Jimmy Carter Fallout – 14 Resign From Carter Center Board
Fourteen members of the Carter Center board who worked to build support for the human rights organization started by former President Jimmy Carter and his wife have resigned in protest over Carter’s latest book.
The resignations announced today are the latest in a backlash against the former president’s book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” It has drawn fire from Jewish groups, been attacked by fellow Democrats and led to the resignation last month of Kenneth Stein — a Carter Center fellow and a longtime Carter adviser.
The members of the Center’s Board of Councilors wrote of Carter in the letter of resignation “you have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side.”
The book follows the Israeli-Palestinian peace process starting with Carter’s 1977-1980 presidency and the peace accord he negotiated between Israel and Egypt. It lays blame on Israel, the Palestinians, the United States and others, but it is most critical of Israeli policy.
The 14 who resigned are members of the 200-member board. A Carter Center’s spokeswoman did not have an immediate comment. Steve Berman, an Atlanta real estate developer among those who resigned, said members have “watched with great dismay” as Carter defended the book, especially as he implied that Americans might be afraid to discuss the conflict in fear of a powerful Jewish lobby. Berman said the religious affiliation of the resigning members, which include some prominent Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area, did not influence their decision.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said in a statement Thursday that Carter “has only himself to blame” for the resignations because the book was “blatantly one-sided and unbecoming of a former President.”
Also Thursday, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, which represents nearly 2,000 Reform rabbis, said it would cancel its visit to the Carter Center in protest over the book when the group holds its convention in Atlanta in March.
The resignations came a day after Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo and officials at Brandeis University said Carter will discuss the book at the Waltham, Mass., campus. The Nobel Peace Prize winner will not, however, debate the book with outspoken Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, as Brandeis originally proposed.
See: Alan Dershowitz Confronts Jimmy Carter’s Cowardice
Palestinian Authority Near Civil War — Jimmy Carter Still Blames Israel
Posted: 1522PST 01/11/07
An Angeleno's View of the World 
Listen to those who responded or thought about responding to my comment a couple days ago on this blog on Pelosi please see my comment – response here on my blog, Hear Ye! Hear Ye! – it’s really mean’t for you all.
(http://donnatoo.blogspot.com/2007/01/welcome-i-hope.html#links)
Now for the reason I’m posting this as a comment to the new post (which I heartily agree) is I want to know if anyone thinks this horrific picture and outcome is actually real? If so, what do you think? Here is the link to the post on this Iraqi’s blog. The post has the link but read the post.
(http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/iraq_dispatches/000511.php)
I linked to the blog from a what I thought was reputable blogroll at the time and which I can’t remember right now.
This “fallout” merely confirms what the likes of Walt and Mearsheimer claimed in their essay ‘The israel Lobby’.
Seems Wesley Clark has also reached similar conclusions.
Support for israel WILL become a liability for those seeking office, which is why the noise and fear from the israel-firsters is palpable.
The country saw through this incompetent in 80,ran him from office with a vast majority,but silly libs keep rejuvenating a failure.He’s an out and out Jew hating communist.
OFF TOPIC AGAIN – I POSTED THIS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR’S ON MY SITE:
This is why I’ve tried to thrash out that cut and run expression. I agree with you guys 100% but I see is a major, fundamental problem and that is whether or not that very much needed and desired goal is attainable. I assume you see it as attainable. HOW is it attainable. That’s why I refer to Pantano about doing what’s needed to be done. Then I see that picture I gave you all the link to…. But I think I can get beyond the unintended consquences to children and others “in the way” – what I worry about as far as winning are at last two (2) things: the people we are fighting do not care if they die, and may see value to them and all their relatives in dying. (This is a major difference between the Cold War and probably Viet Nam – maybe some Japanese didnt care). Second problem is soethigs I’ve seen in on the news, war/soldier documentaries and read. That’s the excuse or explanation given by the Iraqis we seek to help. The Iraqi soldiers have this attitude of G’d (or Allah or whomever) willing the result or thier behavior then that’s he route they go. This fatalistic, out of my hands, blame Allah or Mohammed or whomever and take no responsibility for their country’s welfare.
So, this is why I believe many favor leaving. The perceived lack of a winning plan that will enable a win. The perception that we are putting troops into a no win situation (Viet Nam like) as far as the way the war is now fought or must be ethically fought. Our country has an aversion of doing the things that the dictators neededto use to keep the peace in their countries. And probably so do I – probably.
