Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/Archive 1

Stein

A note to clarify regarding the Stein reaction: December 15, 2006 has not happened yet. Please fix the date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.45.152.134 (talk • contribs).

Done, thanks.--GunnarRene 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly PoV

I've added the {{NPOV}} template to the article. Today, the article contains a brief lede paragraph and then the rest of the article is criticism. Clearly, this is not the proper Wikipedia neutral point of view as there must be at least something favorable to say about the book.

Atlant 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There's criticism of the criticism here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. There is little to no information provided on the actual content of the book, and someone has taken it upon themselves to essentially open and close with criticism. --AWF

As of this editing, I strongly agree with Atlant's and AWF's sentiments above. There's little to no context, no substance, no discussion of the charges in Carter's book. Most if not all U.S. Congressmen will not run counter to the principal views of the strong Israel lobby, this is a given, and to quote ad nauseam the predictable responses of Congressmen in the article is unnecessary: consolidating and footnoting the Congressional criticism is sufficient. Furthermore, pronouncement from the highly-biased mouthpiece Alan Dershowitz should be removed entirely: not an elected or appointed official of any group, his views regarding Israel have never been accused of balance or thoughtfulness (unlike the target of this criticism) and they add nothing to the discussion. 64.0.112.5 08:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I think a big step is either removing the Dershowitz commentary entirely or stating his bias clearly (Something like: "Dershowitz himself has been described as an apologist of the Israel lobby, and has consistently held negative opinions of publications which are critical to Israel's policy of Palestine."). I prefer just removing it completely, as he is not really a book reviewer or an authority on the subject. if not remove the whole thing, at least remove the specifics about whether or not the 6 day war was a preemptive attack, as this itself is quite a complex topic and not simply a 'factual error' as the article implies. --18:26, 9 December 2006 Kingkool

I think the inclusion of Dershowitz is begging to turn the article in to a shouting match. Dershowitz can probably be included, but we could probably cut some of its contents down. I agree that it is also worth mentioning that he frequently has an opinion on these things, but let's please try to keep the rhetoric down and the sources notable and mainstream. --YoYoDa1 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz commentary

An unregistered editor keeps blanking out the Dershowitz review, referring to a discussion on the Talk page. There is no discussion on the talk page, aside from borderline offensive ranting about the "Jewish lobby." I'm inclined to view this blanking as vandalism - if editors feel that the content here is lopsided, the right approach is to include quotes from favorable reviewers, not delete quotes from unfavorable ones. --Leifern 16:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, two different anonymous editors have removed the Dershowitz commentary, and in the absence of any positive reviews being included, I'm inclined to remove it as well. Dershowitz is not exactly neutral on this topic so his review is likely to be very biased.

I'm also going to take this moment to remond you that content disputes are not vandalism; please don't accuse content editors of being vandals.

Atlant 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody claims Dershowitz is neutral. His quotes are presented as a book review, and a critical one at that. Blanking is in fact vandalism, and these deletions are not well-founded. And you don't know if these unregistered editors are different. --Leifern 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, content disputes are never vandalism, no matter how much you'd like to construe them as such. This isn't some random drive-by vandal erasing some text; you must understand exactly why people are removing Dershowitz's comments because you've been explicitly told. Content disputes may rise to WP:3RR violations, and they often provoke violations of WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, but they are never vandalism.

Atlant 12:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about this stupid question, but why do zionists keep on quoting this most unprofessional writer who have been repeatedly proved to plaigiarise many of his writings? He is an unreliable, hardly objective let alone scholarly in his writings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.244.124.20 (talk • contribs).

Yes, Mr. Unregistered, you should be "sorry about this stupid question." It is not really a question at all, but an insult to a prominant commentator on this issue that is extremely careful with his sources (as proven by Harvard University's exoneration of any and all plagiarism accusations). Your charge that he is "hardly objective let alone scholarly in his writings" apply as much to Jimmy Carter as they do to Alan Dershowitz. --GHcool 21:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz's objectivity fails when Israel (or its enemies) is involved. As you'll recall, though he is usually very strongly in favor of civil rights, immediately after 9/11, he came out in favor of the United States torturing suspected Islamic terrorists. He's also expressed some controversial opinions regarding Israel's prosecution of its war in Lebanon. It's not at all surprising that he would be opposed to Carter's book.

Atlant 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Therefore, Alan Dershowitz's writings should not be considered a reliable source on the history and politics of the region. However, Dershowitz's writings are extremely reliable and valid for as a source on the criticism of Carter's book. To this I am sure that we can all agree. --GHcool 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought

Does anyone think that the current edit might be unfairly weighted towards criticism of the book?

