Category Archives: Middle East

The Iraq Study Group's Magic Realism

Iraq, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Middle East

“The Iraq Study Group has advised the administration to try a few more tricks before getting our spent men and materiel out of Iraq. Led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, the Group is especially desperate to secure Iran and Syria’s assistance in reversing Iraq’s fortunes. If its central thrust is accepted, “Enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in the region” will, slowly, replace localized brute force.
There is, however, a pesky problem with galvanizing the newfangled axis of angels.
One of the aims of Bush’s disastrous occupation of Iraq was to weaken—even collapse—the Islamic Republic. He has achieved the exact opposite of what he intended. Iran has superseded the US as the most influential power in the region. Syria is second. Both have collaborated nicely in getting Zelzal-2 missiles and short-range Katyusha rockets to Hezbollah. Israel, like the monkey-see-monkey-do country it has become, followed the US’s bliss, as hippies would say, and leveled Lebanon. That failed mission further entrenched the terrible troika—Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah—as the region’s top dogs.
So how do the politically weak entice the strong? How does America leverage influence over Iran and Syria? Promise not to invade them? Threaten not to return their captured soldiers? ‘Allow’ mad Mahmoud to enrich Uranium? We’ve gambled away almost all our bargaining chips—bar one.
We still have Israel…”

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily column, “The Iraq Study Group’s Magic Realism.” Comments are welcome.

Just How Bad is Jimmy Carter’s New Book?

Anti-Semitism, Israel, Middle East

Enough to cause an adviser of 23 years to the Carter Center to sever ties with the institution. Here’s the New York Times’ somewhat tilted report:

By BRENDA GOODMAN and JULIE BOSMAN
ATLANTA, Ga., Dec. 6 — An adviser to former President Jimmy Carter and onetime executive director of the Carter Center has publicly parted ways with his former boss, citing concerns with the accuracy and integrity of Mr. Carter’s latest book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”
The adviser, Kenneth W. Stein, a professor of Middle Eastern history and political science at Emory University, resigned his position as a fellow with the Carter Center on Tuesday, ending a 23-year association with the institution.
In a two-page letter explaining his action, Mr. Stein called the book “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments.” Mr. Stein said he had used similar language in a private letter he sent to Mr. Carter, but received no reply.
“In the letter to him, I told him, ‘It’s your prerogative to write anything you want when you want,’ ” Mr. Stein said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “That’s not why I’m resigning.”
Mr. Stein said that he admired the former president’s accomplishments but that felt he had to distance himself from the Carter Center and the book, which was published by Simon & Schuster.
“It’s an issue of how history should be written,” Mr. Stein said. “I had to distance myself from something that was coming close to me professionally.”
Deanna Congelio, spokeswoman for Mr. Carter, released a statement with his response: “Although Professor Kenneth Stein has not been actively involved with the Carter Center for more than 12 years, I regret his resignation from the titular position as a fellow.” It did not address Mr. Stein’s criticism of the book.
That criticism is the latest in a growing chorus of academics who have taken issue with the book, including Alan M. Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard, who called the book “ahistorical,” and David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“I was just very saddened by it,” Mr. Makovsky said. “I just found so many errors.”
Mr. Carter’s use of “apartheid” in the title has attracted much of the controversy. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles released a statement on Monday saying the former president harbors bias against Israel. “There is no Israeli apartheid policy, and President Carter knows it,” the statement read.
But Mr. Stein’s criticism of the book has been perhaps the sharpest cut.
Mr. Stein was executive director of the Carter Center from 1983 to 1986 and had continued to serve as a Middle East fellow until Tuesday. In 1985, he wrote a book with Mr. Carter, “The Blood of Abraham: Insights in the Middle East,” which was published by Houghton-Mifflin.
Mr. Stein said the former president had come to speak to his class as recently as last month. Mr. Stein declined to detail all the inaccuracies he found, saying he was still documenting them for a planned review of the book; but he did offer a few examples.
Mr. Carter, he said, remembers White House staff members in 1990 being preoccupied by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when the former president tried to describe to them talks he had had with Middle Eastern leaders. But the White House briefings occurred in the spring, Mr. Stein said, and the invasion of Kuwait was not until August.
“You can’t write history simply off the top of your head and expect it to be credible,” he said.
Mr. Stein also said he had been struck by parts of Mr. Carter’s book that seemed strikingly similar to a work by a different author, but he would not disclose the details.
“There are elements in the book that were lifted from another source,” Mr. Stein said. “That other source is now acting on his or her own advice about what to do because of this.”
David Rosenthal, the publisher of Simon & Schuster, dismissed Mr. Stein’s claims. “We’re confident in his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said of Mr. Carter. “Do we check every line in every book? No, but that’s not the issue here. I have no reason to doubt President Carter’s research.”
Still other observers familiar with the sometimes contentious relationship between Mr. Carter and Mr. Stein said Mr. Stein might have been motivated by more than preserving academic integrity.
“He feels snubbed he wasn’t given any kind of acknowledgment for the work he’s done with Carter,” said Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It’s a bit of bruised ego and philosophical difference being displayed in public here.”

Just How Bad is Jimmy Carter's New Book?

