Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

• Archive 1

Carter on the book's provocative title

The title of the book, which contains the hot button term "apartheid" is part of the reason why it is such a topic of discussion or controversy. Jimmy Carter discussed his feelings towards provoking a controversy with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press two Sundays ago. Here is a snippet from the official "Meet the Press Transcript for December 3, 2006":

MR. RUSSERT: Your 21st book. “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” Mr. President, that title alone is going to create some controversy.

FMR. PRES. CARTER: Well, well, maybe it’s provocative. That’s —- I prefer that. I don’t look on provocative as a negative word. If it, if it provokes debate and assessment and disputes and arguments and maybe some action in the Middle East to get the peace process—which is now completely absent or dormant—rejuvenated, then—and brings peace, ultimately to Israel, that’s what I want.

--70.51.230.254 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that a section on the title is warranted. It should answer a few questions that anyone who encounters the book is likely to ask: Why does Carter use the word apartheid? How does he justify his use of the term? What do others, especially experts on the Middle East have to say about his use of the word apartheid? GabrielF 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A few sentences from Carter explaining his title could be useful. A sentence or two going in to detail from experts or people noting controversy might be appropriate. An entire section seems like overkill to me though. --75.46.88.163 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why dont we just refer readers to the relatively well written "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid " article?68.166.30.6 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we pasting in television transcripts to this page?--G-Dett 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More Jimmy Carter on the title from the LATimes [1]:

"...it would be presumptuous of me to ask to be on 'Larry King' or to talk to the L.A. Times to promote my ideas about the Middle East. If I write a book about it, however, this gives me a vast array of forums where I can express views and answer questions. The book gives me this opening."

--70.51.230.196 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He discusses the title here too: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/30/1452225 . If we need to label the book as controversial, polemical, etc. then Carter seems to embrace the word 'provocative'. I think that might make everyone (close to) happy. --YoYoDa1 15:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Work in Progress...

Excellent re-formatting and general editing, GabrielF. The article reads much better now.--G-Dett 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only major formatting change left to make at this point is to move the "praise" and "criticism" sections up so that they precede the "controversy" section. At least for the present. Stein's major allegations remain unspecified and Ross's minor one unverified, and in the national media both critics are making rapid segues from complaints about scholarship to statements of ideological opposition. In other words at the present moment the "controversy" over scholarly practice gives every appearance of being an outgrowth of the controversy over the book's content, and so should naturally follow it. As the dispute over scholarship comes into focus, the order of primacy may well change.--G-Dett 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter's response to map allegations + Finkelstein comment

Q: "He also has a veiled hint of plagiarism, saying you took from other sources.

Carter: "The only source that I took anything from that I know about was my own book, which I wrote earlier—it's called "The Blood of Abraham" ... Somebody told me this morning [Stein] was complaining about the maps in the book. Well, the maps are derived from an atlas that was published in 2004 in Jerusalem and it was basically produced under the aegis of officials in Sweden. And the Swedish former prime minister is the one who told me this was the best atlas available about the Middle East."

From Newsweek interview [2].

Also interesting is this mixed take on Carter's book from Norman Finkelstein, a notable academic and commentator on the issue (who also fights with Dershowitz a lot.) [3].

--70.51.230.254 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Abraham H. Foxman / Anti-Defamation League criticism

From [4]:

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has said that some comments from the former president border on anti-Semitism. "When you think about the charge that he has made that the Jewish people control the means of communication, it is odious," Foxman was quoted as saying last week. "If the Jews controlled the media, how come he is traveling around the country speaking about this book on talk shows?"

--70.51.230.254 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This would be sad if it weren't so cliché. When I started this article I shoulda started a betting pool on "how long until someone from the ADL calls Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite" (and a double jackpot if Haaretz breaks the story). Anyway, this is just slander. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The piece cited above is pretty tame. Check out this one: [5]. Or this [6] response to a positive review of the book published in the AJC. --70.51.230.196 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why ADL's statement should be excluded. Actually, the term "slander" is far more appropriate for the title of the book in question (speaking of clichés). BTW, Ha'aretz is a leftist newspaper. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens - all criticism from notable sources should go in, just like all praise from notable sources should go in. We shouldn't pick and choose based on which pieces we feel are legitimate and which are smears. --70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On a lighter note [7] -- Kendrick7^talk 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) the onion really is his news source!

What if the cause were Muslim and CAIR was commenting? Would that be irrelevant? Elizmr 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From my position, the more outrageous over-the-top criticism the better since it makes Carter's book more prominent and the resulting movie more engaging and demonstrative of how screwed-up debate is in this area. --70.48.70.188 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More pointed criticism

Another pointed criticism: "Jimmy Carter making the rounds of all the national shows, talking about Israel as if they were the second coming of Nazi Germany." [8]

Jimmy Carter is similar to Mel Gibson in that he is "obsessed with heaping blame on the Jews" and more according to this published piece in the NRO: [9]. --70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a positive review from a mainstream Syrian newspaper: [10]. My hope is that we don't have a cultural bias where only commentary from US or British based media is considered valid. --70.48.70.188 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could someone please revert Shamir1's most recent edit, the wording of which is quite leading? I am unable to do so at present, due to the provisions of the 3RR. CJCurrie 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. I'm sure whatever it says wikipedia can survive the next 24 hours with it. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's already been removed. CJCurrie 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And now it's back again. I reiterate my request. CJCurrie 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about 3RR, but I don't think I can touch it now either. --YoYoDa1 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