I'm not able to address this in detail at the moment, but I wonder if we should consider adding some further information to the article ... like, maybe, an overview of what the book actually says. CJCurrie 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added an NPOV notice. In its current form, the article is little more than a series of negative reviews strung together. CJCurrie 04:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the NPOV tag was added before, and was subsequently removed. I agree with you that until someone finds something positive to say before the very long criticism section, the article is not a proper expression of a Neutral Point of View.

Atlant 12:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the tag. I actually did quite a bit of searching for positive reviews, and the Nation one was the only one I could find outside of the blogosphere (where there are plenty of negative reviews, too). I'm not sure if we should obsess too much over this article - it isn't getting much play, in large part I think because Carter made the mistake of using "apartheid" in a very limited sense that frustrate the anti-Israel crowd and is an easy target for the pro-Israel crowd. This may turn out to be his last book. He has so much to offer, but he's clearly way way way out of his depth on this issue. --Leifern 13:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, I think it would be reasonable to have more information about what the book says. So, how far are you in the book? 6SJ7 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Does anyone think that the current edit might be unfairly weighted towards criticism of the book?": Yes, absolutely. To an ubiased observer, it would appear that this lopsided treatment serves to prove many of Carter's points. The "Praise" section is perfunctory, and the "Criticism" section is extensive. --15:53, 15 December 2006 139.68.134.1

Dershowitz's comments

Small problem -- Dershowitz claims that there are many factual innacuracies, but the only one he actually points out, that Israel's attack on Jordan during the Six Day War wasn't pre-emptive, is actually factual, according to its wikipedia acticle, which agrees with Carter. Any thoughts on how to write this up NPOV? I don't think Dershowitz is an expert on that conflict, such that we should change its lead to agree with him. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Carter an expert on the conflict???? Is the Wikipedia article on the '67 war authorative???? Don't think so. Elizmr 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither is Dershowitz. The point is his only claim that something in Carter's book isn't factual (though he makes a fair ammount of innuendo) isn't factual itself. I guess the article reads ok as it is, and if readers want to follow the linkout and discover that Carter is actually correct, that's their perrogative. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Israel pre-emptively attacked Egypt, and then Jordan attacked Israel, after Israel begged it to stay out of the conflict. Dershowitz also points out other factual inaccuracies, including his claim that the "initial violence in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict occurred when "Jewish militants" attacked Arabs in 1939", ignoring, for example, such infamous events as the 1929 Hebron massacre. I've accurified your edits to the article; it's best not to try to edit these things if you're not familiar with the history of the period. More importantly, who is "Michael F. Brown at the Palestine Center", why would we care about his opinion, and what is he doing in a "Criticism" section, when he's clearly not criticizing the book? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter's chronology does fail to mention the 1929 riots in his brief timeline. He does mention Palestinian violence in 1936. Carter's timeline doesn't actually make the claim that the 1939 violence was "initial", but I guess if Dershowitz says that's what it says.... As for the Nation article, don't look at me. I wasn't going to add it myself; I only pointed out its existance to those who were claiming all the criticism was unbalanced. He does have good things to say about the book which it now seems to me belongs in the article somewhere. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Jews that haven't read the book

Here's a start: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2680021

Excerpt: Carter's 'Palestine Peace Not Apartheid' Former President Shares His Plan for Middle East Peace in New Book Nov. 27, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.209.222.112 (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

This is the Disruptive Apartheid Editor. He's already been blocked. Don't feed the trolls. CJCurrie 09:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote in the intro

Can someone check whether Carter indeed wrote this ungrammatical sentence (emphasis mine): "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights"? Beit Or 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll check. Somehow I'm still only on page 13. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) < --shoulda got the (searchable) e-book

Carter and his Nobel Peace Prize

Jimmy Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work attempting to promote peace in the Middle East. This prize seems to recognize that he has some moral authority to speak about the issues regarding the Middle East, but now we see that one editor will not recognize this fact or, at least, permit it into the article. To me, this seems to be exactly the sort of PoV-pushing that I was referring to above when I added the NPOV tag to the article; the article has few or no positive statments and, in fact, when one is added, it's just as quickly reverted out again.

Do you understand that this is the sort of thing that leaves Wikipedia with very scant credibility in the world at large?

