Alan Dershowitz: Why won't Carter debate his book?

[furman]

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/12/21/why_wont_carter_debate_his_book/?p1=MEWell_Pos1

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 "ven worse . . . than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think -- yes."

...

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.

...

[Tom Joad]

1. Why should Carter debate a torture-loving fool like Dershie?

This is a man who suggested that Israel destroy whole Palestinian villages in retaliation for attacks on Israel.

He is ethically retarded.

[still_one]

5. That ISN'T the reason Carter gave, Carter said because Dershowitz: doesn't know the middle east

That is a lame excuse for saying you should or should not debate someone. If Carter believes that, then he could CORRECT the errors?

There is NO excuse not to debate OR talk to anyone about anything

[Howardx]

11. NO excuse not to debate OR talk to anyone about anything

how do you feel about this then

"A team of U.S. senators told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday, Israel should have nothing to do with talks with Syria."


http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/221501/cs/1/

[still_one]

16. Especially on that issue I believe Israel should talk to Syria, but that is not the same as this

On this and any issue where someone trys to present a position, I believe they debate or exchange ideas with their critics NOT their admirers

On the Syria issue, you make peace with your enemies not your friends

[Howardx]

18. oops my bad

didnt read that right

[still_one]

23. misunderstanding corrected

[Howardx]

24. no you dont

edited my post

[still_one]

26. I'll edit mine now also, thanks

[still_one]

59. I only edited it, because you misread my first post, and there is no reason to push my point again

[still_one]

25. Sorry, I responded already before I read your post, didn't mean to jump like that

[Howardx]

27. no worries

heat of the argument and all

[still_one]

31. This is an emotional argument on all sides, I think we are all aware of that

It is too bad the world leaders can't talk and work things out

[Tom Joad]

14. I don't see Gore involved in many debates. And doubt he will debate

anyone as despicable as dershie has shown himself to be.
Dershi is a hateful bigot, and debating him would just give him more notoriety.

[still_one]

20. What does Al Gore have to do with this, but since you brought it up

there is a talk show host in the bay area, "bill watenburg" who won't even see "An Inconvient Truth", yet he knows everything why Gore's position is wrong. He wouldn't see F911, and gave the same B.S.

Why would watenburg be that narrowly focused?

His excuse, because Al Gore or Micaheal Moore know nothing about the subject

No different reason than Carter

Exchange of ideas is always good with people you disagree with

[Tom Joad]

53. Racists do not deserve a forum. And why Dersh? Is he the one

Israel has sent to represent the State and its policies?

Pathetic in the extreme.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. One does not debate a fool

It gives respectability to the fool.

[cali]

46. You can characterize Dershowitz in many ways,

but a fool he's not. And don't you think his long time Harvard career already lends him "respectability"- whatever that is?

I think it's up to President Carter to choose whom he'll debate, and frankly given Dershowitz' theatrics, I agree with Carter, but your assertion that Dershowitz is a fool, is just foolish.

[Kelvin Mace]

60. The man sees himself as an expert

on the situation, when in fact, his opinion never wanders far from "whatever Israel does is legal and moral". He also believes that the government can be trusted to torture people "legally".

In my book, he is a fool.

[IndianaGreen]

72. Dershowitz is an advocate for torture and an apologist for war crimes

I lost all respect I had for him when he supported the Guantanamo concentration camp and rendition!

[wellst0nev0ter]

102. He's Also A Serial Plagiarist

Compare The Case For Israel with the discredited From Time Immemorial

[teryang]

2. Dershowitz defends torture and murderers

He is entitled to all the disrespect that lawyers have earned.

[still_one]

4. Doesn't answer the question why Carter shouldn't debate him does it

Should we have a dialog with Iran and North Korea?

What about China?

Can't he defend his position?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

3. I agree, if Carter wanted to open this up to discussion he would debate Dershowitz:

I have no doubt that many responses to this thread, instead of asking why Carter won't debate Dershowitz, will end up attacking Dershowitz instead, and justify that as reason enough

Is Carter's position that insecure that he won't debate him? Instead his only defense is that it is because Dershowitz doesn't know anything about the middle east

What a cop-out

[msmcghee]

7. Of course you are absolutely right.

Now you will see a set of the lamest possible excuses for Carter.

If Carter believed that what he said in his book was true - he would look forward to the opportunity to refute naysayers with his evidence and facts - and he would select the most well-known of his doubters to confront.

That's called integrity.

[cali]

48. I completely understand why President

Carter won't debate Dershowitz. Dershowitz is a showboater. It'd be theatrics, not a debate or exchange of ideas. IMO, that's a perfectly legit reason not to debate him.

