Carter Visit Sees Some Controversy In Jewish Circles

[Purveyor]

Berkeley Hillel Cites Book’s ‘Distorted Perspective’; Event Organizer Says Opposing Speaker Unnecessary

Former president Jimmy Carter’s on-campus visit scheduled for Wednesday has incited some discontent in the campus’ Jewish community.
A statement issued Friday by Berkeley Hillel on Carter coming to speak on his book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” stated that the group is concerned with what they said was a “distorted perspective” offered by Carter on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

ASUC Senator Sammy Averbach, who is involved with Hillel and has not read Carter’s book, said he thinks that having Carter speak will not be positive for the campus community because of what he called “inappropriate and blasphemous assertions” made in Carter’s book.

“I want there to be some recognition of the other side,” Averbach said. “The majority of students that are going don’t know about the situation and will hear a very one-sided view.”

--
“He is going to talk for 15 minutes and will answer questions for 45 minutes. How is having individual UC Berkeley students able to ask a former president questions not valuable?” Ali-Sullivan said. “Tell me when it became policy that every time a speaker comes to campus, we have to invite someone to refute him.”

---eoe---

http://www.dailycal.org:80/sharticle.php?id=24880

[Tom Joad]

1. While there will be many Jews who will welcome his visit to Berkeley.

Jewish Voice for Peace.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

[rodeodance]

2. seems like a very close minded chap

[madrchsod]

3. the only president that lives his life

by the principals of bible and he`s not worthy of being heard? goes to show that there are assholes in every religion

[Jim Sagle]

4. And Jimmeh's one of the biggest.

[Tom Joad]

6. you are right, he is a great man.

[oberliner]

8. A man who strongly supports the Geneva Accord

Unlike the folks at "endtheoccupation.org" who do not.

[Tom Joad]

9. Some groups that are part of that coalition do support the Geneva

Accord.

[The Magistrate]

10. Then You Can Have A Dandy Little Civil War All On Your Own, Mr. Joad

What is the view of the faction that disburses funds and maintains the web site, and prepares the media materials?

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Disagreement on something doesn't mean civil war...

And I'm at a loss as to why yr going on about Tom having a civil war all on his own when the discussion is supposed to be about what people say in their posts, not about the poster themselves...

[The Magistrate]

22. That Last, Ms. Crumble, Is Well Below Your Usual Standard Of Comment

Disagreement over basic items in a coalition such as this demonstrates basic conflict between its elements, that can only be regarded as postponed, and must at some point issue either in departure or expulsions of some of its elements. Here in the happy world of U.S. left activism, violence will not be a feature, but elsewhere, that might not be so. The general pattern in this sort of thing is a core clique of hard-line career radicals who come to dominate the actual activities of the coalition through diligent attendance and bloc co-operation on committee votes, surounded and to some degree concealed by an umbrella of liberal sorts who actually share very litle of the radicals' views and program, but who are initially constrained in reaction to their growing influence by not wanting to seem 'red-baiters' or 'McCarthy-ites', as well as by gratitude that someone else is doing the nuts and bolts tasks, since they have other responsibilities and interests in their lives. Sooner or later, there is always a crunch, a serious fracture, and a parting of the ways.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. one can have serious reservatons Sir and find a position far less than an ideal

but still not completely rule it out and recognize that a "not very good offer" is still better than the status quo.

As Phyllis Bennis puts it, "It is possible that given the current disparity of power between the two sides, that something like the Geneva Accord may be the best that could be negotiated in the present climate."

but there are legitimate concerns and Dr. Bennis lays out in a reasonable critique:

"Israel will be allowed to establish Early Warning Systems in Palestinian territory in the northern and central West Bank, and to keep its military forces in the Jordan Valley. The Multinational Force which is to "provide security guarantees to the Parties, act as a deterrent, and oversee the implementation of the relevant provisions of this Agreement" will only be stationed in Palestine, not in Israel where it might deter acts of aggression. And in anything connected to "terrorism" as well as any security issues in the Old City of Jerusalem, a "Trilateral Security Committee" composed of the two parties plus the U.S. will have authority, not the multinational force. That will give the U.S. dangerously high levels of control.

On the borders, Palestinian authorities and the Multinational Force will share official control – but Israel will be allowed to maintain an "unseen" presence at airports, border crossings, etc., for at least two and one-half years, with possible extensions of time. No such Palestinian (or international) involvement will be allowed at crossings into Israel. And the "Israeli Air Force shall be entitled to use the Palestinian sovereign airspace for training purposes" thus further undermining the Agreement's claim to "recognize and respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence, as well as the inviolability of each others territory, including territorial waters, and airspace."

The Geneva Accord recognizes both "Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples." But Israel is recognized in accordance with "the right of the Jewish people to statehood," rather than referring to the right of "Israelis" to a state. This, despite the language "without prejudice to the equal rights of the Parties' respective citizens," seems to effectively accept as legitimate the existing discrimination against the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The draft accepts the annexation of the Jerusalem settlements, as well as some outside of Jerusalem, leading to half the total settlers and many of the settlements remaining in Israeli hands. While Geneva goes farther than Oslo or Madrid in calling for a 1 – 1 exchange of territory for that Palestinian land lost to those settlements, it still is flawed by requiring Palestinian acceptance of largely infertile land abutting Gaza in exchange for the built-up urban areas surrounding Arab Jerusalem which would be annexed to Israel. "

link to full article:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Bennis_Geneva-Accord.htm

.