CJ--could you be more specific about what you object to? Elizmr 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about all the labels that keep getting thrown in to the article, ie Jewish-American, left-wing activist, etc. Right now the only one in there is left-wing activist. --75.51.230.180 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's what he's talking about, then he's right the labels are poisioning the well and inapproriate. But why not let him speak for himself. I'm familiar with him from other articles I've often seem him insert those kind of labels himself (I think his intention is to be helpful to the reader), so I'm not sure he woudl be so upset about that. Elizmr 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. If you read the edits on the page history though, specifically around that time, then you will see what I am talking about. --75.51.230.180 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sappo12

Sappo12's behavior on this article is not acceptable. Labeling people who criticize Carter as Jewish is ad-hominen, irrelevant and inappropriate. Furthermore, his contributions are unsourced opinions (Washington Institute is pro-Israel, etc.) Anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know if calling someone Jewish is ad hominem. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC) No, no Kyle, don't be so hard on yourself!

Washington Institute is mentioned as being pro-Israel in both the Israel lobby in the United States and the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy articles. Thus it isn't a stretch to label it as such, although such a label should include a proper citation I would think. --70.51.230.6 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is probably a much better way to say what he is trying to get across. --75.51.230.180 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In some circles, it is certainly ad hominem to say that someone is Jewish. Remember the folks who killed Daniel Pearl on video? They had him say he was Jewish right before they killed him. In their minds, that was enough to indite him and justify their murder of him. In other circles, no, it is not ad hom to say someone is Jewish, it is just an identifier. In other circles it might be a positive. In the context of this article, we need to be VERY careful about using the word "jewish" to identify any source or critic. Elizmr 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "Jewish" is being used too broadly in an attempt to implicitly discredit some critics. There are more appropriate, and less prejudicial, ways to describe the established views of some of these critics, such as Alan Dershowitz is "pro-Israel" having written a number of books defending Israel such as "The Case for Israel" and Dershowitz has also been criticized in the New York Review of Books for launching "unjustified" attacks on Human Rights Watch because they issued a report critical of Israel's actions. The NYRB article critical of Dershowitz, and in defense of current HRW head Kenneth Roth, who happens to be Jewish, was written by the founder of HRW, who also happens to be Jewish, thus further making clear using the identifier "Jewish" as a simplistic means to discredit critics is really not appropriate, and shows a lack of fidelity in one's thinking. --70.51.230.6 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggsting the alternate "pro-Israel" as a better way of Poisoning the well against Dershowitz? Elizmr 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz is a difficult case in that his work in defending Israel (such as his more recent effort to bring the Iranian President to the ICJ for promoting genocide because of his recent comments) are more significant and relevant to his involving in this situation than anything else. Please note that Rabbi Michael Lerner is still being described in the current version of the article as being a "left-wing activist." --70.51.230.6 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey anon, poisoning the well by any other name is still poisoning the well. Elizmr 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully argue that it is manifestly relevant if a critic or supporter of the Carter books is either Jewish or Palestinian. This is, afterall, a dispute between Jews and Palestinians. It is important to point out that most of the critics listed on this entry (Ross, Dershowitz, Goldberg, etc) are Jewish. It is relevant to cite pro-Israel books they've written or the fact that someone has served in the Israeli Army. Equally, it is important to cite the fact that someone may have been a member of Hamas or Fatah or the PLO. Or simply that that person is Palestinian or has written obviously pro-Palestinian books or articles.

Also, I refer you to a paragraph frome the undisputed entry on Alan Dershowitz:

"Dershowitz was born in the Williamsburg neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, and grew up in Borough Park.[1] His parents, Harry and Claire, were both devout Orthodox JewsItalic text. Harry Dershowitz (May 8, 1909–April 26, 1984)[2] was a founder and president of the Young Israel Synagogue in the 1960s, served on the board of directors of the Etz Chaim School in Borough Park, and in retirement was co-owner of the Manhattan-based Merit Sales Company. Alan Dershowitz's brother Nathan, at the time of their father's death counsel for the American Jewish Congress, is a partner in the New York City law firm Dershowitz, Eiger & Adelson"

Why are these references to his Jewish heritage not offensive?

How does stating factually that someone is Palestinian or Jewish constitute an effort to discredit?

Also, this commentary below is way, way off the mark and totally imflammatory. The comparison is offensive and in no way relevant.

In some circles, it is certainly ad hominem to say that someone is Jewish. Remember the folks who killed Daniel Pearl on video? They had him say he was Jewish right before they killed him. In their minds, that was enough to indite him and justify their murder of him. In other circles, no, it is not ad hom to say someone is Jewish, it is just an identifier. In other circles it might be a positive. In the context of this article, we need to be VERY careful about using the word "jewish" to identify any source or critic. Elizmr 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

note: above unsigned comment placed by Sappo [11]

Thanks for you opinion and please see WP:NPA. My remarks were DIRECTLY responding to Ken7's comment: I don't know if calling someone Jewish is ad hominem. -- Kendrick7talk 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC) I was explaining why it is ad hom to call someone Jewish in some circles including people who might read this page. I am sorry if you found my remark extreme, but I was trying to make a point that anyone could understand using a well-known example. I agree my remark is hard to hear, but it speaks to the issue. I also hear you on what you are saying, but there is NOTHING about a Jewish POV or an Israeli POV that it is all homogenous. Elizmr 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More commentary on the book

• Time for Canadian Arabs and Jews to work together, Globe and Mail.
• You'll get an earful if you oppose Israel, Toronto Sun.
• Saint James of Plains, American politician-martyr, Middle East Online.
• Telling it like it is, Guardian.

