Don't overstate it...

Jimmy Carter again! The headline was:

Carter Visit Sees Some Controversy In Jewish Circles

The headline for the continuation was:

Some Dispute Carter Book's Objectivity

Let's not understate things here. Was the book supposed to be objective? I'll admit, I haven't read it. Neither, for that matter, has Sammy Averbach, who knows how to make a convincing argument.

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.

Blasphemous? Is that really the right word to use for this situation, considering the context?

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/30/2007 02:35:00 PM #
Comments (3)

. . .

Comments:

I wonder how many of them have read the book. I am 60 pages in and everything seems to check out with academic textbooks I have read on this issue.

And you're right, it is not supposed to be objective. For years, all we have heard is the AIPAC-approved "Israel has the right to defend itself" line. Time for a different story.

# posted by  Anonymous : 5:20 PM, April 30, 2007

 

LIKE OMGZ ISRAEL=TEH BADZORS

Can't we all be tolerant of other's views? Can't those that don't agree hear him out and pose polite questions like the respectful Berkeley students we are?

Sometimes, but sometimes not:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3411

# posted by  Anonymous : 8:23 PM, April 30, 2007

 

I agree with your [e] criticism of people not reading the book and then attacking Carter. However, you are being hypocritical if after 60 pages you declare that Carter is pretty much accurate. Do you simply ignore the criticisms of academics who have read his book as well as the people who resigned from his Carter Center.

# posted by  Anonymous : 2:53 AM, May 01, 2007

 

Post a Comment