Help us raise $30,000 to purchase 1000 copies of the Muhammad Asad Translation and Commentary of The Quran. This is an alternative translation of the Quran that will be provided to Western mosques, libraries, Muslim chaplaincies, and student associations. This work resolves many of the errors and oversights of other English translations, one example being women's rights.
More news on Carter and his book. At a forum in Georgia today, Carter argued that his "controversial" views on US policy towards Israel are considerably more in line with the opinions of normal folks than the MSM that has been so strenuously (and dishonestly, as illustrated by this egregiously flimsy smear job in the Washington Post) accusing him of extremism and hate-mongering since the release of his provocative book months ago.
"I can understand the reasons ... that any shaking of almost unanimous support in America for Israel might weaken Israel's position ... as they struggle for their own safety and their own existence," he said.
The book's main points were that Israel should stop persecuting and abusing Palestinians, withdraw to internationally-recognized borders and conduct intense negotiations with its neighbors to bring peace, Carter said.
"Those premises, which are the major premises in my book, have a strong support of American citizens," including many Jews, he said. He added that he guessed the majority of Jews in Israel also agreed with the book's proposals. A Public Agenda poll last October with the journal Foreign Affairs found that 70 percent of Americans expressed at least partial support for the view that U.S. policies were too "pro-Israel" for the U.S. to be able to broker a Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The article closes with an observation from somebody on the other side of the issue.
"It seems from what he said today that Israel's occupation is at the root of the problem. But I would argue that Palestinian terrorism is at the root of the problem," said Benjamin Braun, 21, a student at Emory of Middle East studies.
Fair enough. I'm the first to admit that one can make that argument, but isn't it refreshing to see a critic of Palestinians have to argue for this opinion rather be allowed to lazily treat it as self-evident, as is customary in so many "debates" on the Middle East in American politics today?
Why was it required that a world statesman commit hari-kari for this obvious (and exceedingly commonplace) viewpoint to be given a hearing in the MSM?