The Case against Carter

The original posting is below the dividing line:

Here is the case against Simon and Schuster, link added Jan 17th, 2007
________________________________
Carter defends his book.

Dershowitz responds to Carter's book.

And a professor resigns from The Carter Center of Emory University:

"This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University."

and

"President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."
___________
Update 12-17-06 in Jerusalem Post - Carter explains his use of "Apartheid".

To which: Talkback 160. Inciting violence
Peter R - USA
12/18/2006 03:47

Under US law one may be charged for inciting violence. I am sure Mr Carter is aware of this provision. It is quite clear to most fairminded people, no less to Mr Carter, that the words "Apartheid" and "Nazi" have very clearly defined meanings. Their use requires no "explanation". Thus, the use of "Apartheid" in the context of the Palestinian conflict is purely inflammatory and utterly reckless. No explanation can strip it of its (clearly intended) accusation of "racism".
_____________________

Having written a book of limited merit, Carter seems to have chosen a catchy-hook-title to gain media attention. Here is more on the failings of his book - Carter's compromised statemanship - by David A Harris