[msmcghee]

61. Then why doesn't Carter simply . .

. . respond to the several reasonable points that Dershowitz published at Huffpo - in writing? I am certain that Ariana would give him the forum.

I think Carter should refute those points or he should admit that Dershowitz is right and he is wrong. That's the honorable thing to do.

Since he doesn't address them I assume that he has no credible refutation and that his purpose was to damage Israel. In that sense Dershowitz has already damaged Carter's credibility - further than it has already been diminished by several other critics.

As time goes by and Carter still fails to confront his critics - his credibility will diminish further.

If I was Carter I would publish an article stating that the following reasonable points were brought up by critics and here is my explanation for each of them. Unless he does that it appears that his purpose was simply to damage his enemies any way he could - and avoid the consequences of his attack.

If he's not prepared to play hard ball - he should not have thrown the first pitch.

[Howardx]

8. why should he debate dershowitz?

i would like to hear your reasoning on why carter MUST debate dershowitz. isnt putting the book out opening this topic up for discussion?

[still_one]

12. Because Carter wants to open it up for discusiion, BUT ONLY with who HE chooses

Also, Dershowitz, has indicated Jimmy Carter has presented distortions, that is reason enough why Carter should debate Dershowitz, to show that Dershowitz is either wrong or right

Carter presented a position, and someone disagrees with elements in that position, and he refuses to debate that person

With that logic we should NEVER talk to anyone we do NOT agree with, only "OUR" postion is correct

[Howardx]

13. so?

im still not getting why you think carter is obligated to debate anyone

[still_one]

32. That is just my view, and impression. Of course Carter can talk with who he wants

I just feel that debating ideas is always good, especially with people you don't agree with.

[RubyDuby in GA]

6. Because Jimmy Carter is too much of a gentleman to make him look like that

big a fool.

[still_one]

15. That isn't the reason Carter said. It doesn't answer why Carter won't DIRECTLY talk to his critics

It is all right for him to get air time to push his book in a friendly environment, but not answer his critics

This is the same logic that right wingers do when they push their books, only friendly audiences

[stonecoldsober]

47. Did it ever occur to you that Jimmy Carter is too damn polite

to state his real reason for not debating Dershowitz? And he wrote the book to encourage discussion generally, not necessarily between him and Fox News Contributors.

[RubyDuby in GA]

83. Obviously YOU didn't listen to his 3 hour interview on CSPAN where

he took callers - unscreened callers - and answered every single one of them.

Jimmy Carter has written a book that he says is his assessment of the situation in Israel right now and quite frankly I believe his assessment over the so-called "experts" who continue to apologize for the actions of Israel's government towards the Palestinians who live there and those there that continue to perpetuate the cycle of poverty that the Palestinians are forced to live in and the cycle of violence that is a result of the State of Israel's actions.

The truth hurts and I guess people don't like to hear it, but it's still the truth nonetheless. So deal with it.

[shance]

10. Because Dershowitz has shown himself to be a racist and a liar.

Although because it is Palestinians he is so biased against, along with anyone else who is not Jewish, then I guess it has no relevance?

:shrug:

[Tom Joad]

17. Martin Luther king never debated Strum Thurmond.

Never debated Bull Connor.
Never debated George Wallace.
Never debated Richard Daley.

[still_one]

34. First of, the racist you named, never asked to debate King

but I have no doubt that if they offered to debate King in the 60's, he would do it in a minute

That is the kind of man Martin Luther King was

[stillcool]

19. I remember seeing Mr. Dershowitz..

in a debate with Noam Chomsky. I don't blame President Carter for not wanting to have any debate him. He's just like the spin-masters...chock full of aggression, distortion, and mean-spiritedness. "Opening up for discussion"...in my mind...does not mean "must debate Alan Dershowitz"..but that's just me.

[msmcghee]

28. If Dershowitz came off like a . .

. . mean and aggressive spin Meister to you - I would think that it would be to Carter's advantage for people to see that his main critic is just a "mean and aggressive spin Meister".

In a debate format such tactics have little effect on the outcome. They usually credit the side that is not being a "mean and aggressive spin Meister".

Besides, Carter, in accepting Dershowitz' challenge, has every right to establish the ground rules.

[Cary]

29. I remember Carter debating Ronald Reagan.

I don't blame him for not wanting to debate Dershowitz either.

[Howardx]

35. if you read the article...

dershowitz claims carter has made factual errors but doesnt list a single one, the only concrete objection is that carter took money from someone dershowitz doesnt like.