Did you pay attention to the part of Bush’s speech tha sai that we will NOW go into places tha were off limits? Did you know that we restricted the war to certain neighborhoods and places? I couldn’t believe I heard tha and the part about not worring about the various sectarian groups. Why would we be curtailing our fight like that?
Jimmy Carter’s personal belief has changed more than anyone or any President in American history. When he ran for President in 1976 he had the support of Jerry Falwell and his Moral majority, four years before Ronald Reagan received the same support. Jimmy Carter was always, and continues to be the blank slate everyone can put their own beliefs on until he is seen in action under his own devices.
Carter’s latest revealing shows the same problen he had while President: he is for everything and stands for nothing. Nobel Peace Prize or not, the man gets less understandable the older he gets. When Gerald Ford died last month and his adminstration was put into historical perspective, it is a wonder we Americans elected Jimmy Carter to begin with. Carter never got anything accomplish that was his own. I know someone will write about the Panama Canal Treaty or Camp David Accords but his two precedessors had as much to do with those two diplomatic suceesses than Mr. Carter.
Jimmy Carter nearly destroyed the economy in the late 70s. More businesses folded under his tenure than any modern President. His latest books shows why this country denied him a second term, and for good reason.
Danny L. McDaniel
Danny my compliments on a very well written post.The historical blunders of Jimma have come back to bite us.
You know the more I think of it he (in his Opinion)Didn’t blunder.No it was the refutation of his policy’s that were the blunders.
With all due respect, I think you’ve totally misunderstood the Carter issue. For one, lets remember that to date Carter is the only American President to convince an Arab country (Egypt) to accept peace with Israel. Characterizing him as a Jew hater is completely rediculous based on a book that does not critisize Jews, but Israeli POLICIES, which last I checked is also done in Israel itself. Few would accuse the Labor party of being “Jew Haters” for promoting the land-for peace initiatives and holding Likud accountable for its absurd policies. Secondly, the 14 advisory members of his Carter institute resigned because Carter, had “become an advocate for one side” and “abandoned historic neutrality” on this issue.
If that’s really an honest belief, then I ask you if you REALLY think they would have resigned had Carter taken a “pro Israeli” bias as well? Or what if he had too harshly critisized Palestinians? Would they have resigned there too? It’s not because he “took sides” that’s being disingenuous, it’s because he critisized Israeli policies, which is apparently unacceptable. And ironically, the fact that such discussion is unacceptable is frankly proving his point. We can critisize Chinese foreign policy in Mongolia, but we can’t talk about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in any way which suggests its less than completely praiseworthy. Moreover, his book was about “PALESTINE” and not “ISRAEL” and if you watched his interviews he is careful not to attack Israel on its treatment of Arabs within israel, and instead discusses only Israeli policies in UN-mandated Palestinian lands (per Resolution 242).
Thirdly, I think your viewpoint suggests that you could not even DEFINE Pro-Israeli bias. What would such a bias look like? since you take it for granted that the Israeli’s are justified in all their policies, then I submit to you that you are in no position to lecture the former president on “biases” and on “neutrality.” You sir, have taken a side, far more in comparison to Mr. Carter, who has shown that he is the only politician brave enough to bring peace to the Middle East.
With all die respect, Gerald Ford started the process and nearly had the Egyptian sign a treaty as well. He was cut short by Carters win in 1976. The Egyptians; that is, Sadat wanted a peace agreement 5 years before Carter got it finalized.
Let’s put the Carter years in perspective: gas lines, windfall profits tax that did nothing, failed energy policy with Congress controlled by his own party, the Fed chairman Carter picked with no economic experience that resigned one month into his tenure before he wisely picked Paul Volcker, mass firing of his cabinet more than two years into his adminstration, the “malaise” speech which said “I don’t know what is wrong with you people”, asking his daughter, Amy, for advice about nuclear weapons treaty, hostage crisis, failed hostage rescue mission with more movable parts than my car.
Panama Canal and Camp David treaties were started by Nixon and Ford and a monkey could have concluded those two. What did Jimmy Carter successful start and successful conclude?
Forgot Jummy Carter’s other bons-fide legacies: high unemployment and high inflation, a depressed housing market, and his own party would have booted him out in 1980 and taken Ted Kennedy if not for the country ralling around Jimma because of the Iran Hostage Crisis.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, either your a brainless Democrat or never lived through that era!
By the way his own party did not want him at the 1984 Democratic National Convention for the embarassment he caused. Believe me his monker in 1976 was “Jimmy Who?’ Believe me it finds!