BTW why does it only say in the lead of the article that the book is controversial, but it doesn't mention its status as a best seller? Also, advanced numbers from S&S suggest that the book is going to be listed as #4 and #5 for the weeks following the data given above. --70.51.230.6 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More coverage

From a Google News search...

• Former President Carter says he won't visit Brandeis, Associated Press
  • "Former President Carter has decided not to visit Brandeis University to talk about his new book 'Palestine: Peace not Apartheid' because he does not want to debate Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as the university had requested. 'I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz,"'Carter told The Boston Globe. 'There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.' The debate request is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, Carter said."
• Carter: careful no more, Seattle Times
• Quakers back Carter book, Jewish Telegraph Agency
• Jimmy Carter: Human scum, WorldNetDaily
  • "These are not careless errors, they flow from Carter’s pointed animus toward Israel and corresponding softness toward the Arabs (read his elegy to Saudi Arabia if you want to gag). How else to account for the fact that he takes Yasser Arafat’s peaceful declarations at face value? Or that he lets slip nasty anti-Semitic asides like this: “It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities — the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier.” Those Jews never change, do they? What complaints exactly did Jesus receive about holy sites and culture? We could ask President Carter, but we should know better than to expect an honest answer."
• 'How Many Bubbles in a Bar of Soap?' Jimmy Carter Fails the Literacy Test, New York Observer
  • "This was part of the Times' continuing series to give space to (Jewish) defenders of Israel to denounce Carter as misinformed and dotty because he dared to write a book likening the Israeli occupation to apartheid. Two days before, WINEP's David Makovsky told the Times the book is filled with errors, and he's 'saddened by it.' Back when Jimmy Carter was young, they used to have literacy tests to keep black people from voting. The black person would go to the polls and have to take a literacy test in order to vote. The pollworkers would ask the black person questions like, "How many bubbles in a bar of soap?" When the black person couldn't answer, they couldn't vote. The Times is enforcing the literacy test on Israel/Palestine. Jimmy Carter failed. He made too many mistakes so he can't offer his opinion. Only experts can vote, usually centrist-right Jews who have no interest in or idea what's going on in the Occupied Territories."
• Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar, David Horowitz

--70.51.230.6 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is one I just saw on the Jersualem Post site: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881904465&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull . Note just because an article exists, we don't have to use it. I'm sure there are lots of newspapers in Palestine/Middle East which could also be cited. Also, a very substantial numbers of academics that support the views (of Carter) could also be cited. Then there could be some think tanks. The idea is to document notable and reliable information, not already contained in the article, that an average reader of Wikipedia might have an interest in reading to become informed. Just saying. --75.51.230.180 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

recent edits

Hi Carter book folks. I haven't been really active on this page and took a stab at it today when I went in to fix something requested by an anon user on behalf of CJ Currie.

I'm outlinging the edits I did here, although I see that as I write they are already being reverted by Ken7.

• The article had a section on "response to criticism" but when I read the article carefully, I noted that there was much response also interwoven into the rest of the text. I removed this all to the exisiting section.
• The "controversies" section was really criticism and this ambuigity interfered with the flow of the article. I moved Stein and Ross's comments to the criticism section and elimitiaed "controversies".
• I tried to improve the headings in the criticism section to remove well poisioning stuff.
• There was a suggestion that the democrats criciszed the book only for political motivations, which I'd argue is WP:OR. The release of the book was after the midterm elections (I believe) but there was lot of publicity beforehand (and it was already mentioned on Wikipedia pages beforehand). If democrats responsded with criticism then, their criticism is still valid. Elizmr 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ken, please don't revert all my edits, OK? I worked hard on this. Elizmr 20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- sorry -- you probably should have hollered at my talk page; I just saw this section. Oops. Anyway, I largely approve of this reworking and I think everything's coming along OK. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Critism and countercriticism

I recently took out Carter's countercriticism to Dershowitz because there is a whole section for response to criticism. Ken7 put it back, calling the dialog between Carter and dershowitz a "feud". How do people feel about this? Elizmr 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted the added material which I thought made this worth it's own section. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind; I see it made it back. But I'm not too picky how this is organized, eitherway. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The way the article was written before, there was response to criticism worked in all over the place and also a separate section. I'm just worried about the article being a messy collection of "he said she said" exchanges that will be difficult for the reader to follow. Elizmr 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter seems to have repeatedly reserved his most public critism of his critics speficially for Dershowitz though. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is an argument for the article structure you are a proponent of. Elizmr 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've resectionalized things. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I feel the top few sentences are now getting lost. I'll put yet another subject heading there so this doesn't happen. Elizmr 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned WaPo ref