[msmcghee]

38. In this article Dershowitz is calling attention to . .

. . Carter's apparent cowardice. He has listed many of Carter's errors in other recent statements. From his recent HuffPo article for example,

****************************************************

I don't know why Jimmy Carter, who is generally a careful man, allowed so many errors and omissions to blemish his book. Here are simply a few of the most egregious.

• Carter emphasizes that "Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times," but he ignores the fact that Jews have lived in Hebron, Tzfat, Jerusalem, and other cities for even longer. Nor does he discuss the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries since 1948.

• Carter repeatedly claims that the Palestinians have long supported a two-state solution and the Israelis have always opposed it. Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal, because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own.

• He barely mentions Israel's acceptance, and the Palestinian rejection, of the U.N.'s division of the mandate in 1948.

• He claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.

• Carter repeatedly mentions Security Council Resolution 242, which called for return of captured territories in exchange for peace, recognition and secure boundaries, but he ignores the fact that Israel accepted and all the Arab nations and the Palestinians rejected this resolution. The Arabs met in Khartum and issued their three famous "no's": "No peace, no recognition, no negotiation" but you wouldn't know that from reading the history according to Carter.

• Carter faults Israel for its "air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor" without mentioning that Iraq had threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if they succeeded in building a bomb.

• Carter faults Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring every religion the right to worship as they please--consistant, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt's brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967.

• Carter blames Israel, and exonerates Arafat, for the Palestinian refusal to accept statehood on 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza pursuant to the Clinton-Barak offers of Camp David and Taba in 2000-2001. He accepts the Palestinian revisionist history, rejects the eye-witness accounts of President Clinton and Dennis Ross and ignores Saudi Prince Bandar's accusation that Arafat's rejection of the proposal was "a crime" and that Arafat's account "was not truthful"--except, apparently, to Carter. The fact that Carter chooses to believe Yasir Arafat over Bill Clinton speaks volumes.

• Carter's description of the recent Lebanon war is misleading. He begins by asserting that Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. "Captured" suggest a military apprehension subject to the usual prisoner of war status. The soldiers were kidnapped, and have not been heard from--not even a sign of life. The rocket attacks that preceded Israel's invasion are largely ignored, as is the fact that Hezbollah fired its rockets from civilian population centers.

• Carter gives virtually no credit to Israel's superb legal system, falsely asserting (without any citation) that "confessions extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts," that prisoners are "executed" and that the "accusers" act "as judges." Even Israel's most severe critics acknowledge the fairness of the Israeli Supreme Court, but not Carter.

• Carter even blames Israel for the "exodus of Christians from the Holy Land," totally ignoring the Islamization of the area by Hamas and the comparable exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon as a result of the increasing influence of Hezbollah and the repeated assassination of Christian leaders by Syria.

• Carter also blames every American administration but his own for the Mideast stalemate with particular emphasis on "a submissive White House and U.S. Congress in recent years." He employs hyperbole and overstatement when he says that "dialogue on controversial issues is a privilege to be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and withheld from those who reject U.S. demands." He confuses terrorist states, such as Iran and Syria to which we do not extend dialogue, with states with whom we strongly disagree, such as France and China, with whom we have constant dialogue.

I hope President Carter will seriously consider addressing these omissions and mistakes. He begins his book tour soon and he will have an opportunity to correct the record.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-world-according-to-ji_b_34702.html

[still_one]

39. To imply that dershowitz doesn't respond to any factual erros in carter's book is misleading

Respectfully, here are some points Dershowitz has made on Carter's book:

"Mr. Carter emphasizes that "Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times," but he ignores the fact that Jews have lived in Hebron, Tzfat, Jerusalem, and other cities for even longer. Nor does he discuss the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries since 1948.

Mr. Carter repeatedly claims that the Palestinian Arabs have long supported a two-state solution and the Israelis have always opposed it. Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution, with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own.

He barely mentions Israel's acceptance, and the Palestinian rejection, of the United Nation's division of the mandate in 1948.

He claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.

Mr. Carter repeatedly mentions Security Council Resolution 242, which called for return of captured territories in exchange for peace, recognition, and secure boundaries, but he ignores that Israel accepted and all the Arab nations and the Palestinians rejected this resolution. The Arabs met in Khartum and issued their three famous "no's": "No peace, no recognition, no negotiation." But you wouldn't know that from reading the history according to Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter faults Israel for its "air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor" without mentioning that Iraq had threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if Iraq succeeded in building a bomb.

Mr. Carter faults Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring those of every religion the right to worship as they please -- consistent, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt's brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967.

