Seems to me that the original intent of Israeli was, and still is to build settlements on occupied lands. An "apparthied" policy has been in place for a long time now, and has sparked the hatred and bloodshed. It's a crying shame what has happened and is happening. They left Gaza just recently, after years of occupation, and settlement building. I guess the old adage is true...."war is all about real-estate". Carter is no dummy on reasons for war and peace. In this case he seems to be making an observation that counters hard-nosed war policy, and backs up the other view of peace, and the two-state solution. The hard-nosed guys don't like that and are attacking his stance on the issue....

Seems to me that the original intent of Israeli was, and still is to build settlements on occupied lands. An "apparthied" policy has been in place for a long time now, and has sparked the hatred and bloodshed. It's a crying shame what has happened and is happening. They left Gaza just recently, after years of occupation, and settlement building. I guess the old adage is true...."war is all about real-estate". Carter is no dummy on reasons for war and peace. In this case he seems to be making an observation that counters hard-nosed war policy, and backs up the other view of peace, and the two-state solution. The hard-nosed guys don't like that and are attacking his stance on the issue.
Why is it that the U.S. and its ally Israel are considerd always right, and flawless in such a situation. Could it be that the policies might or should be looked at a little closer. This might just be a big cause for all of the unrest in the Middle East.

See that's where you're wrong on a number of key points. Who owned this land going way back is more than debatable, but in 1948 the land was officially given to the state of Israel by the British who controlled it beforehand. That's not the point here though. You said "Carter is no dummy on reasons for war and peace" - what exactly are you basing that assertion on? Is it on his disgraceful and totally failed handling of the kidnapping of our hostages for over a year? Or is it somehow related to the miserable economy and country's outlook on the future under his direction (during peace)? Where exactly was his so 'smart' in these areas? Or perhaps you're referring to his great work in ma...

See that's where you're wrong on a number of key points. Who owned this land going way back is more than debatable, but in 1948 the land was officially given to the state of Israel by the British who controlled it beforehand. That's not the point here though. You said "Carter is no dummy on reasons for war and peace" - what exactly are you basing that assertion on? Is it on his disgraceful and totally failed handling of the kidnapping of our hostages for over a year? Or is it somehow related to the miserable economy and country's outlook on the future under his direction (during peace)? Where exactly was his so 'smart' in these areas? Or perhaps you're referring to his great work in making sure Chavez gets all his votes in correctly? Maybe you can point it out, because I sure haven't seen ANY evidence to back up such a statement.

The two-state solution has been there for ages - the problem is that palestinians refuse to dump their terrorist ways. They don't want a two state solution - they want a one state. Listen to some speeches coming out of there - do you hear anything about diplomatic solutions of mutual benefit? Heck, the characters who were voted in to run whatever it is that they have down there (since it's certainly no resemblance of any kind of country) don't even want to acknowledge Israel as a country or someone to negotiate. They certainly acknowledge it enough to send their kids to blow up a bunch of people in malls... for that purpose they clearly acknowledge it, but not for any kind of negotiating in any meaningful way. Do you think that people who want peace and want to talk to another country would do what they did in Gaza when they illegally entered Israel and kidnapped a soldier and murdered a few? Did you forget that? Or perhaps if you didn't - did you see when they released that soldier? I guess they haven't gotten around to it - too busy running their 'country'. Do they sound like people who want peace?

Vast majority of the world is anti-Israel, that's no secret. Starting with UN and vast majority of its members. Where you come up with "Israel is considered flawless" is totally beyond me or any real truth. As for the policies, what exactly do you want to see? I think they're pretty clear on both sides. For years US tried to bring peace there - remember all the photo ops with your favorite ex-President? No, not Jimmy - his younger sidekick - Bill. Remember all the meetings at Camp David and Barak, due to his lack in the area, giving away the store and arafat still refusing to take it because it wasn't 100% of the store?

Nobody says that Israel is flawless (except you in your comment)...