There was a ref in there that was a mishmosh of an LA Times article and a Washington Post article. I wikified them both and left the WaPo one commented out -- it should be floating around the criticism section. If anyone knows what it's supposed to support exactly, please find a home for it. Thanks -- Kendrick7^talk 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, wait -- it was a duplicate; should be all set now. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the refs formats etc. Elizmr 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add: "He Comes in Peace" film

Hi. Above on this page I mentioned the movie "He Comes In Peace" that is currently being filmed. The movie is specifically about this book, Jimmy Carter and the response. It is a very serious production. Here are the core details:

• Production company: Participant Productions
• Executive producers: Jeff Skoll and Diane Weyermann
• Director: Jonathan Demme (with help from Neda Armian)
• Production start: November 11 2006 (at Carter's home)

Here are the main stories:

• Demme helms docu on Carter for Participant, Hollywood Reporter
  • Demme is quoted: The president's book tour occurs at a crossroads where the world of religion intersects with global politics. This picture is just an extraordinary honor for me. I loved Carter when he was president, and I've loved him more and more since he left office. He makes me feel so proud to be an American.
  • Weyermann is quoted: Jimmy Carter embodies a determined sense of justice and a devout faith, grounded in tolerance and driven by a fierce desire for world peace. Jonathan Demme is a filmmaker of immense vision who will be able to marry the intimate portraiture of 'Heart of Gold' to the political savvy of 'The Agronomist' and advance his series of 'portrait docs' with a subject so worthy of further examination.
• JIMMY CARTER ALOFT, New Yorker
  • Carter, who is eighty-two, was coming off a full day of interviews in New York (Rose, King, Gross) and embarking on another (Russert, Blitzer, Lehrer), but his zest for trumpeting his ideas and accomplishments seemed undiminished. He wore a checked jacket, gray flannels, and brown Kiltie loafers. Jonathan Demme, meanwhile, was shooting a documentary about him, to be called “He Comes in Peace.” Demme and his crew sat across the aisle, cameras rolling. They had even filmed him swimming that morning, in the pool at the Peninsula hotel. (“I do a variety of strokes,” Carter said, and it was a pleasure to hear him—an Annapolis man—use the term “Australian crawl.”)
• Demme on Carter trail, Variety
  • The former president is using the national tour to generate discussion and to hear from people with varying views on the polarizing topic -- all of which will be captured on camera. Demme said he is taking an experimental approach so as to avoid turning out a pic dominated by talking heads.

--70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This probably should just be it's own article, with a see also from here. I don't know if an article about a film that is only in production would survive an AfD, but if you want to put the effort into creating this article any way, feel free: He Comes in Peace. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add: Election-context of Democratic party criticism

The release of the book so close to the election was a major concern to Democrat efforts to woo Jewish voters in the November midterms. This is important to include because it was the reason why so many Democratic politicians took positions on the book way so early, even before it was released -- normally politicians wouldn't even comment on a controversial topic, but they were forced into it -- see RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) executive director Matt Brooks' comments below. Also, Democratic leaders asked for the release date of the book to be pushed to later, so as to not risk interfering with the election -- see quote below.

Here are the relevant quotes from this article published in The Forward on:

• With less than three weeks left before Election Day, Jewish Democrats have been quick both to disavow Carter’s views and to assert that Carter is a marginal figure within the party on the issue, despite being a former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
• Jewish Democrats say that they were pushing for a later release date.
• The RJC’s executive director, Matt Brooks, told the Forward that he has yet to see Carter’s new book; however, he seemed confident that it would provide additional ammunition for his organization’s campaign to woo Jewish voters. ... “Obviously we will look to key Democratic leaders and hear what they have to say about it. So far, there’s been nothing but silence on the part of the Democratic establishment in terms of holding Carter accountable.”
• Democrats involved in efforts to boost Jewish support were quick to criticize Carter’s views. “I disagree with President Carter fundamentally,” said Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat who is leading the efforts of House Democrats to reach out to Jewish voters and donors.
• Israel added that the “book clearly does not reflect the direction of the party; it reflects the opinion of one man.”

--70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've readded the basic context. We need to provide context so someone reading this 100 years from now is aware that there was an election about to occur and that these comments were made prior to the book's publication. Future generations, and our own, can draw whatever conclusions they want; somehow I personally doubt, FWIW, that these people had nothing better to do in October than track down an advanced copy and read it cover to cover. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is ok to state that elections were coming up, but saying that these folks were just "distancing themselves" discredits their remarks as politically motivated and devoid of content. It poisons the well. Could we compromise on this? Elizmr 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob -- that hadn't occured to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess I hadn't spelled it out well. Good comprimise. Elizmr 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

here is extra material

This was removed and a summary put in place on the Jimmy Carter page, with a link to this page of course.