Atlant 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point; I don't have a problem with this in the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is not true that Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his "work attempting to promote peace in the Middle East." The Nobel Committee wrote that he won it "For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts." and made no particular mention of the Arab Israeli conflict. --Leifern 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Even so, I agree with Kdndrick7 that this is valuable information and certainly applicable to this subject. --GHcool 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected now until you guys can resolve your dispute relating to Jimmy Carter. After consensus is reached by all parties, message me on my talk page and I'll unprotect, or post a request at WP:RFPP. Nishkid64 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I didn't even know we were at war. Anyone else aware of this?? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

War is just the term. Call it "repeated revert editing" if you want to. Just look at the history. It was probably going to progress into something further, so I took a precaution. Nishkid64 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a pretty mild war, but I don't mind that its protected. --GHcool 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, it was more of preemptive protection than anything. Nishkid64 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't even imagine what policy or guideline prompts this kind of protection. Semi-protection is fine, but although there's plenty of disagreements, I see no edit warring here, and preemptive protecting would put virtually all articles in WP off limits. --Leifern 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He said he'd take it off in a few days, which from now should mean one more day. We could (sigh) go thru the motions... um... is there a cite template for book jackets? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Page is now unprotected. I'm sorry if you guys felt my protection was not entirely warranted, but I did what I thought was right. Anyway, I did unprotect like I said, so hopefully everything is fine now. Nishkid64 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Remark on Leifern's Dec 6 comment: If you read the Nobel committee's grounds for awarding Jimmy Carter the peace prize in 2002 you would find the following statement: "During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter's mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize." (See http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/press.html). And as everybody knows, the subject for the first of these agreements were the Gaza strip, the West bank, and SC 242 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords_%281978%29). PJ 07:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth W. Stein resignation

For "Other commentators"

Kenneth W. Stein, a professor of Middle Eastern history and Israeli studies at Emory University, resigned from his position as Middle East fellow with the Carter Center in protest against the book, breaking off 12 years of involvement with the center. He accused Carter of errors, omissions, plagiarism and of inventing information.

That's a little off regarding plagerism; Stein's actually accusing Carter of copying information from a book he and Carter co-wrote. The full text of the letter is here. I would just replace the last sentence there with the exact quote from the letter, as they are comparable any way. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times (2006-12-7, page A33 of National Edition) says that Stein "ended a 23-year association with the institution [Carter Center]"; it reports also that a spokesperson for Carter said that Stein "has not been actively involved with the Carter Center for more than 12 years". Kirtag Hratiba 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The other day I added :On December 5, 2006, Kenneth Stein, a former Carter aide, resigned from his position as a fellow at the Carter Center and issued a public statement criticizing the book. Stein wrote: ::"President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analysis; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments," Stein wrote. "Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book."

Stein further accused Carter of engaging in superficial analysis, selecting only those sources which supported his position, and of outright fabrication.

A user removed it for reasons that defy my comprehension. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, there are editors who are concerned that the article isn't balanced enough. Though you'd be hard pressed to find a favorable review, apparently. --Leifern 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Briangotts, I removed your change because the article was (and still is) under protection which means that ordinary users can't edit it. You used your powers as an administrator to bypass the protection and edit the article anyway. I believe that this is considered improper use of administrator powers so I reverted your change back out again. I also made this clear in the audit trail comment.

Atlant 16:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary said it was improper to insert POV. It boggles my mind that accurately reporting Kenneth Stein's (a long time Carter associate) statements and actions with regard to the book could be seen as POV. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Read my edit summary again (emphasis added):

(Revert; administrators should honor the page protection just like anyone else; now is *NOT* the time to insert further PoV.)

And yes, when negative fact upon negative fact is piled into an article where people are actively editing out positive facts, that preponderance of negative evidence along with the exclusion of the positive becomes PoV.

Atlant 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Page is now unprotected. You guys can go back to editing the article. Nishkid64 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

It seems that Jimmy the Dhimmy plagiarized material, a map he did not credit[1]. It should be added... 88.113.137.249 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Jimmy the Dhimmy"? No WP:POV on your part, is there? This article really is bringing out a lot of PoV pushers. The funny thing is, big publishers have entire departments charged with obtaining copyright clearance on items such as this. But Fox News would never distort the turth, would they? Atlant 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey genius, the guy whose map this scumbag worst president of the U.S. plagiarized broke the story himself. Figure it out yet? 88.113.137.249 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, the article you cited doesn't raise that claim. It simply says:

And in what seems to be an open and shut case of plagiarism, Ross explains that the maps in Carter's book were specifically created for his book "The Missing Peace"--and Ross created them himself.