Vast majority of the world is anti-Israel, that's no secret. Starting with UN and vast majority of its members. Where you come up with "Israel is considered flawless" is totally beyond me or any real truth. As for the policies, what exactly do you want to see? I think they're pretty clear on both sides. For years US tried to bring peace there - remember all the photo ops with your favorite ex-President? No, not Jimmy - his younger sidekick - Bill. Remember all the meetings at Camp David and Barak, due to his lack in the area, giving away the store and arafat still refusing to take it because it wasn't 100% of the store?

Nobody says that Israel is flawless (except you in your comment), but you're totally missing the picture of what's actually going on down there, who wants peace and who wants death.

As I mentioned once or twice - the palestinians have a sure-fire solution to put some serious dampers on Israel and stuff their own pockets at the same time - they need to go to UN, announce to the world that they're dropping the terror crap, actually do so, and ask for assistance. You have no idea how much of it they'd get then and how the Israeli's hands would be tied in such instance to do anything negative. That's not happening, even though it's so simple. Ask yourself - why not? They'd get help from US, UN, all kinds of European countries and even Israel as well. Why don't they do it? You think they want peace with Israel... I say the reason they don't is because they don't. That's why all of the prior agreements were always broken, ALL OF THEM, the terrorist approach continues, the rhetoric continues and the miseducation of children continues (watch a short interview with a 3-yr old palestinian girl about the Jews in the documentary movie 'Obsession' and you'll see precisely what I mean).

@RS: In case you failed to read the entire article

Rabbi Lerner:

Jimmy Carter was the best friend the Jews ever had as president of the United States.

He is the only president to have actually delivered for the Jewish people an agreement (the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt) that has stood the test of time. Since the treaty, there have been bad vibes between Israel and Egypt, but never a return to war, once Israel fully withdrew from the territories it conquered in Egypt during the 1967 war.

To get that agreement, Carter had to twist the arms of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat.

Please note that Israel's full withdrawal from territories it co...

@RS: In case you failed to read the entire article

Rabbi Lerner:

Jimmy Carter was the best friend the Jews ever had as president of the United States.

He is the only president to have actually delivered for the Jewish people an agreement (the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt) that has stood the test of time. Since the treaty, there have been bad vibes between Israel and Egypt, but never a return to war, once Israel fully withdrew from the territories it conquered in Egypt during the 1967 war.

To get that agreement, Carter had to twist the arms of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat.

Please note that Israel's full withdrawal from territories it conquered in Egypt ended the conflict. The hope of those trying to facilitate peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that Israel will withdraw from occupied Palestinian territories and stop making life so miserable for the Palestinians.

No question that there was a treaty with Egypt during his tenure and he can be given some credit for brokering it. But the real credit goes to Saddat and his followers for sticking to it - it has nothing to do with Mr. Carter whatsoever. It has to do with Israel honoring its part of the agreement and Egyptians doing the same. So, him being described as their 'best friend' isn't exactly factual based on his whole stand on the region, Bush was/is a better friend to them than Carter, if you want to look at 'friends', although even Bush isn't that great a 'friend'.

The arabs in the region broke agreements all day long, to believe that Carter did some magical armtwisting would be silly at bes...

No question that there was a treaty with Egypt during his tenure and he can be given some credit for brokering it. But the real credit goes to Saddat and his followers for sticking to it - it has nothing to do with Mr. Carter whatsoever. It has to do with Israel honoring its part of the agreement and Egyptians doing the same. So, him being described as their 'best friend' isn't exactly factual based on his whole stand on the region, Bush was/is a better friend to them than Carter, if you want to look at 'friends', although even Bush isn't that great a 'friend'.

The arabs in the region broke agreements all day long, to believe that Carter did some magical armtwisting would be silly at best. Heck, Clinton put a LOT MORE effort into making something happen there, although for very selfish reasons, but he certainly gets credit for trying hard. And what did that yield? Or do you think Carter could twist hands better than Clinton? I HIGHLY doubt it.