Mr. Carter blames Israel, and exonerates Arafat, for the Palestinian refusal to accept statehood on 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza pursuant to the Clinton-Barak offers at Camp David and Taba in 2000-2001. He accepts the Palestinian revisionist history, rejects the eyewitness accounts of President Clinton and Dennis Ross, and ignores Saudi Prince Bandar's accusation that Arafat's rejection of the proposal was "a crime" and that Arafat's account "was not truthful" -- except, apparently, to Mr. Carter. The fact that Mr. Carter chooses to believe Arafat over Mr. Clinton speaks volumes."

[Howardx]

41. in the article posted

is what i meant. i have no knowledge of what dershowitz has said elsewhere

[still_one]

58. ok /nt

[Cary]

42. You missed my point.

Carter got his hat handed to him by Ronald Reagan. Dershowitz is a far more accomplished debater than Reagan.

I don't blame Carter for wimping out.

[Howardx]

43. i didnt mean to post after your comment

n/t

[stillcool]

49. well then ..there you have it...

Reagan is Mr. Wonderful and Carter is Mr. Wimp...thank you for clearing that up. Too bad Mr. Reagan wasn't as good a president as he was a debater.

[Cary]

55. Except that's not what I said.

Reagan sucked, both as a debater and a president. Yet Carter pretty much lost the election to Reagan in those debates.

If I recall correctly, there was a gasp in the audience when Carter didn't acknowledge something obvious. I think it was that the hostages in the embassy was a problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Since when is 'willing to debate Desrhowitz'

the benchmark? What a freaking ego that idiot has.

Hey Dersh, got torture yet?

[samfishX]

30. Let's debate Ann Coulter while we're at it.

I'm sure she'll correct any "inaccuracies", too.

I've seen Carter defend his book and what it says multiple times now, and frankly, he's 110% correct.

He doesn't have to get into the ring with someone who is only going to try and smear him and throw up strawmen. That's NOT a debate.
I wouldn't want to "debate" this issue with some genocidal Israeli shill, either.

[still_one]

36. Interesting viewpoint, "genocidal Israeli shill"

People love to dehumanize people they don't agree with

That is why there will always be wars in the world, "because my idea is right, and I don't want to listen to what you say, because your idea is wrong"

By the way do you know what genocide is?

[cali]

51. Idiot comment.

Not to mention hyperbole of the first order. Not that I'm a Dershowitz fan, but why do I suspect you don't know jackshit about him or his career, which I hate to break it to you, is a distinguished one. Sorry, you don't get to the Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard by just being some idiot. Dershowitz has actually done some brilliant work. That is NOT disputed among legal scholars.

[rodeodance]

33. a good debate would expose him as the fool he is (Dershowitz). Prob.

not wise of carter to ignore him. Yet......well, it is his call.

[still_one]

37. You are right it is his call, and I also think it would serve the interests of the subject

to debate it

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[happyslug]

44. Because discussion of a Subject requires more than people attacking each other

As observed by a Former Democratic Presidential Candidate regarding a "Debate" involving a court case:

“I don’t know that there is any special reason why I should add to what has been said, and yet the subject has been presented from so many viewpoints that I hope the Court will pardon me if I mention a viewpoint that has not been referred to. Dayton is the centre and seat of this trial largely by circumstance. We are told that more words have been sent across the ocean by cable to Europe and Australia about this trial than has ever been sent by cable in regard to anything else doing in the United States. That isn’t because the trial is held in Dayton. It isn’t because a school teacher has been subjected to the danger of a fine of from $100 to $500, but I think it illustrates how people can be drawn into prominence by attaching themselves to a great cause.

“Causes stir the world, and this cause has stirred the world. It is because it goes deep. It is because it extends wide and because it reaches into the future beyond the power of man to see. Here has been fought out a little case of little consequence as a case, but the world is interested because it raises an issue, and that issue will some day be settled right, whether it is settled on our side or the other side. It is going to be settled right. There can be no settlement of a great cause without discussion, and people will not discuss a cause until their attention is drawn to it, and the value of this trial is not in any incident of the trial, it is not because of anybody who is attached to it, either in any official way or as counsel on either side .

“Human beings are mighty small, your Honor. We are apt to minify the personal element and we sometimes become inflated with our importance, but the world little cares for man as an individual. He is born, he works, he dies, but causes go on forever, and we who have participated in this case may congratulate ourselves that we have attached ourselves to a mighty issue.

Now, if I were to attempt to define that issue I might find objection from the other side. Their definition of the issue might not be as mine is, and therefore, I will not take advantage of the privilege the Court gives me this morning to make a statement that might be controversial, and nothing that I would say would determine it.