But remember, those wrapper words are not Ross's words; instead, they are supplied courtesy of Fox News, a well-known source of bias. In fact, there's no direct quote from Ross, but even if we accept that Ross's paraphrased claims that he created the maps for his own book, there's no claim there that proper copyright clearance wasn't obtained for the re-use in Carter's book. And although a talk page isn't a biography, you also might want to go visit WP:BLP to better understand what you can say on Wikipedia regarding living people before you edit any articles about them. Atlant 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude... it's in the video. Look at it. He says it himself (Ross). 88.113.137.249 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Ross interviewed and he makes no definite claims of plagiarism but merely remarked on the similarity he saw between the maps he created and the ones in Carter's book. It was also mentioned that Ross's publisher had contacted Carter's publisher and asked them to provide the source for the maps. And I'm not sure that anyone who describes Carter as "scumbag worst president of the U.S." is in a position to edit this article objectively. --Lee Vonce 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added in a section on the Ross controversy, using Ross, Carter and Stein's appearance on CNN's The Situation Room as a source. I was very careful not to say more than what the participants say (e.g. to avoid using the word plagiarism). My interpretation is that Ross is far too much of a diplomat to accuse a former president of plagiarism and that he thinks that just as important as Carter's attribution problem is Carter's argument that Israel rejected the American proposals at Camp David, which Ross thinks is wrong. GabrielF 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Lee Vonce, I never asked to edit this article. It's enough that somebody else does so and exposes this sleazebag traitorous dogs plagiarism. 88.113.137.249 07:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable to lock the article when it only contains criticism

It seems questionable to include only critical views of the book, and then block further edits. While I know little about the book, clearly censorship is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Ujalm 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some reviews:

a courageous new book by President Jimmy Carter [...] Perhaps President Carter should send copies of his book to members of Congress [...] they might learn a thing or two about the long-festering conflict at the heart of so many of our current troubles in the region. [2]

He continues to work for peace and writes about one of the world's most troubled spots in his book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." Carter, who brokered the peace between Israel and Egypt in 1978, has a unique perspective on the situation in the Middle East. [3]

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" eloquently describes the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip [...] his book challenges Americans to see the conflict with eyes wide open. [4]

In this book President Carter shares his intimate knowledge of the history of the Middle East and his personal experiences with the principal actors [...] Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is a challenging, provocative, and courageous book. [5]

Nobody expects instant miracles to come from Carter’s book, but hopefully, it will spark the sort of robust discussions that even Israeli society and media already engage in [6]

His outlook on the problem not only contributes to the literature of debate surrounding it but also, just as importantly, delivers a worthy game plan for clearing up the dilemma. [7].

But is Jimmy Carter anti-Israel or anti-Semitic as his enemies claim? Of course not. Jimmy Carter is CRITICAL. [8]

I find the blocking inexplicable and am completely at a loss what the admin is waiting for before unblocking it. --Leifern 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this entirely - no need to be a genius to know that there are two sides to every story. Clearly biased and one-sided criticisms of a piece of controversial work (written by a Nobel prize laureate no less!) in respect of which the world’s population taken as a whole is, at best, equally divided (otherwise mostly in favour of Carter’s position) only serves to discredit the objectiveness and validity of what those in control of this page are presumably trying to achieve. The manner in which information relating to contentious issues is presented on this site is critical to the relevance of wikipedia on a global platform. If one is looking for a biased perspective, Fox, CNN and Al Jazeera will do. Shame on those responsible for this site for allowing self-interested parties to take over what is meant to be a balanced source of information and turning it into another piece of the problem instead of a piece of the solution. AZ

Don't read too much into this. I bet this happens all the time at wikipedia, during an edit war, the article gets locked and the version that's locked is one that many people consider outrageous. I bets that's why they add the disclaimer about how locking the article isn't an endorsement of the locked version. Don't worry, it will hopefully be unlocked soon and we can get some balance into it. I agree that it is pretty awful the way it is. --Lee Vonce 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unlocked now. I did not intentionally fully protect the page to endorse the current version of the article. I know this is a sensitive topic, which is why I prompty unprotected the page. Nishkid64 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine

Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine, Jimmy Carter, LA Times. "Jimmy Carter says his recent book is drawing knee-jerk accusations of anti-Israel bias."

Quotes:

• "The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians."
• "Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel."
• "My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors."