The palestinians are in a tough situation because they choose to be in such, not because Israel is forcing them to be. If you want to keep throwing the line that they live under occupation (which isn't really so in real sense if you talk to people who actually live there) - you could easily make the statement that Israelis live under terrorism and threat of war constantly. Yet look at the difference between their lives, achievements etc. Day & night comparison.

Regardless, I'll certainly check out the Road Map to Nowhere you mention and see what that's all about.

The people who resigned did so apparently because they felt that Carter wasn't pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian enough for their liking. After all, Carter had the audacity to suggest that the Palestinian attacks on Israelis in the occupied territories might be due to the Palestinian territories being occupied by Israelis. The public declaration that Israel could be at fault in any way, that Israel could be provoking the Palestinians and creating animosity in the Middle East, is so abhorrent to some people that they attack the messenger, Jimmy Carter, rather than own up to the truth. They claim that Carter condones Palestinian terrorism because he states that Arabs and Palestinians "make it c...

The people who resigned did so apparently because they felt that Carter wasn't pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian enough for their liking. After all, Carter had the audacity to suggest that the Palestinian attacks on Israelis in the occupied territories might be due to the Palestinian territories being occupied by Israelis. The public declaration that Israel could be at fault in any way, that Israel could be provoking the Palestinians and creating animosity in the Middle East, is so abhorrent to some people that they attack the messenger, Jimmy Carter, rather than own up to the truth. They claim that Carter condones Palestinian terrorism because he states that Arabs and Palestinians "make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals" of an internationally proposed peace accord "are accepted by Israel." (page 213 of Carter's book) Quite to the contrary, Carter does NOT condone the terrorism; he just recognizes and states the reasons for it. There is a huge difference, but the people who spin it otherwise are so bent on attacking Carter that they refuse to see the truth.

What do you mean that isn't what they said?

The deciding factor for board member Steve Berman, he said yesterday, was a passage on Page 213 that he quoted easily from memory: It was imperative, Carter wrote, that Arabs and Palestinians "make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals" of an internationally proposed peace accord "are accepted by Israel."

"What does that say to you?" asked Berman, a commercial real estate developer in Atlanta. "It says they can stop when they get their state. He's...

read more»

What do you mean that isn't what they said?

The deciding factor for board member Steve Berman, he said yesterday, was a passage on Page 213 that he quoted easily from memory: It was imperative, Carter wrote, that Arabs and Palestinians "make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals" of an internationally proposed peace accord "are accepted by Israel."

"What does that say to you?" asked Berman, a commercial real estate developer in Atlanta. "It says they can stop when they get their state. He's condoning terror as a means of obtaining the objective of a Palestinian state."

Berman said he began the resignation campaign after reading the book last month, and he emerged yesterday as its spokesman.

BTW, I've yet to meet or hear of a real estate developer who wasn't fairly right-wing. I'd like to, though.

I somehow doubt that the vituperation expressed by you, RecordSage, and others really stems from labels on a map, or Carter's alleged unfair criticisms of Clinton.

You are partially right. I wouldn't be here if Carter were only smearing Clinton. I would just sit by the sides and watch. But he is also smearing Israel. And those defending him have yet to defend his so called facts and instead have attacked those who are pointing out the flaws in his book. They have attacked the people who used to work for Carter and quit over the lies in this book, and they have attacked the CLINTON administration official who pointed out the major flaws in those maps. They are eating their own...

I somehow doubt that the vituperation expressed by you, RecordSage, and others really stems from labels on a map, or Carter's alleged unfair criticisms of Clinton.

You are partially right. I wouldn't be here if Carter were only smearing Clinton. I would just sit by the sides and watch. But he is also smearing Israel. And those defending him have yet to defend his so called facts and instead have attacked those who are pointing out the flaws in his book. They have attacked the people who used to work for Carter and quit over the lies in this book, and they have attacked the CLINTON administration official who pointed out the major flaws in those maps. They are eating their own in order to defend Carter, but have yet to put up any defense of the content of his book.