In December 2006, Carter released a book about the Arab-Israeli conflict entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Kenneth Stein, one of the former president's aides at the Carter Center, said the book was filled with factual errors, material copied from other sources, and "simply invented segments." Stein later resigned his position at the think tank. Carter responded obliquely on December 7, 2006, noting that Stein had not played a role in the Carter Center in 12 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary role, though members of the Carter center have disputed this characterization. Carter was also accused by former Ambassador Dennis Ross of plagiarism, saying Carter used maps that look they've been drawn from my book without attribution. Carter argues that his source was the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem and that the maps are publicly available. In Slate magazine, Michael Kinsley criticized Carter's use of the "loaded word" of apartheid, purportedly without explaining the parallels. Carter has responded that, with the title, he "wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States." But Maynard holds that provocation is not a defensible goal in and of itself when such provocation is "not only misleading, but also highly offensive."[12] Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times points out that his book addresses the occupied territories of Palestine proper saying that he used the term "apartheid" to describe the situation in the West Bank and occupied regions and not Israel proper. The criticism leveled at that comment was the he intentionally invoked an easily misrepresented term, knowing that many would apply it to the entire State of Israel. Carter, again, stated that he was seeking to provoke discussion, and believes he achieved that goal. He holds that his book calls for Israel to abide by its agreements of 1978 and 1993. Though others have pointed out that Israel is in compliance with both its agreements of 1978 and 1993 and with applicable UN resolutions, while the Palestinians have rejected overtures which would have resulted in peace.[13] David Harris, executive director of the AJC, who was quoted in President Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times, points out that one of Carter's many distortions in his book is his declaration that the Palestinians accepted Clinton's proposals for a negotiated solution at talks in Taba during the waning days of the Clinton administration while the Israelis rejected them. As Harris points out, Clinton says the opposite in his book and "Carter must have known this history."[14]. The fact was that Yasser Arafat balked at the offer - stemming back to the Camp David Summit, that would have restored about 95% of the lands considered "occupied territories" by the United Nations.Jasper23 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

article structure

I'm not sure that I like the current article structure, specifically the decision to move Carter's responses to criticism to a separate section. The article just doesn't look right. For example, we have subsections e.g. Response to Ross, that are two sentences long and anyone interested in the Ross issue for instance has to go through seven paragraphs to get from the section where it is initially brought up to Carter's response. Why not put everything back inline? GabrielF 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a super big fan of the new structure either, I was just going with it to be agreeable. --YoYoDa1 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

More coverage

• A letter to Jewish citizens of America, Jimmy Carter (this really should be mentioned in the article, widely reproduced [15])
  • ADL Responds to Jimmy Carter's Open Letter

• Brandeis University/Alan Dershowitz debate flare up
  • Carter book won't stir Brandeis debate (news article), Boston Globe, Dec 15/2006.
  • Why won't Carter debate his book? (op-ed), Alan Dershowitz, Boston Globe, Dec 21/2006.
  • Brandeis group pursues Carter visit (news article), Boston Globe, Dec 22/2006.

• In defense of Jimmy Carter
  • Get Carter, Chris Hedges, The Nation.
  • Memoir of a great friend, Tom Segev, Haaretz
  • The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter, Norman Finkelstein
  • Bookman: Anti-Semitism label confines open debate, Jay Bookman. (Syndicated here, here, ...).

Gave some structure. --64.230.123.73 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz's Rwanda smear

Anyone who has reviewed the interview transcript should realize that Carter was comparing conditions in Palestine *now* to conditions in Rwanda *now*. He specifically refused to be drawn into a debate on the Rwandan genocide, and did not compare the current situation in Palestine to the Rwandan genocide.

For us to assert "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda" is both improper and inaccurate, given that Carter did not actually do what Dershowitz is said to have accused him of doing.

We could perhaps write "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for allegedly having compared the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda", but then we'd have to include a follow-up sentence indicating that Carter didn't actually say this. I can't imagine Dershowitz coming off well in such a comparison and, frankly, I can't see Carter's original comments as being sufficiently important for inclusion. CJCurrie 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [Clarification: I've re-read Dershowitz's article. He was smart enough not to accuse Carter of directly comparing Palestine today with the Rwanda genocide, although the character of his piece is such that readers are likely to draw this very conclusion.] CJCurrie 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• The new edit is no better. Anyone with the slightest bit of sense will realize that the current wording is a grotesque distortion of what Carter actually said, even if the words are technically correct.

• I'm not going to back down on this point. CJCurrie 01:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Add: I don't appreciate SlimVirgin's decision to remove the dispute template while I was still making my comments on this forum: [16]. CJCurrie 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That disputed tag should not be removed till all of this is sorted. Dershowitz falsely accused is probably how the article should read. Jasper23 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I took this out of the article because it isn't true.

Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. Jasper23 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Jasper, in what way isn't it true? The transcript shows the comparison very clearly. The text previously said he was comparing it to the genocide, and that's not so clear, so it was changed to "situation." Having said that, it's not clear that he didn't mean the genocide; all he says is he doesn't mean "ancient history" in Rwanda, but the genocide isn't ancient history. I think this is an important example of him being caught out using ridiculous hyperbole, and being unwilling to retract. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite clear that he doesn't mean the genocide. You can criticize him for using the words "ancient history", if you wish, but it's crystal clear for the transcript that he's referring to Rwanda *now*, not Rwanda in 1994.