[The Magistrate]

20. The Operative Element In Ms. Bennis' Comments, Sir

Is that it is the best that could be negotiated in the present climate. That is true, and the strongest grounds possible for acceptance, as the climate is hardly likely to improve, and has in some ways deteriorated even since the private negotiators worked out these arrangements.

The rest of this does not really mean much. None of it would be of the slightest importance if there actually were a cessation of attacks by Arab Palestinian militant bodies against Israel and its citizens, and if these do not cease, there is not going to be peace anyway. To me, stating something gives the U.S. a 'dangerously high level of control', as if U.S. influence in this matter were a bad thing, discredits not the thing being so characterized, but rather the person employing that characterization, and inclines me to view that person as, at best, something of a crank, and that regardless of any credentials that might be mustered in her favor. An extra layer of Israeli security at crossings into Israel through a period of trust-building strikes me as quite appropriate, and complaint there is no reciprocal Arab Palestinian presence is mere formalism: the great killing problem in the situation has been the infiltration into Israel of Arab Palestinian militants bent on attacking Israelis, not any infiltration of Israelis into Palestine bent on killing Arab Palestinians; when the Israelis go in, it is as formed military forces wholly under state control, that no customs shed is going to halt. Items such as early warning stations and aerial exercises do not truely compromise sovereignty, particularly if agreed to by the hosting state. The presence of substantial Israeli military forces in the Jordan valley is more problematic in my view, and always has been in considering this formula. Insistence on it seems to disregard the likelihood that a genuine peace between Israel and Arab Palestine would greatly reduce the potential threat to Israel from the Arab world at large. Were the Geneva formula to actually be put into practice, this element certainly ought to be the object of further negotiations after a space of a few years, by which time the Israelis might well be disposed to dispense with it.

[oberliner]

11. The US Campaign Steering Committee statement vs. President Carter's

"This agreement would resolve the conflict's most critical issues, including border delineations, Israeli settlements, the excessive occupation of Palestinian lands, the future of Jerusalem and its holy places, and the extremely troubling question of Palestinian refugees. It is unlikely that we shall ever see a more promising foundation for peace."

- Geneva Initiative Public Commitment Event: Remarks by Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter

"The Geneva Accord continues the unfortunate pattern of previous peace efforts, building up people's hopes and diverting their energies through high profile negotiations and agreements that never fully address the roots of the conflict."

-US Campaign Steering Committee Statement on the Geneva Accords

[The Magistrate]

12. The Former, Sir, Is Clear And Whole-Hearted Support

The latter is weaseling rejection....

[Tom Joad]

13. You also see that Carter's book is highlighted on the homepage.

Even if there is disagreement with the Geneva Accords. That they think falls short.

[The Magistrate]

14. Where Do They Fall Short, Sir?

[oberliner]

15. Yes, I do

And if you click on "read more" you will note the following:

"The US Campaign has not reviewed an advance copy of the book and cannot speak to its content. However, the fact that a former US president is using the term “apartheid” to describe Israel’s policies toward Palestinians represents a fundamental shift in the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the United States and has the potential to dramatically shift US policy for the better."

Clearly the book is highlighted on the homepage because of the desire to attach the term "apartheid" to Israel not to express agreement with the proposals presented in the book (which had not been read before including its mention on the site).

As you know, President Carter's book proposes that, through negotiated land swaps, the "green line" border would be modified to permit a substantial number of Israelis settlers to remain in Palestine.

That would appear to be contrary to the goals of the site, as articulated by the members of the steering committee.

[Tom Joad]

19. Yes, the coalition supports a resolution based on international law

and human rights. Does not believe that land should be taken by military force.

[The Magistrate]

21. Specifics Would Be Nice, Mr. Joad

What you have said here is absolutely meaningless, and puts us, again, into "I like ice-cream! Who doesn't?" land in attempting to assess what you would actually regard as an acceptable settlement to the conflict between these two peoples, that both have been pursuing heartily for nigh on ninety years.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Seeing inconsequential tangents are being brought into this thread...

The Israeli govt didn't support the Geneva Accord...

[regnaD kciN]

5. "One-sided"...? How typical...

“I want there to be some recognition of the other side,” Averbach said. “The majority of students that are going don’t know about the situation and will hear a very one-sided view.”

Considering that, if you look at the mainstream media and the lip-service paid by most politicians, there is only one side (the Likudnik "perpetuate the occupation" side -- as some have noted, the U.S. political atmosphere is more hard-line "pro-Israeli" than is Israel itself), this bleating about "one-sided" presentations is somewhat along the lines of Faux News whining about being a tiny brave minority in the vast sea of The Liberal Media. :eyes:

[Shaktimaan]

7. I see an enormous amount of diversity

in opinions from the mainstream news media on this subject. What are you talking about?