Jimmy Carter's Mideast book polarizes opinion

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061217/pl_nm/carter_mideast_book_dc

Jimmy Carter's Mideast book polarizes opinion

By Matthew Bigg Sun Dec 17, 12:45 AM ET

ATLANTA (Reuters) - A new book by Jimmy Carter in which he compares
Israel's treatment of Palestinians to South Africa's Apartheid system has sparked a bitter debate over the former U.S. president's reputation as a peacemaker.


Jewish groups have expressed outrage at the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," arguing its comparison of Israel to the racist South African regime could undermine the perception of Israel's legitimacy.

Carter, 82, has been dogged by protests during a promotional tour and Ken Stein, a long-time advisor on Middle East issues who was also the first executive director at the Carter Center in Atlanta, resigned over the book's content.

In an interview with Reuters, Stein cited a passage from the book that said it was imperative for Arabs and Palestinians to "make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for peace are accepted by Israel."......

[bemildred]

1. Opinion was plenty polarized already.

Jimmy just dragged it out into the light of day.

[jody]

2. Carter opened discussion on a topic that divides the Jewish community and also secular and sectarian

groups.

[Ken Burch]

3. All Jimmy Carter did was commit truth on the I/P issue.

He learned the score when he had to keep Menachem Begin from sabotauging the Camp David accords with endless legalistic objections. In the end, Anwar Sadat was forced to cause his own assassination by selling out the Palestinians.

Nothing good has come to this discussion by the insistence that Israeli policy can never be criticized. This has had horrible consequences in Israeli politics, because it has done nothing but encourage the most arrogant and intransigent attitudes among successive leaders of the Israeli government.

Yes, Palestinians need to change the tactics they've been using, but they also need real guarantees that they will be rewarded for those changes. At present, they look at the situation and can see no reason not to assume that abandoning violence will lead to anything more than further humiliation and defeat.

[UndertheOcean]

4. All Mr. Carter did is discuss I/P in a matter that is fair and balanced, and that pointing of the

elephant in the room will always cause controversy in the USA , not so much in Europe.

Howard Dean faced such an outcry when he said something not staunchly pro-Israel in his campaign, and had to retract ....

Mr. Carter had no elections to win , so he could afford to tell the truth as it is for a change.