As to your "ridiculous hyperbole" argument, wouldn't that be original research? CJCurrie 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't say "genocide" now. I don't understand your last point. If I put it in the article, it would be OR, yes. Does that extend to talk too? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say "genocide" now. It merely links to an article where Dershowitz incorrectly accuses Carter of comparing the situation in Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and is written in a such a manner that readers are likely to believe Carter was referring to the genocide. Seriously, you really need to take a step back if you can't see the problem with this text. CJCurrie 02:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [Clarification: I've re-read Dershowitz's article. He was smart enough not to accuse Carter of directly comparing Palestine today with the Rwanda genocide, although the character of his piece is such that readers are likely to draw this very conclusion.] CJCurrie 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are taking sides. We report what reliable sources say, not what CJCurrie wishes they had said. The transcript is clear. He does make the comparison and he thinks the situation with the Palestinians is worse. Dershowitz points that out. We publish that he pointed it out. End of story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Dershowitz's comments draw into question his status as a reliable source. Anyone who reads the transcript can see for themselves that he was wrong. To the original point, Carter's observation that Palestine 2006 is worse than Rwanda 2006 is not particularly notable to begin with, so I can't see how AD's comments are at all relevant. CJCurrie 02:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [Clarification: I've re-read Dershowitz's article. He was smart enough not to accuse Carter of directly comparing Palestine today with the Rwanda genocide, although the character of his piece is such that readers are likely to draw this very conclusion.] CJCurrie 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't say he compared it to the genocide. How many times? But he does compare it to Rwanda, and says it is worse. Read the transcript properly. And no, Dershowitz doesn't get called into question as a reliable source just because you don't like him. There is a real world out there in which Dershowitz has credibility, your personal opinions notwithstanding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed this below. Even if we accept that the Dershowitz article should be included (and I do not accept this premise), the current wording is still a grotesque violation of both NPOV and BLP. Seriously, Slim, what do you think readers are likely to conclude from the present wording? CJCurrie 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It could not be clearer now. And it is not up to you to decide that Dershowitz is not a reliable source, just because you don't like him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider Dershowitz to be an unreliable source because his recent article transparently misrepresents the context of Carter's remarks. My personal opinion of Dershowitz is not the point at issue. Why must you always assume the worst? CJCurrie 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. Moments after I removed the Disputed notice (since the disputed text was no longer in the article), SlimVirgin decided to restore the disputed text without also restoring the disputed notice. Quite charming, really.

To the point at issue: the current wording may be technically accurate, but it is also woefully misleading and inappropriate for the article. That SlimVirgin doesn't seem to recognize this is quite disconcerting, although not entirely surprising.

At the risk of repeating myself, please note that I'm not going to back down on this point. CJCurrie 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent apology for this kind of behavior really didn't mean anything, did it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? CJCurrie 02:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about this, which I'd hoped was an apology for your intransigent revert warring, but clearly not. I've also asked you twice to show me examples of you adding, or agreeing to the addition of, criticism to articles about left-wing figures; you said you would supply examples but haven't. Here I see you once again editing only from your own narrow POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim, pay very close attention: I offered an apology on the Israeli apartheid page because I realized I was in the wrong on a particular point. I am not going to apologize for my behaviour here, because I am not in the wrong on this point. In response to your ad hominem attacks: (i) not that it's relevant, but I did provide you with an example, (ii) I'm reverting information that any reasonable reader would find inappropriate. CJCurrie 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking other editors to revert war for you. [17] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Jasper23 to review your reversion of his edit. There's nothing wrong with that, or are we only allowed to make such requests on private listservs? CJCurrie 02:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You've asked him to revert for you because you're out of reverts, even though the text is now completely accurate and well-sourced. I can't say anything more to you. I've really had it with your editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie has asked someone else to intervene. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin may be interested to learn that I have no strong personal history with YoYoDa1, and do not know how he will respond to my request. He may side against me, for all I know. CJCurrie 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are unbelievable. All YoYoDa1 has done practically is edit this article, and he's given you a barnstar! [18] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice why he gave me a barnstar? From what I can tell, YoYoDa1 has a genuine concern for neutrality on this piece. (In any event, he's decided not to intervene for the present time.) CJCurrie 03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The text is technically accurate and technically sourced, but is still hopelessly wrong for the article. It's a shame that you don't realize this. CJCurrie 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is YOUR POV. The edit is accurate. It is sourced to a reliable source, albeit one you personally don't like. The source discussed it in the context of this issue, so it's relevant. Your POV is not relevant. It's a shame that you don't realize this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim: The current edit is a grotesque distortion of what Carter actually said. It may be accurate in a very narrow and technical sense, but it's also an obscene violation of both NPOV and BLP. CJCurrie 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Carter said. He said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know," and was called on it.

• CARTER: ... [T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know.
• SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?
• CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
• SHUSTER: Yes.
• CARTER: Yes.
• SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?
• CARTER: I'm not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
• SHUSTER: You're talking about right now, you're not talking about say, a few years ago.
• CARTER: I'm not talking about ancient history, no.
• SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn't ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
• CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory .... They're taken away all the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as was done in South Africa against the blacks.

But you still don't seem to understand the NOR policy. Even if the above were completely irrelevant, Dershowitz criticized Carter for it. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you think about it, because we are simply reporting what D said, and it's clearly not a trivial matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if I accept your premise that Dershowitz's piece is an appropriate source for this article (which I do not), the current wording is still a grotesque distortion of both NPOV and BLP.

