Jimmy Carter, hypocrite
Rue D'Awakening
Posts: 143
Why won't Carter debate his book?
By Alan Dershowitz | December 21, 2006
YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion. And you can always tell when he's a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I'm talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."
Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post), "laughable" (San Francisco Chronicle), and riddled with errors and bias in reviews across the country. Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by "representatives of Jewish organizations" as Carter has claimed. Carter has gone even beyond the errors of his book in interviews, in which he has said that the situation in Israel is worse than the crimes committed in Apartheid South Africa. When asked whether he believed that Israel's "persecution" of Palestinians was "[e]ven worse . . . than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think -- yes."
When Larry King referred to my review several times to challenge Carter, Carter first said I hadn't read the book and then blustered, "You know, I think it's a waste of my time and yours to quote professor Dershowitz. He's so obviously biased, Larry, and it's not worth my time to waste it on commenting on him." (He never did answer King's questions.)
The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received. He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."
As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.
Nor is Carter the unbiased observer of the Middle East that he claims to be. He has accepted money and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan , saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who "were the people who killed the Jews in Europe" during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11. Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest.
Carter's refusal to debate wouldn't be so strange if it weren't for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate over the issue of the Israel-Palestine peace process. If that were really true, Carter would be thrilled to have the opportunity to debate. Authors should be accountable for their ideas and their facts. Books shouldn't be like chapel, delivered from on high and believed on faith.
What most rankles is Carter's insistence that he is somehow brave for attacking Israel and highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people. No other conflict in the world -- not even the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan -- evokes more hand-wringing in the media, universities, and human rights organizations than the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Jimmy Carter isn't brave for beating up on Israel. He's a bully. And like all school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, there's a nagging insecurity and a fear that one day he'll have to answer for himself in a fair fight.
When Jimmy Carter's ready to speak at Brandeis, or anywhere else, I'll be there. If he refuses to debate, I will still be there -- ready and willing to answer falsity with truth in the court of public opinion.
By Alan Dershowitz | December 21, 2006
YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion. And you can always tell when he's a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I'm talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."
Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post), "laughable" (San Francisco Chronicle), and riddled with errors and bias in reviews across the country. Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by "representatives of Jewish organizations" as Carter has claimed. Carter has gone even beyond the errors of his book in interviews, in which he has said that the situation in Israel is worse than the crimes committed in Apartheid South Africa. When asked whether he believed that Israel's "persecution" of Palestinians was "[e]ven worse . . . than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think -- yes."
When Larry King referred to my review several times to challenge Carter, Carter first said I hadn't read the book and then blustered, "You know, I think it's a waste of my time and yours to quote professor Dershowitz. He's so obviously biased, Larry, and it's not worth my time to waste it on commenting on him." (He never did answer King's questions.)
The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received. He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."
As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.
Nor is Carter the unbiased observer of the Middle East that he claims to be. He has accepted money and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan , saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who "were the people who killed the Jews in Europe" during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11. Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest.
Carter's refusal to debate wouldn't be so strange if it weren't for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate over the issue of the Israel-Palestine peace process. If that were really true, Carter would be thrilled to have the opportunity to debate. Authors should be accountable for their ideas and their facts. Books shouldn't be like chapel, delivered from on high and believed on faith.
What most rankles is Carter's insistence that he is somehow brave for attacking Israel and highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people. No other conflict in the world -- not even the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan -- evokes more hand-wringing in the media, universities, and human rights organizations than the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Jimmy Carter isn't brave for beating up on Israel. He's a bully. And like all school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, there's a nagging insecurity and a fear that one day he'll have to answer for himself in a fair fight.
When Jimmy Carter's ready to speak at Brandeis, or anywhere else, I'll be there. If he refuses to debate, I will still be there -- ready and willing to answer falsity with truth in the court of public opinion.
Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism
Most antizionists are antisemites
Most antizionists are antisemites
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
ok! thanks for sharing!