Anti-Semitism, Israel, Middle East

Enough to cause an adviser of 23 years to the Carter Center to sever ties with the institution. Here’s the New York Times’ somewhat tilted report:

By BRENDA GOODMAN and JULIE BOSMAN
ATLANTA, Ga., Dec. 6 — An adviser to former President Jimmy Carter and onetime executive director of the Carter Center has publicly parted ways with his former boss, citing concerns with the accuracy and integrity of Mr. Carter’s latest book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”
The adviser, Kenneth W. Stein, a professor of Middle Eastern history and political science at Emory University, resigned his position as a fellow with the Carter Center on Tuesday, ending a 23-year association with the institution.
In a two-page letter explaining his action, Mr. Stein called the book “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments.” Mr. Stein said he had used similar language in a private letter he sent to Mr. Carter, but received no reply.
“In the letter to him, I told him, ‘It’s your prerogative to write anything you want when you want,’ ” Mr. Stein said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “That’s not why I’m resigning.”
Mr. Stein said that he admired the former president’s accomplishments but that felt he had to distance himself from the Carter Center and the book, which was published by Simon & Schuster.
“It’s an issue of how history should be written,” Mr. Stein said. “I had to distance myself from something that was coming close to me professionally.”
Deanna Congelio, spokeswoman for Mr. Carter, released a statement with his response: “Although Professor Kenneth Stein has not been actively involved with the Carter Center for more than 12 years, I regret his resignation from the titular position as a fellow.” It did not address Mr. Stein’s criticism of the book.
That criticism is the latest in a growing chorus of academics who have taken issue with the book, including Alan M. Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard, who called the book “ahistorical,” and David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“I was just very saddened by it,” Mr. Makovsky said. “I just found so many errors.”
Mr. Carter’s use of “apartheid” in the title has attracted much of the controversy. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles released a statement on Monday saying the former president harbors bias against Israel. “There is no Israeli apartheid policy, and President Carter knows it,” the statement read.
But Mr. Stein’s criticism of the book has been perhaps the sharpest cut.
Mr. Stein was executive director of the Carter Center from 1983 to 1986 and had continued to serve as a Middle East fellow until Tuesday. In 1985, he wrote a book with Mr. Carter, “The Blood of Abraham: Insights in the Middle East,” which was published by Houghton-Mifflin.
Mr. Stein said the former president had come to speak to his class as recently as last month. Mr. Stein declined to detail all the inaccuracies he found, saying he was still documenting them for a planned review of the book; but he did offer a few examples.
Mr. Carter, he said, remembers White House staff members in 1990 being preoccupied by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when the former president tried to describe to them talks he had had with Middle Eastern leaders. But the White House briefings occurred in the spring, Mr. Stein said, and the invasion of Kuwait was not until August.
“You can’t write history simply off the top of your head and expect it to be credible,” he said.
Mr. Stein also said he had been struck by parts of Mr. Carter’s book that seemed strikingly similar to a work by a different author, but he would not disclose the details.
“There are elements in the book that were lifted from another source,” Mr. Stein said. “That other source is now acting on his or her own advice about what to do because of this.”
David Rosenthal, the publisher of Simon & Schuster, dismissed Mr. Stein’s claims. “We’re confident in his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said of Mr. Carter. “Do we check every line in every book? No, but that’s not the issue here. I have no reason to doubt President Carter’s research.”
Still other observers familiar with the sometimes contentious relationship between Mr. Carter and Mr. Stein said Mr. Stein might have been motivated by more than preserving academic integrity.
“He feels snubbed he wasn’t given any kind of acknowledgment for the work he’s done with Carter,” said Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It’s a bit of bruised ego and philosophical difference being displayed in public here.”

Canada Joins Running of the Jew at U.N. for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Canukistan*

Anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Canada, Israel, Media, Middle East, UN

I received this from the Canadian Coalition for Democracies. The information is well good, as Ali G. would say, but the title is even better. Big up to the CCD for the title (and also for standing up for justice).” ILANA

CANADA JOINS RUNNING OF THE JEW AT U.N. FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF CANUKISTAN*

Toronto, Thursday, November 30, 2006, The Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) is disappointed by the voting of the government of Canada in yesterday’s slew of anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations.

“Canada has again legitimized the use of UN resolutions to demonize one nation, while ignoring the truly serious human rights violations of other member states,” said Alastair Gordon, president of CCD. “Until resolutions are applied evenhandedly to all UN members, Canada must express its condemnation by voting ‘no’ on all such resolutions.”

In its first 42 years, the UN tabled 370 resolutions condemning Israel and zero resolutions critical of the PLO or any Arab state. When Syria slaughtered 20,000 of its own citizens at Hama in 1982, or when it sponsored the destruction and occupation of Lebanon, or even when Iraq massacred its Kurdish citizens with poison gas, there were no UN resolutions criticizing the perpetrators. In recent years, a handful of resolutions have targeted other Middle Eastern states, but the lion’s share is still reserved for Israel.

In October 2005, former Prime Minister Paul Martin referred to “the annual ritual of politicized anti-Israel resolutions” at the UN. In November 2004, Canada’s then ambassador to the United Nations, Allan Rock, announced to the General Assembly that “resolutions [against Israel] are often divisive and lack balance.” Yet even with this recognition, both our past and present governments’ anti-Israel voting pattern has barely changed.
The Fourth Committee yesterday tabled nine ritualized resolutions targeting Israel for criticism. Canada voted against Israel on seven, and supported Israel on two. The only change from last year’s voting pattern was the change of one abstention to a ‘no’.
“The Stephen Harper government has taken a number of principled foreign policy positions that Canadians can be proud of. Yet it is choosing to continue the despicable bullying of one nation, a travesty that was identified by our former Prime Minister and UN ambassador,” added Gordon. “Until UN resolutions are an unbiased tool applied equally to all member states, Canada’s response to all ritualized anti-Israel resolutions must be NO.”

* With apologies to Borat
Founded in 2003, the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) is a non-partisan, multi-ethnic, multi-denominational organization of concerned Canadians dedicated to national security and the protection and promotion of democracy at home and abroad. CCD focuses on research, education and media publishing to build a greater understanding of the importance of national security and a pro-democracy foreign policy.