I have no power to define this issue finally and authoritatively. None of the counsel on our side has this power, and none of the counsel on the other side has this power. Even this honorable Court has no such power. The people will determine this issue. They will take sides upon this issue, they will state the questions involved in this issue, they will examine the information — not so much that which has been brought out here, but this case will stimulate investigation and investigation will bring out information, and the facts will be known, and upon the facts as ascertained the decision will be rendered, and I think my friends and your Honor, that if we are actuated by the spirit that should actuate every one of us, no matter what our views may be, we ought not only desire but pray that that which is right will prevail, whether it be our way or somebody else’s.”

[Botany]

45. Attn Alan Dershowitz

1. You are not worthy of being in the same room as Jimmy Carter.

2. Honesty about the problems that the creation of the State of Israel
caused to their homeland for generations is needed to start the healing.

3. On a personal level you want to badger and lecture an 81 year old
man into seeing things "your way?" Get a grip. I have never met a lawyer
who did not think he/she was so skilled that they could make the argument
that water was not wet ..... Over all lawyers are just high paid "sucker fish"
who make their living by eating the left overs from some shark's kill.

4. Nice work on the O.J. defense too. With just the blood type,
shoe size, clothing fibers, blood trail, and African American hair
@ the crime scene (there is some some distinct morphology to different
types of hair) The odds that O.J. was not involved was 1 in 55 Billion
in other words if all the planets from Mercury out to Pluto including
earth all had populations the size of earth of humans and they all came
to L.A. that one night you know how many people besides O.J. would be
implicated by that evidence? None.

[Tom Joad]

54. Who better to represent the status quo of Israel though....

If he can get a rich guy off after he brutally kills two people, maybe he can do the same for Israeli policymakers.

[cali]

56. Of all the arguments against Dershowitz

that's one of the dumbest. The prosecution made errors that they shouldn't have. As for Dershowitz defending murderers, that's our system, and though I think we have to ensure that all accused persons receive adequate counsel, and the disparity caused by income is a serious flaw, it's actually a good thing that the accused gets zealous representation.

[Tom Joad]

57. I was arguing for Dershie, and saying how he would be especially well-suited

for the task of defending a murderous regime, and making sure they get the best representation possible.
but i wouldn't have expected you to understand that.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

63. And we can count on you, about 75 times a day on the average.

[cali]

81. Compared to what, tom?

Your 100 posts. Just take this thread, for example. You have 12 posts expounding on your POV to my 5, and that includes the one that was deleted. Pot, kettle, complexion.

[Scurrilous]

64. Get Carter

<snip>

"Jimmy Carter, by publishing his book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, walked straight into the buzz saw that is the Israel lobby. Among the vitriolic attacks on the former President was the claim by Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, that Carter is "outrageous" and "bigoted" and that his book raises "the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government." Many Democratic Party leaders, anxious to keep the Israel lobby's money and support, have hotfooted it out the door, with incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announcing that Carter "does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel."

Carter's book exposes little about Israel. The enforced segregation, abject humiliation and spiraling Israeli violence against Palestinians have been detailed in the Israeli and European press and, with remarkable consistency, by all the major human rights organizations. The assault against Carter, rather, says more about the failings of the American media--which have largely let Israel hawks heap calumny on Carter's book. It exposes the indifference of the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership to the rule of law and basic human rights, the timidity of our intellectual class and the moral bankruptcy of institutions that claim to speak for American Jews and the Jewish state."

<snip>

"The Israel lobby in the United States does not serve Israel or the Jewish community--it serves the interests of the Israeli extreme right wing. Most Israelis have come to understand that peace will be possible only when their country complies with international law and permits Palestinians to build a viable and sustainable state based on the 1967 borders, including, in some configuration, East Jerusalem."

This stark demarcation between Israeli pragmatists and the extreme right wing was apparent when I was in the Middle East for the New York Times during Yitzhak Rabin's 1992 campaign for prime minister. The majority of American Jewish organizations and neoconservative intellectuals made no pretense of neutrality. They had morphed into extensions of the right-wing Likud Party. These American groups, to Rabin's dismay, had gone on to build, with Likud, an alliance with right-wing Christian groups filled with real anti-Semites whose cultural and historical ignorance of the Middle East was breathtaking. This collection of messianic Jews and Christians, leavened with rabid American imperialists, believed they had been handed a divine or moral mandate to rule the Middle East, whether the Arabs liked it or not.

