Jimmy Carter at Emory

Jimmy Carter appeared at Emory University yesterday to speak about his book -- keeping the stage to himself as he did last month at Brandeis University.  The Emory Wheel reports that “Carter adamantly refused to appear with [Dennis] Ross,” as a group of Emory professors headed by Deborah Lipstadt had urged. 

Lipstadt watched Carter on a live feed and posted her reactions here and here.  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Carter said he didn’t “see the point” in debating Ross:

“Let him come here and present his own views.  I have enough to do.  I don’t have time to come back over and over again and debate Dennis Ross.”

Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Political Science and History Harvey Klehr reported said the arrangements were worse than for Carter’s appearance at Brandeis:

At Brandeis, Carter declined an invitation to debate Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, but Dershowitz gave a speech refuting many of Carter's points after the former president had departed.

"At least they had someone responding after President Carter left the building," Klehr said. "It's unfortunate that Carter, who has said he wrote this book to start dialogue and discussion, doesn't want dialogue and discussion."

Carter yesterday “repeated an apology for a passage [on page 213 of his book] that critics said could be interpreted as supporting suicide bombings as a negotiating tactic” and said it “would be removed from future editions,” according to a report in Yahoo News. 

The sentence on page 213 urged Palestinians to “make it clear they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international law and the ultimate goals of the road map for peace are accepted by Israel” -- a formulation that obviously condones terrorism in the interim, as Emory Professor Mel Konner had written to Carter. 

JCI requested that Simon & Shuster provide us a copy of the revised sentence as it will appear in the next printing of Carter’s book, and (after a series of emails that simulated a dental operation) they provided the new language.  Here is the revised sentence, showing the language Carter has stricken and the words he has added in their place:

It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws renounce all acts of violence against innocent civilians and will accept international laws, the Arab peace proposal of 2002 and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.

There are several interesting aspects of Carter’s changed sentence.  First, he found it necessary to substitute a new phrase -- “acts of violence against innocent civilians” -- in place of “suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism.”  Perhaps that is because a Carter condemnation of “terrorism” would not satisfy many critics given his definition of it on Al Jazeera last month ("I don't consider . . . I wasn't equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism”).

Second, he substituted a new verb -- asking Palestinians simply to “renounce” acts of violence; previously he had called upon them to “end” terrorism (eventually). Why not urge them to start meeting their Phase I Road Map obligation now, and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure?

The best Carter can apparently do is urge the Palestinians to accept “the ultimate goals” of the Road Map (like the Palestinians themselves, he is a fan of Phase III but not of Phase I and II) and endorse the Arab peace proposal of 2002 (which includes a “right of return” he must know is a non-starter). 

It is admirable that he has revised a sentence he acknowledged at Brandeis was “worded in a completely improper and stupid way,” and apologized for it both there and at Emory.  But there is a lot more that Jimmy Carter (and perhaps only Jimmy Carter) could do for peace -- including disabusing the Palestinians of their insistence on a deal-killing "right of return," and emphasizing their need to comply with the agreements they have already made.

Comments

[JorgXMcKie]

It's becoming more and more evident to even the most obtuse that Carter is a large,steaming pile.

[Carl H.]

"Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!"

Malaise forever.

[mhw]

the phrase Carter uses,

"...renounce all acts of violence against innocent civilians" is artfully created smokescreen.

The Palestinian (and other islamic) terrorists have an intricate theology which defines all Israelis (in extreme cases, all infidels) as "non-innocent" or "non civilians".

[Ed Lasky]

That was excellent and great scooping on the Simon and Shuster "front".
"Acts of violence against innocent civilians" also leaves me it all at ease (as it does a previos commentator). Seemingly, it condones attacks on IDF and Security Guards. Also, many Palestinians have made it clear that no Israelis are to be considered "innocent civilians" since both men and women serve in the military, women can have children who will serve in the military, their tax dollars support a government that the Palestinians oppose, etc.
Carter prides himself on being a "plain speaker"-why cannot he just ask them to obey one of the "commandments"-thou shall not kill.

[J. Lichty]

Carter prides himself on being a "plain speaker"-why cannot he just ask them to obey one of the "commandments"-thou shall not kill.

Because he believes that god added a codicil stating . . . "unless its Jews."

This man is pure evil.

[Richard]

By keeping his book available for sale, this man who teaches children Sunday school continues to condone the murder of children--that's who Palestinian terrorists often target. He abides by neither Christian or any other kind of morality.

[Marc]

Hello??
Jimmy Carter is a vile anti-semite and a Saudi money grubbing pant load. There. I feel better.
Do not examine his motives or the crappy book he wrote, (yes I read it). He will do everything possible to bow down to his terror masters.

[David Swyer]

President Carter's book continues to be a mega-best seller and his Zionist critics are just poor losers.

[GnuCarSmell]

Carter's post-edit revisionism is typical. When he changed an 'end' to Arab terrorism (conditioned upon the Israelis' behavior, of course) to 'renouncing' terrorism, it is clear he is going Arafat: his forked tongue both condemns and excuses terrorism at once.

The man is a willing accomplice to evil.

[bruce b]

Didn't Carter call Khomeini 'a man of religion just like I' before he allowed him to sack the greatest US and Israeli ally in the mid east? Would not retaining the Shah have prevented nearly all the blood spilled in that region in the past 30 years? No hezbollah, hamas, saddam would be broken like a twig, no syria threat...

[Roy E. Gold]

Jimmy Carter is a stain on American history. Nevill Chamberlain has been rebuked necause he believed that Nazi Germany was not evil. Carter is far worse. He sees Jews as the world's greatesst problem;he apparently doesn't believe that Islamist vows to kill or convert all infidels to Islam are real. Jimmy Carter, wake up and smell the roses or convert to Islam yourself.

[Gayle Parker]

Jimmy Carter has never emotionally left the White House and considers himself one of the greatest power/peace brokers of the 20th century. He seldoms analyzes in depth why he couldn't release our Americans who were held as prisoners in Lebanon He is a soft spoken pro-Arab, pro- Islam, anti -Jewiish politico who should spend his time building Habitat Houses in some of the most backward and filthy nations in the world, the Arab world. His demeanor is such that many find him kindly. The fall for his facade. When I saw him sitting next to Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention, I knew my days as a Democrat were over.