered by the Sept. 11 attacks. He is a close associate of Bandar.

Many Saudis have also grown openly critical of the country's policy on Iraq, citing its adherence to a U.S.-centric policy at the cost of Saudi interests.

More pessimistic analysts here said the country has lost significant strength and stature in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, even as Iran, with its populist, anti- U.S. agenda, has reaped the benefits.

"The Saudis made a big mistake by following the Americans when they had no plan," said Khalid al-Dakhil of King Saud University. "If the Saudis had intervened earlier and helped the Sunnis they could have found a political solution to their differences instead of the bloodshed we are seeing today."

Last week, a group of prominent Wahhabi clerics and university professors called on the government to begin actively backing the Sunnis, noting that "what Iraq, as a country and a people, has gone through in terms of a Christian-Shiite conspiracy preceded by a Bathist rule is one chapter in the many chapters of the conspiracy and an indicator for the success of the plan of the octopus which is invading the region."

Bathroom Coffee -

Very interesting, thanks. BTW, where was this published?

On the issue of oil prices and Iran's power, looks like oil prices are heading closer to earth, at least for the moment:

Oh Yeah that was an article from International Herald Tribune.

From the Boston Globe

Why won't Carter debate his book?

By Alan Dershowitz | December 21, 2006

YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion. And you can always tell when he's a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I'm talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."

Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post), "laughable" (San Francisco Chronicle), and riddled with errors and bias in reviews across the country. Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by "representatives of Jewish organizations" as Carter has claimed. Carter has gone even beyond the errors of his book in interviews, in which he has said that the situation in Israel is worse than the crimes committed in Apartheid South Africa. When asked whether he believed that Israel's "persecution" of Palestinians was "[e]ven worse . . . than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think -- yes."

When Larry King referred to my review several times to challenge Carter, Carter first said I hadn't read the book and then blustered, "You know, I think it's a waste of my time and yours to quote professor Dershowitz. He's so obviously biased, Larry, and it's not worth my time to waste it on commenting on him." (He never did answer King's questions.)

The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received. He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.

Nor is Carter the unbiased observer of the Middle East that he claims to be. He has accepted money and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan , saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who "were the people who killed the Jews in Europe" during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11. Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest.

Carter's refusal to debate wouldn't be so strange if it weren't for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate over the issue of the Israel-Palestine peace process. If that were really true, Carter would be thrilled to have the opportunity to debate. Authors should be accountable for their ideas and their facts. Books shouldn't be like chapel, delivered from on high and believed on faith.

What most rankles is Carter's insistence that he is somehow brave for attacking Israel and highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people. No other conflict in the world -- not even the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan -- evokes more hand-wringing in the media, universities, and human rights organizations than the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Jimmy Carter isn't brave for beating up on Israel. He's a bully. And like all school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, there's a nagging insecurity and a fear that one day he'll have to answer for himself in a fair fight.

When Jimmy Carter's ready to speak at Brandeis, or anywhere else, I'll be there. If he refuses to debate, I will still be there -- ready and willing to answer falsity with truth in the court of public opinion.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard University. His most recent book is "Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways."

Carter is finally speaking at Brandeis:

- http://my.brandeis.edu/news/item?news_item_id=7613

From that press release, Dershowitz is not a speaker.

These left-wingers never get tired of appeasing and ass-kissing of the radicals in hopes of one day them changing into moderates.

Birbhadra - Very strong feelings there, huh? But think of this : when it comes to the Israeli-Palestenian issue, much, if not most, of the major progress has been under people like Carter (remember Camp David?) and Clinton at the helm in the US.

Just a thought.

blistering barnacles captain!
yes from palestinei perspective maybe. but what is a peace if it has no certainty? I have full sympathy for both palestini and israeli people they are basically caught up in between politics. but again some questions haunts me deeply.

1. What will satisfy the arabs for peace to work? they have said time and again that they donot recognize israel as a state and their actions proves it. all arab nations preemptively attacked nascent nation of israel in the ' 67 war israel kicked their ass. they were surprized because allah had given them power to trample the jews but it didn't happen.

2. most if not all arab nation indoctrinate their scholars with a lie about the jews that they are cause of all the problems in the world. i have seen it and talked with highly intelligent arabic people but their rationale is that of a child when it comes to jew issue.

3. there are about 20% arab living in israel and we don't hear jews killing them. if a jew is found in the palestini territory he won't be back in one piece.

people are people but again i can't comprehend how i can support the palestini cause

Clinton was a great president but again i think he didn't do enough or he wasnot allowed to do enough to curb the radicals. Bush is stupid but Islamic radicals are stupider. they have made lives of all muslims difficult regadless of their religiousity.