Most antizionists are antisemites
Alan Dershowitz? Really unbiased article then Rue D'Awakening.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/23/1450216
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20051207.htm
o yea cause those 2 websites are really unbiased.........
Exactly what I was thinking....kinda scary.
Scary? Strange choice of word. Those links are to articles detailing a debate between Chomsky and Dershowitz. Where's the bias? Chomsky states his case and Dershowitz states his case.
I can only imagine that what you find 'scary' is that Chomsky exposes Dershowitz for the prejudiced bigot that he is.
Woohoo! That's classic! Knocking an article for bias and following up with democracynow and Chomsky. Good lord.
Nothing about the links were 'scary' you misinterpreted.
Chomsky is of Jewish origin and one of the most highly respected intellectuals in the world. 'DemocracyNow' speaks for itself.
So what's your point?
I love this kind of talk "One of the most highly respected INTELLECTUALS in the world"...
What the hell does an INTELLECTUAL do anyhow? Oh yeah , they tell everyone else how stupid they are.
Interesting you should raise this subject because it is exactly what I was getting at, albeit surreptitiously.
I.e, You may wish to read Chomsky's article entitled 'The Responsibility of Intellectuals'..
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19670223.htm
along with Edward Saids essay 'Representations of the intellectual : the 1993 Reith lectures'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Representations-Intellectual-1993-Reith-Lectures/dp/0099424517/sr=1-1/qid=1166801620/ref=sr_1_1/026-8449191-6268465?ie=UTF8&s=books
Well, I may check it out...but honestly...'Intellectuals' is a term that really pisses me off.
Yeah. It could be said that the term is applied too widely these days. 'Responsibility' is the key word here.
My point is that you apparently fail to see irony in your posts. Deriding Derschowitz for having bias, following that up with a link from Chomsky's website, then defending that saying it is a link to a debate when, in fact, the Chomsky link was to a baised opinion about the debate where the author, who isn't Chomsky, begins by saying he doesn't even know how debates are judged or graded.
You're referring to the second article. The first one merely transcribes the debate.
Still, you'll never accept anything which undercuts or challenges your viewpoint.
Who's Milton Friedman?
A genius economist
That's probably why I've never heard of him. Never touched on Economics.
According to The Economist, Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…, possibly of all of it." [2] In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, he advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. In his television series Free to Choose, which aired on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in 1980, Friedman explained how the free market works, emphasizing that its principles have shown to solve social and political problems that other systems have failed to adequately address. It was later released as a book, co-authored with his wife, Rose Friedman. The book was widely read, as were his columns for Newsweek magazine. His writings were circulated underground behind the Iron Curtain before it fell in 1989. [3]
In statistics, he devised the Friedman test. His political philosophy, which Friedman himself considered more classically liberal, stressing the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention shaped the outlook of American conservatives and libertarians.
The 1980s were a watershed decade for the acceptance of Friedman's ideas. His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. His ideas were studied throughout the world, and played a major role in the transformation of China's economy
So he was something of a darling of the right then?
And, let's not forget that he was also an economic advisor to Augusto Pinochet.
yep...does that mean hes not an intellectual?
So i guess hes not intelligent?
who consequently made Chile into a well performing economic nation with an extremely good retirement plan, mucn much better than the ones created in the US.
Now was Pinochet an asshole dictator who ruled with an iron fist? Sure, but you can't argue what he did economically with that nation.
I'm sure I disagree with some of Friedmans ideas too, but he got a lot of stuff right. I love his views on the free market but I'm sure most Communists or Socialists who advocate having government involved at every level probably hate his guts.
I have my own criteria for deciding on what makes someone an 'intellectual', although I doubt that my criteria is of the standard fare. I certainly don't know enough about this fella to answer your question.
And which segment of the populuation benifited from Pinochet? The poor and the working class? Or the middle class and rich minority who didn't mind whoring their country to the U.S?
How was Pinochet able to institute Friedman's advice? Why did he have to rule with an iron fist if the reforms were so wonderful?
I don't think that you can disconnect one from the other.