When Rabin, who had come to despise what the occupation was doing to the citizenry of his own country, was sworn in as prime minister, the leaders of these American Jewish organizations, along with their buffoonish supporters on the Christian right, were conspicuous by their absence. On one of Rabin's first visits to Washington after he assumed office, according to one of his aides, he was informed that a group of American Jewish leaders were available to meet him. The surly old general, whose gravelly cigarette voice seemed to rise up from below his feet, curtly refused. He told his entourage he did not have time to waste on "scumbags."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070108/hedges

"...he did not have time to waste on "scumbags."

Perhaps Jimmy's time is similarly constrained.

[Tom Joad]

65. Rabin was busy directing his soldiers to break bones of Palestinian children.

That's gotta keep you busy, you know.

[oberliner]

66. Please direct me to the source of your claim

that Rabin directed his soldiers to break bones of Palestinian children.

Thanks.

[Tom Joad]

67. Sure, here is one of many sites.

After the Palestinian uprising known as the Intifada began in 1987 in the Israel-occupied territories, Rabin ordered Israeli troops to shoot, not to kill, but to "break demonstrators' bones." He also began looking for a political solution that would stop short of creating a Palestinian state.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9511/rabin/profile/index.html

This puts it in its most positive spin, of course. CNN is never one to offend a US ally.

here are some Palestinian views:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9064

[oberliner]

68. Don't see anything about children in either of those links eom

[Tom Joad]

71. If you were familiar with the history of the 1st intifadah, you would know

that most of those who were confrontational with the illegal occupiers would be youth, though of course not exclusively so. They were the ones who threw rocks at the tanks and other tools of Israeli oppression.

There is data, somewhere, that bear out the very high number of Palestinian youth injured both by this intifadah and the earlier one.

At the moment, i don't have that data.

Of course, the rule of engagement during the second intifdah was to shoot those that resist. It was certainly an escalation.

[oberliner]

73. I know that many Palestinian youths were injured in the intifada

I do not think it is a fair characterization to say that Rabin "was too busy directing his soldiers to break bones of Palestinian children" to meet with American Jewish leaders.

Demonizing past Israeli Prime Ministers, especially ones who were assassinated by right-wing lunatics for signing peace treaties with the Palestinians, seems less than productive.

[pelsar]

101. actually tom joad is wrong...

many of the protestors were actually with a "mixed" population of young and old. As time past there would be much smaller tire burings with 4-8 youths with slingshots.

The actual orders in the field were to use batons if threatened.....tear gas to break up the demonstrators.

Intifada II was quite different with the palestenains having a well orchastrated protest: rocks with kids up front, AK47s either in the crowd or in the allyways behind.

[Tom Joad]

69. I call Alan Dershowitz to a debate.

a refusal to debate can only mean one thing:
That he is cowardly and his views cannot undergo scrutiny. That he fears i would correct his factual errors.

So Alan, what say you?

anytime, any place.

[everythingsxen]

74. He wouldn't for the same reason...

that Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Obama, Gore, Castro, Chavez, Olmert or any other world leader, celebrity, minor celebrity, CEO, COO, local branch manager of a bank or a 7-11 would not debate you:

They do not bother debating minor internet personalities whose only claim to fame is challenging famous people to debates.

There are a lot of crazy people on the internet. I doubt they have time to answer all the challenges issued from everyone with a keyboard. ;-)

[Tom Joad]

75. So you are saying Dersh has a right to turn down a debate?

Just like Carter has that right?

(edited for grammer)

[everythingsxen]

76. I never said Carter does not have the right to turn down the debate

However, it is different since they are both "in the big leagues". It is not the same as dismissing out of hand every person on the internet who wants a debate.

Carter is hardly a poor debater, I am sure he could use the debate as an excellent opportunity to prove his points and to show that he is simply continuing his cause for peace. Could he not show Mr. Dershowitz to be all that is claimed of him in this thread? I would think that you, in your support for President Carter, would want, nay demand, this debate so that he can show the whole world what his beliefs really are and how just his cause is.

[Tom Joad]

77. Dershowitz is in the big leagues???

A rabid anti-Arab racist militarist... and you put him in the "big leagues".

That's funny. Or sad. More sad.

I would rather Carter debate Noam Chomsky ... or Amira Hass... or Tanya Rienhart. They know much more about the reality in israel/Palestine than Carter.... his portrait of the situation is really too nice too kind to Israeli leaders.

[oberliner]

78. Chomsky debated Dershowitz on the I/P conflict just last year

Why did Noam Chomsky agree to such a debate?