Incidentally, I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I see you misdescribed the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already corrected my remarks concerning Dershowitz's article here, and was about to do the same on the RfC page before you intervened. Everything else I said was correct. CJCurrie 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Slim has just adjusted the text. The current version is much better, although not quite perfect (the final section is still misleading, and requires either rewording or further clarification). CJCurrie 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not quite perfect? How careless of me. Why couldn't you have adjusted the wording? Why must you always and only revert, revert, revert? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that SlimVirgin has added further text. The current edit is not even close to being acceptable, and I plan to challenge it at the earliest possible opportunity. (Carter did not "invoke" Rwanda, for a start ...) CJCurrie 04:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a quote from Dershowitz. He is a prominent critic. You are not going to correct him. The interviewer asked Carter about Rwanda and he SAID YES. He could have said no. He is a former president, not a deer caught in the headlights. He said yes. Therefore, he opened himself up to this criticism, and we're not going to censor it for your benefit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Why do you almost never edit? You revert, revert, revert, when all you'd have to do is edit, adjust the wording, find a better source. Often, you're reverting so much other people can't get their edits in because of edit conflicts with you. Then calling up other people, and RfCs, and time-wasting arguments on talk. Why couldn't you have done what I just did? It's a serious question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He said "Yes", the situation in Palestine today is worse than the situation in Rwanda today. I suspect that certain people have an interest in twisting this comment, to insinuate that he said "Yes" to something else. Removing obviously tendentious editing is not "censorship", by any reasonable definition.

To answer your question: I add text frequently. If it seems like most of my edits that you happen to notice are reverts, perhaps this has something to do with the things that other contributors have tried to add to these articles. CJCurrie 04:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The article now says that he compared the situation with the Palestinians to the situation in Rwanda today. You didn't answer the question. Why didn't you clarify the text, rather than remove it all, remove the sources, the transcript, revert it two or three times, put a disputed tag on it twice, and then file an RfC? Why didn't you just edit? Please answer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is: because I don't believe a reference this misleading belongs in the article at all. CJCurrie 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then my question is: why do you feel you should decide which reliable sources who have discussed Carter get to be included? If you believe you have a right to ditch prominent, reliable critics with serious criticism, you've totally misunderstood the content policies and the purpose of Wikipedia. Instead, you could ensure that anything written is written accurately, but you almost never do that. You revert immediately, instinctively, and constantly, even though you must know by now that that's the most time-consuming route with these articles. I know that reverting with controversial articles is sometimes the best way to proceed, but you do it way too often and too fast. Seriously, when it gets to the stage that other people can't improve their edits (by finding sources, by adjusting the wording), because you're involved, and that means constant reverting and therefore constant edit conflicts (and others having to worry whether they inadvertently violate 3RR by making an improvement to something you've just reverted), then it means there's a problem. Please give this some thought. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize for removing misleading and tendentious references, Slim. This particular Dershowitz article can hardly be called "serious criticism": it's a horrific distortion of Carter's literal words to suggest something he quite obviously never intended. Beyond which, I've not seen any indication that the mainstream media has covered this particular story, and I suspect that referencing this article before Carter has a chance to respond may effectively give Wikipedia a complicit role in a smear campaign.

I'm going to explain my position in more detail, shortly. CJCurrie 05:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dershowitz point is a very important, relevant one. The criticism is that some people on the left are obsessed by Israel for reasons that can't be explained, or rather it can be explained in some cases, but I'm assuming that's not relevant here. They focus exclusively on it, exaggerate what's going on there, and usually they don't know much about it themselves. Carter was caught doing that very thing. He said it represented the worst human rights violations he knew of. He was asked "Worse than Rwanda?" And, clarifying that he meant Rwanda today, he said yes. Even with that clarification, it's absurd for the reasons Dershowitz pointed out. Then he tried to backtrack, saying he didn't want to talk about it, because he knew he'd said something very silly. He's a former president of the most powerful country in the world. He doesn't need you to defend him. And the references were not misleading or tendentious. The transcript was even provided! And you removed that too ...

As I said elsewhere, it boils down to good editing. Please try to engage in good editing, instead of POV censorship, removal of source material, and the endless reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting extrapolation, albeit one that's easy to refute. In any event, I've already outlined my position in greater detail, and I have no desire to continue this tiresome back-and-forth. If you choose to respond, please do so in a separate section rather than cutting up my remarks. CJCurrie 06:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The present controversy

I suspect that some readers may not want to read through all of the previous discussion between myself and SlimVirgin. For such readers, here's an overview:

On 28 November 2006, Jimmy Carter appeared on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" to discuss his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". David Shuster was the guest host.

The full interview may be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/

This the relevant section:

[CARTER]: So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—

SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?

CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?

SHUSTER: Yes.

CARTER: Yes.

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.

CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.

SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.

CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.

Two things should be obvious to all readers: (i) Carter did not compare the current occupation of Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and (ii) Carter did not invoke the example of Rwanda.

On 8 December 2006, Alan Dershowitz responded with the following editorial piece in the The Huffington Post: [19]

This was reprinted by the pro-Israel advocacy group StandWithUs two days later: [20]

What's the point of mentioning where it was reprinted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Because we cite StandWithUs as our source. CJCurrie 06:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I asked the question. They are not the original source, so why mention them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Our article currently summarizes this situation as follows:

Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. During an interview with David Shuster for MSNBC, Carter said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know." When asked whether he believed it to be "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter replied "yes," and clarified that he was referring to the situation in Rwanda now, and not what he called "ancient history." [14][15] Dershowitz called Carter's backing away from the analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel. [13]

My position is that this summary is both misleading and prejudicial, for the following reasons:

1. It isn't clear that Carter did compare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda, except insofar as he responded to a specific question from an interviewer. Our first sentence, as such, seems to misrepresent Carter's approach to the situation.

