I am taking the liberty of sticking in someone else's letter here for all to read. Ask Pytho about the editorial changes that were made.
More Diverse Opinions Needed in Carter Debate
To the editor:
It is only too trite that the editorial page of the Wheel has featured articles from Jews written in support of Israel and articles from Muslims taking the side of Jimmy Carter, "Carter Under Fire" (Jan. 30). Isn't it time for a perspective-building role reversal in this mother of all polemics?
I used to be more supportive of Israel until I decided to research Israeli policy a bit more. It seems to me that Carter is mostly right in his controversial little book, and many of the points are ripe for discussion among an American audience.
Life in the West Bank is considerably worse than life in Israel. Sustaining this condition for decades based upon an intransigent security doctrine does not comport with international standards.
Unfortunately, most of the criticism of Carter, including Kenneth Stein's, the William E. Schatten Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History and Israeli Studies, and the Wheel's own, are unfair. They forfeit substance for personal attack, hearsay, demagoguery and other false devices.
For example, "an avalanche of criticism" leaves out any mention of his many supporters and your remarks about the "three most prominent colleagues" are similarly misleading. Nor is the suggestion accurate that Carter, who had the integrity to retract one line in the book, is on the run or discredited - to the contrary - Carter has defended his position with great poise and sensitivity.
Your suggestion that Carter is a Holocaust denier is downright irresponsible. You paraphrased Stein's claim that the book is "rife with factual inaccuracies," but his recent published clarification was mostly hot air, except for a couple of jabs where he discusses Carter's treatment of Palestinian terrorism. But the facts concerning Israel's occupation of the West Bank do stand up to scrutiny, I'm afraid, and as Israel's most influential partner, the attitudes of the United States do matter.
Posts
1 comment:
All very well. There are some good reasons why Carter is not known as one of the best presidents, however. This is not to say he was not one of the best people to have been president or that his administration didn't have some of the best intentions. Ultimately he proved to be ineffective in many areas. I think he and the public had the misfortune of late 70s timing. He may have been the perfect candidate at some other time in the 20th century, such as the mid 50s or early 60s or 90s.
Post a Comment