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. during that debate Dershowitz resorted to name-calling, ridicule, personal attacks

and endless slight of hand "lawyerly tricks". Professor Dershowitz is simply not a very ethical debater. This might make him a very affective criminal defense advocate.

link to transcripts of debate:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/23/1450216

Professor Dershowitz is a man who actually try to publicize an outrageous story that Dr. Norman Finkelstein's late mother was a Nazi collaborator while she was in the concentration camps during World War II:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=129

[everythingsxen]

79. Yes, I would count someone who has authored

more than a dozen books, been the primary counsel on multiple high-profile court cases, regularly appears as a commentator in various media outlets and who is a Professor of Law at Harvard as being "in the big leagues". At least compared to say people who safely post anonymously on message boards.

And what amazingly interesting debates you would choose to line up!

Debate Begins

Carter: I think the situation is apartheid.

(everyone you listed as a debate "opponent"): I AGREE!

Debate Over

Of course I doubt you would want real debate over the issue, which is why you chose people who would simply echo Carter's own views.

[cali]

82. Have you read the book

yet? As for your comments about Dershowitz, that's really too funny. I disagree with him strongly about Israel. I believe he's wrong about the fascile "ticking time bomb" shit, but sorry, Alan Dershowitz is considered one of the most accomplished lawyers and legal experts in the country. Only someone who refuses to acknowledge reality would deny that.

[Tom Joad]

85. But Dersh is a racist. He is unworthy to lick the dust off my shoe, much less

less debate carter.

[msmcghee]

86. While Dershowitz is certainly pro-Israel . .

. . that hardly amounts to racism. Can you provide one statement of his that is actually racist?

[Tom Joad]

89. You wouldn't understand, msmcghee.

For you to advocate the bulldozing of whole Palestinian villages just seems normal. It is pretty close to standard Israeli policy in any case, look what happened to Jenin.

If you can't understand that as being racist and acts of state terrorism... there would be no way to convince you otherwise.

"New response to Palestinian terrorism," Jerusalem Post (11 March 2002)

Israel should announce an immediate unilateral cessation in retaliation against terrorist attacks. This moratorium would be in effect for a short period, say four or five days, to give the Palestinian leadership an opportunity to respond to the new policy. It would also make it clear to the world that Israel is taking an important step in ending what has become a cycle of violence. Following the end of the moratorium, Israel would institute the following new policy if Palestinian terrorism were to resume. It will announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings. The response will be automatic. The order will have been given in advance of the terrorist attacks and there will be no discretion. The point is to make the automatic destruction of the village the fault of the Palestinian terrorists who had advance warnings of the specific consequences of their action. The soldiers would simply be acting as the means for carrying out a previously announced policy of retaliation against a designated target. -Dershie

I think dersh here is not only making clear what should happen to all the homes and buildings of the village, but he is also making clear what should happen to its inhabitants if they don't wisely leave their homes.... "The response will be automatic....there will be no discretion."

Great legal minds?!? More like racist filth.

I think only people who respected the human rights of all people, including Palestinians, would comprehend that.

[msmcghee]

92. I asked you to show racism on his part.

If he had said to level any Arab village then that would be racist. Instead he suggested "For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations".

This is obviously an attempt to offer suggestions to stop terrorism and has nothing to do with racism. Nowhere in his article does he suggest singling out Arabs or any other race for harsh treatment.

Instead of telling me that I "wouldn't understand" why not show that you do understand what racism is - and provide an actual example of Dershowitz' racism.

Your last post failed in that regard.

[Tom Joad]

93. My prediction proved true. quite sad.

[msmcghee]

95. So, this means that you . .

.. can't provide any actual examples of racism on Dershowitz' part?

As I suspected. Thanks for playing.

[Tom Joad]

96. No sir, just an example of Dershies desire to destroy Palestinian villages,

to make Palestinian children homeless, to destroy what has often been there for many centuries... these homes usually have been in the family for countless generations. Unless it is in a refugee camp... then that means they have already been robbed of their homes and what is rightfully theirs, and they are trying to live as best they can in these camps... still it will be only Palestinian children who will thrown out, only Palestinian brothers and sisters without a home.

So what if a village is destroyed. So what if a three year old becomes a homeless refugee, after all, they don't feel like us Europeans/Western people. That's the mindset. That's the thinking of a dispicable racist.

[msmcghee]

97. His words state that his intentions . .

. . are to reduce terrorism by threatening to destroy villages where terrorists set up their operations. I'm not sure how well this would work but he is discussing possible alternatives to reduce attacks by an entrenched enemy that kills many Israeli civilians every year and that operates from and hides weapons in Palestinian villages.

He says nothing about destroying Palestinian villages indiscriminately. If he simply wanted to destroy Palestinian villages as you claim - then he would have no need to limit his threats to those villages that are known to headquarter terrorist operations.