   But he did respond, and he said yes. He could have said no, he did not think it was worse than Rwanda, then or now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

2. A phrase such as "ancient history" is non-specific, and is likely to be misinterpreted. The interviewer asked Carter if he was referring to the situation in Rwanda "a few years ago", and he responded "no". If we are to reference this matter at all, we should clarify this point. (By way of an aside: I suspect that some readers may consider the "ancient history" phrase to have been inappropriate on Carter's part. They are entitled to this opinion, but it's entirely peripheral to the dispute at hand).

   We can't clarify it, because we don't know what he meant. We can only say what he said.

3. It is not clear that Carter "backed away from the analogy", except insofar as he declined to pursue his interviewer's invitation for a comparison. Even Dershowitz qualifies this particular accusation better than we do, saying that Carter "seems to have" backed away.

   Again, we say what Carter said, what the interviewer said, what Dershowitz said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Since Carter did not invoke the Rwanda analogy, it is difficult to understand how he could have "trafficked in" its symbolism. We are not under any compulsion to reference Dershowitz's comments when they are flatly contradicted by the evidence.

   He trafficked in it as soon as he started using superlatives about the Palestinian situation, for reasons I've explained above. D's criticism is about C's, and the left's (that includes yours) "obsessive focus" on Israel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Beyond these specific criticisms, it should be clear to any reader with even the smallest bit of sophistication in these matters that Dershowitz's piece was intended as a smear, not as serious journalism. Dershowitz was smart enough to avoid directly accusing Carter of comparing the current situation in Palestine with the Rwandan genocide, but it's unlikely that many people reading his blog entry would have made this subtle distinction (to their credit, however, some respondents did). It may not have been misrepresentation under a strict legal definition of the term, but the piece was clearly a distortion, elevating a trivial exchance to the level of a pseudo-scandal.

I also have some concerns about the use of sources. The other Dershowitz criticisms in this article are taken from the New York Sun, a credible journal. StandWithUs and Dershowitz's blog are not reliable, peer-reviewed sources, and I doubt that any credible paper would have published a piece so misleading. We don't regularly cite pieces from FrontPage Magazine, so why should we cite this?

Dershowitz's blog may be used under V and RS, because he's a well-known professional commentator on the issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Dershowitz recently published a highly truncated reference to this controversy in a piece for the Boston Globe. It might be possible for us to reference that work, although I'm not certain how one could do this without engaging in "quote-mining".

From what I can tell, no other credible journalistic source has referenced this controversy at. I'm concerned that referencing this matter on Wikipedia would simply make us complicit in the smear. CJCurrie 06:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a smear. We reproduce the transcript. Readers can judge for themselves, which is what you don't want them to do, it appears. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE. CJCurrie 06:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried ... CJCurrie 06:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what they said, and what we say

It's very simple. Why not let readers and other editors judge for themselves whether we've portrayed it accurately. See below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is what Wikipedia says:

Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. During an interview with David Shuster for MSNBC, Carter said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know." When asked whether he believed it to be "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter replied "yes," and clarified that he was referring to the situation in Rwanda now, and not what he called "ancient history." Dershowitz called Carter's backing away from the analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel.

Here is what Dershowitz wrote: [21]

Here is what Carter said:

• CARTER: ... [T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know.
• SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?
• CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
• SHUSTER: Yes.
• CARTER: Yes.
• SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?
• CARTER: I'm not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
• SHUSTER: You're talking about right now, you're not talking about say, a few years ago.
• CARTER: I'm not talking about ancient history, no.
• SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn't ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
• CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory .... They're taken away all the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as was done in South Africa against the blacks. [22]

---

Opinions

Readers may note that the excerpt I've provided above is more complete. CJCurrie 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and cluttered with your own opinions, which is why I'd like to keep it simple — what we say, what Dershowitz said, and what Carter said. And then let people judge whether it's accurately portrayed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means, readers should take up this challenge. I suspect I know what fair-minded readers will think of Dershowitz's piece, and our summarization of the same. CJCurrie 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Double standard?

[23] CJCurrie 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But why is it my double standard, CJ, and not yours? YOU think that Chesler's copy editing errors in one book must be alluded to because one source mentioned them. But at the same time you think a former president's comparison of the Palestinian situation to RWANDA (!) should not be mentioned, even though a source has criticized him for it. Were it not for WP:NPA, I'd be tempted to use the word "hypocrisy." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I fail to see how a former president's decision to compare Palestine in 2006 with RWANDA (!) in 2006 should occasion anyone's concern, especially as he wasn't the one who raised the issue. Rwanda still bears the scars of the horrific upheavals from twelve years ago (to say nothing of its more recent conflicts with Uganda over Congolese territory), but there's nothing particularly insulting about comparing the two populations today. I can't help but wonder if certain writers are deliberately encouraging confusion between Rwanda 2006 and Rwanda 1994 in order to make Carter appear to have said something he did not. Perhaps I'm overly cynical.

As far as Chesler goes, how do you know that her mistakes are merely "copy editing errors"? I'd be hard-pressed to define the Aung San Suu Kyi error in those terms, personally. CJCurrie 04:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)