Former aide criticizes Carter over Mideast book

[Meshuga]

Hat Tip Martin Kramer

Former aide criticizes Carter over Mideast book
In L.A., Kenneth Stein says 'falsehoods' in book on Mideast prompted his resignation.
By Rebecca Trounson
Times Staff Writer

January 13, 2007

A former executive director of the Carter Center whose resignation from the institution has been a focal point of the furor over former President Jimmy Carter's new Middle East book said his decision to step down was a matter of "intellectual honesty."

In his first detailed public comments since his resignation last month, Kenneth W. Stein, who was the center's first executive director, told a Los Angeles audience Thursday that his concerns grew out of what he called Carter's "gross inventions, intentional falsehoods and irresponsible remarks."

Stein, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Emory University in Atlanta, said that in two of the most serious errors, Carter misrepresented the wording of a key U.N. resolution and gave a false account of a 1990 meeting he held with former Syrian President Hafez Assad, which Stein attended.

A spokeswoman for Carter, Deanna Congileo, said Friday that he was not available for comment. But Congileo noted that Carter and his publisher, Simon and Schuster, "have said that if there are any factual errors, they will be corrected in subsequent editions."

...

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ah6sxjndq9qq_214g24w9r

[BayCityProgressive]

1. I side with Carter

it is time for a peace deal and a balanced foreign policy approach.

[marmar]

2. The Carter Witch Hunt continues.....

All this criticism of the person who's been arguably, perhaps unarguably, the most decent, humane and peace-promoting president we've ever had, and the one who's shown the most compassion and concern about the Middle East, Israel included.

[Tom Joad]

3. Shulamit Aloni, Education minister under Rabin, disagrees with Stein.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x162586
Read it all for yourself.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

5. Stench of what?

Israels moral judgment where the treatment of Palestinians being questioned? There are may more then those on DU that agree with Carter. Those who scream anti Semitism when ever Israels treatment of Palestinians is criticized do those of us who's ancestors died from true anti-Semitism a disservice and risk making the possibility of happening more likely.

[Robson]

6. Objective Neutral Policy Needed

I generally tend to agree with those who believe the USA should have a 100% objective and neutral policy in the Middle East.

It's in our interest. It is in the Middle East's interest. And it is definitely in Israel's interest.

Continuation of current US government policy that sides only with Israel is analogous to stretching a rubber band until it breaks and the rubber band is represented by US public opinion and world opinion.

The current government position that Israel is always correct, and those that oppose it's policies are wrong, cannot continue. World opinion has already been headed in a very negative direction toward Israeli policy and I suggest it won't be long until there is a major change in US public support toward Israel. We saw much of that this summer during the Lebanese attacks. Such a change would not be good for Israel.

Those in charge of Israeli policy within the USA should immediately moderate the hard line policy that criticize those such as Carter and others who propose talking to Iran, Syria and to moderate a position with the Pals and Hezz.

Yes, some may have different and strong opinions on this. However one thing to keep in mind is that once US public opinion and momentum trends change direction, it is uncontrollable, it could go much further in the wrong direction as viewed from Israel.

[papau]

7. Our media claims giving equal weight to RW lies is an Objective Neutral Policy - if that is the

definition it is not something I want.

Taba/Geneva is the solution, despite the PA's desire to destroy the two state solution with a massive right of return of the tenants of the former Ottoman state.

We do not need an Objective Neutral Policy unless that means we help install/impose a settlement that is tightly aligned with the proposed settlement that arose from Taba and was put in near final form at Geneva.

Carter is correct only in that Palestinian treatment in the West Bank and Gaza sucked because of the unnecessary meanness in the security rules. The rest of his book has the positive intent of a peaceful solution along side a biased and at times lying history of how we got here. He deserves the crap being thrown at him - at least as to the making up history problem.

Meanwhile we have Rice flying there this week after stating that she brought no new initiative to move toward peace.

sigh .......

[bemildred]

8. Having this weasel prattle about "intellectual honesty" is most amusing. nt