You have failed to show that he is a racist. Would you like to try again?

[Tom Joad]

98. He clearly states support for carrying out State terror activities against Palestinian civilians.

Whole villages. Many Families. With Children. Who laugh and play and dream.

And your only expressed concern is that this may not be effective in helping Israel. Fascinating.

[msmcghee]

99. You have a pretty broad definition of terrorism.

The Palestinian entity (it's not a state yet but certainly has the ability to foster terrorism against Israel and has stated its intentions to do so) has declared war on Israel.

During war, in defense of its citizens, states sometimes find it necessary to defend themselves by attacking the cities and towns that their enemy uses to stage its offensive operations. As long as the purpose is to destroy enemy combatants and their equipment / infrastructure, collateral damage to civilians and their property are considered not to be in violation of international laws - as long a reasonable precautions are taken to minimize civilian suffering. In this case Dershowitz suggested that the towns be put on notice and warned - well ahead of time - that their towns would suffer if they were used to attack Israel. That seems like a pretty reasonable precaution to me.

Peace-preferring states acting in their defense almost always try less inhumane means first - and in this case I would note that Israel has not adopted this policy. It was a suggestion that was rejected.

Looking at history it seems that aggressor states are often motivated at least partially by racism. I would remind you of the many references in Palestinian leadership hyperbole to "the Jews" and the film clips I have referred to previously showing small children dutifully reciting their desire to "kill Jews" when they grow up.

I'm not sure the question of racism would be a profitable one for your side to pursue. However, the question we were pursuing (some of us more than others) was the question of Alan Dershowitz' purported racism. A question that you raised. You were asked to give an example of a single statement by him which could unequivocally be classified as racist - which I note you have so far failed to produce.

Are you ready to concede on this matter or will you attempt to divert the conversation once again?

[cali]

87. Therein is exhibited

a mentality that escapes me. I would never make such a remark about anyone. I'm glad to say i don't think in such terms. And please note, I've defended Carter's decision not to debate a showboater.

[oberliner]

88. And yet Noam Chomsky deemed him worthy to debate with

on more than one occasion, including last year.

[idontwantaname]

70. debate with those who are worth it

carter knows better than get in the mud pit with dershowitz. just a bit ago he met with rabbis didnt he?

[Scurrilous]

84. Braindeis: Jimmy Carter Can Only Come Here If He Does a Vaudeville Act With Dershowitz

<snip>

"M.J. Rosenberg has a terrific piece on TPM about his alma mater Brandeis saying that Jimmy Carter can only speak there if he's balanced by Alan Dershowitz.

~ It is with real pain that I note that Brandeis is yielding to what amounts to an academic boycott of a former President for criticizing Israel.... We look like mini-Joe McCarthys and we are all being hurt by this...

Israelis themselves just laugh. How is it, they ask, that they can debate Israel-Palestine with absolute freedom but we Americans are afraid to...

Invite Carter to speak. Alone. Like any other speaker. Your students can handle it. Trust me. Trust them. ~

The Boston Herald reports that the Dershowitz act was dreamed up by Brandeis trustee Stuart Eizenstat, a former Carter adviser, along with Brandeis Prez Jehuda Reinharz. Just like when the New York Theatre Workshop decided it could only put on Rachel Corrie's show last spring if it was suitably "contextualized," with pro-Israel voices. These paroxysms speak to the same lesson: the Israel lobby isn't a control room in Washington, it's a general climate of fear about Israel's future that clouds the minds of goodthinking liberals who are empowered—with the ability to shut off debate. Even a former president lacks standing."

http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/12/braindeis-jimmy-carter-can-only-come-here-if-he-does-a-vaude.html

[Tom Joad]

90. It plainly is an attempt at censorship. Not new. but not working.

Carter's book is #5 on the New York Times bestseller list. Probably to go even higher soon.

Sorry dershie... go whimper on Fox News. Here, have a biscuit.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

94. Bookstores in the Bay Area are taking orders. it has sold out.

It's nothing JK Rowling would feel envious about, but for a non-fiction hardcover on foreign policy, it is doing very very well.

Maybe the sight of Dersh whining and howling on Fox and elsewhere have people deciding to get the book. Thanks dersh!

And kudos for Jimmy too.

[Tarc]

100. The real question is

Why should an ex-president and renowned statesman debase himself by debating this clown? Being Jewish does not confer automatic expertise on Middle East affairs, and the fact that his petty OpEd tirade is nothing but a string of ad hominem attacks and strawmen fallaices doesn't help his case much.

Cheers to Carter for declining this "invitation".