But he is also smearing Israel.

Right, but I'm
not just seeing a case that he is smearing Israel on the basis of lies.
You mention mislabeled maps but don't give any details. And honestly,
if mislabeled maps are the ONLY untruth critics can find I am not very
impressed.

Honestly, it looks like people are upset that such a
prominent person like Carter is being very critical of Israel and so
they have latched onto trivial things to support inflamed reaction
against him. They point to a sentence where it looks like he is
acquiescing to Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians until Israel
makes a political settlement with the Palestinians (although they
conveniently leave out...

But he is also smearing Israel.

Right, but I'm
not just seeing a case that he is smearing Israel on the basis of lies.
You mention mislabeled maps but don't give any details. And honestly,
if mislabeled maps are the ONLY untruth critics can find I am not very
impressed.

Honestly, it looks like people are upset that such a
prominent person like Carter is being very critical of Israel and so
they have latched onto trivial things to support inflamed reaction
against him. They point to a sentence where it looks like he is
acquiescing to Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians until Israel
makes a political settlement with the Palestinians (although they
conveniently leave out the fact that in the same chapter,
Carter also says that Palestinian support for suicide bombings is an
obstacle to peace and that Israel is a reality and has the right to
exist in peace).

I'm just pointing out the maps because the difference between what he presented and fact is HUGE. He basically said that Israel never committed to the withdrawal and that they weren't offering nearly as much as they were. He made it out like Arafat was the one willing to accept peace but Israel balked. When in fact it was Israel who offered about 95% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, and another 1-3% of Israel land. And Arafat turned down that deal. Carter has it exactly 180 degrees out of sync with reality.

And that isn't the only problem with the book. Heck, the title itself is provocative enough. That is just one I like to point out because it was a Clinton administration officia...

I'm just pointing out the maps because the difference between what he presented and fact is HUGE. He basically said that Israel never committed to the withdrawal and that they weren't offering nearly as much as they were. He made it out like Arafat was the one willing to accept peace but Israel balked. When in fact it was Israel who offered about 95% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, and another 1-3% of Israel land. And Arafat turned down that deal. Carter has it exactly 180 degrees out of sync with reality.

And that isn't the only problem with the book. Heck, the title itself is provocative enough. That is just one I like to point out because it was a Clinton administration official that had those maps drawn up and is disputing the way they were used. Those maps were used to make out Israel to be the bad guy when what they really show is that Arafat had no intentions of ever declaring peace with Israel. And this isn't coming from some pro-Israel or conservative source, it is from a guy who Clinton trusted enough to help broker that deal and someone who has a whole lot more knowledge about it than Carter.

And as of yet, I have still seen no defense of the disputed content in the book, just attacks on those disputing that content.

There is no interpretation going on here. The guy who had the maps drawn up, the guy who had them labeled, the guy who brokered the deal has said Carter is wrong. Who do you believe has more knowledge about the deal, the guy who had those maps drawn up and brokered the deal, or Carter? And let's say it was a simple mistake by Carter. That simple mistake blows the rest of the premise of his book out of the water. He makes it out like Israel never offered poor Arafat a good deal and that the terrorists are the victims here, but the facts show that Arafat turned down about as sweet a deal as you could hope for and continued the terrorism against Israel.

Bottom line, Carter was wrong, he has ye...

There is no interpretation going on here. The guy who had the maps drawn up, the guy who had them labeled, the guy who brokered the deal has said Carter is wrong. Who do you believe has more knowledge about the deal, the guy who had those maps drawn up and brokered the deal, or Carter? And let's say it was a simple mistake by Carter. That simple mistake blows the rest of the premise of his book out of the water. He makes it out like Israel never offered poor Arafat a good deal and that the terrorists are the victims here, but the facts show that Arafat turned down about as sweet a deal as you could hope for and continued the terrorism against Israel.

Bottom line, Carter was wrong, he has yet to publicly acknowledge it and those on the left are defending him.