--64.230.125.115 11:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Documentary film: "He Comes in Peace" from Participant Films

It is not mentioned in the current version of this article, but there is a documentary film crew following Jimmy Carter around. They are professionals who have had previous major films. It should be an interesting film given the controversy over the book and its reception. The working title is "He Comes in Peace" and it is being produced by Participant_Productions, a socially oriented production house responsible for Syrianna among others. Here is the story on Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i01ddb1dac0f7f4bdbbcd6bc13c187fd4 --64.230.125.115 12:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Article contents

It seems that this page should either be renamed "Criticisms of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" or that much more Wikipedia content needs to be added about the actual contents of the book. --YoYoDa1 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, what makes the book particularly notable is the large controversy it's fuelled, both among its supporters and detractors, so it makes sense to me that that forms a big portion of the article. --Delirium 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The book's controversy is certainly part of what makes it notable. But it's notable mostly because it's a best-seller by a Nobel laureate and former president of the United States on a highly topical issue.--G-Dett 19:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm much happier with where the article stands now because it now has response, and most importantly, information about the actual book. I was thinking that it is important to document the controversy surround it, but that it is more important to document the book itself. As I've said, I think the article is a lot better now than it was when I posted that. My main focus now would be working to improve all of the content in the article. --YoYoDa1 20:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto.--G-Dett 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on above discussion, I removed NPOV tag for now. Support the request to have more information about the book's contents. --GunnarRene 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be clearly stated in the summary of the book's contents that the book is about Palestine (the territories, not the historical region of Palestine which includes Israel) and not Israel. There is a lot of confusion about this and this is probably where a lot of problems start. For example Carter wrote in the LA Times that "The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status." --70.51.230.254 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Another aspect of the book's contents, which Tim Russert brings up in his Meet the Press interview with Carter, deals with the lack of balanced debate in Carter's opinion. The exchange went as follows in the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: As I read your book, this struck me, particularly from someone in political life. You wrote the following: “There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories.”

And then you went on to say: “There’s no doubt there is a strong aversion to criticizing Israel in this country. I wouldn’t say it’s all because of intimidation, but that is one factor.”

FMR. PRES. CARTER: Yeah. Do you disagree with that? Well, I won’t ask you that. You’re the one asking questions. But I don’t think anyone could disagree with that. There is—there are very few, if any, voices in the political realm of Washington, or in the major news media, who would raise the kind of issues that are raised in this book.

MR. RUSSERT: Why?

FMR. PRES. CARTER: I have said in the book, I don’t know if it’s intimidation or just reticence. There are some factors that are involved even in the religious circles. But it’s completely—almost completely unacceptable in this country for any public official to criticize the policies of Israel, even if they are horribly abusive against the Palestinians and violate human rights.

MR. RUSSERT: This is, this is, in effect, taking on the “Israeli lobby” or the “Jewish lobby.”

FMR. PRES. CARTER: That’s part. The Jewish lobby may be part of it. I didn’t say that in the book, but I think that’s part of it. But even—you know, I don’t think that The Washington Post or The New York Times or NBC or others are intimidated by, by the Jewish lobby. But I think there’s a reticence, even in public fora, to describe both sides of the issues in the West Bank.

--70.51.230.254 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Official "New York Times ® Best Seller" in "Hardcover Non-Fiction" category

The controversy really helps sell the book it seems. I checked the book's rank in the "Hardcover Non-Fiction" category of the highly reputable/notable New York Times Best Seller list. It is important to note that while the published rankings for each category list the top 35 best selling books for the week, only the top 16 books are officially designated as "New York Times ® Best Sellers."

Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" has ranked in the top 16 (twice now actually) and thus is officially a "New York Times ® Best Seller" (and probably going to be labelled as such on subsequent editions.) Here is the details and links:

• Rank #11 for the week ending November 18, 2006 (book was released November 14, 2006.) Best seller status since it is in the top 16. [9].
• Rank #17, week ending November 25, 2006. Not in the top 16, thus not official a best seller this week. [10].
• Rank #7 for the week ending December 2, 2006. Best seller status again. [11]

--70.51.230.254 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

this might be worth briefly mentioning in the lead --75.46.88.163 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

153.109.125.52 reports that this is "Actually 7", meaning only the top 7 books are on the list rather than the top 16. Confirmation, anyone?

Atlant 13:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the references -- the NYT web links. It's clear that the list goes to 16. There is a break at that point where they then list the remaining books. Although the Wikipedia article on the NYT best seller list says it only goes up to 15 -- see New York Times Best Seller list. It would be nice if "153.109.125.52" had a reference for the best selling list to only include the top 7. --70.51.230.254 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A correlating fact is that the NYT list for the week ending December 2 lists the number of weeks Carter's book has been on the list -- and it says it has been on 2 weeks. Thus the list at least goes to 11 (to include the week ending Nov 18), but it doesn't go as far as 17 (to exclude the week ending Nov 25.) Thus the claim that it only includes the top 7 seems to be unreasonable. --70.51.230.254 13:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)