Dhimmi Carter won't debate Alan Dershowitz about Israel and the Palestinians. Why not? Because Dershowitz, says Carter, "knows nothing about the situation in Palestine." Dershowitz, of course, is author of The Case for Israel, and author of a respectful and devastating review of Carter's new book here. I doubt Carter has any reasonable response to the points Dershowitz raises in his review, and so he has resorted to the easy refuge of the intellectually bereft: he charges that his opponent is beneath him, and refuses to debate. Regular Jihad Watch readers will recognize this tactic from its use against me by academics such as Omid Safi and Carl Ernst. In all cases it's the same situation: the side that knows it would lose a debate declines to debate at all on the grounds that the idiocy of the opponent make such a debate superfluous. But the emperor's new clothes are showing in all their glory, Mr. Carter.
"Carter invite fizzles," by Farah Stockman and Marcella Bombardieri in the Boston Globe, with thanks to James:
It seemed like a good idea: Have former President Jimmy Carter come to Brandeis University to talk about his controversial new book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."But the idea ended -- as many things on Carter’s tumultuous nationwide book tour have -- in disagreement and controversy.
Brandeis president Jehuda Reinharz said he agreed with a trustee’s suggestion to invite Carter last month, if Carter were willing to debate one of his most outspoken critics, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.
Carter, president from 1977-1981, rejected the idea. To Carter, the episode was proof that many in the United States were unwilling to hear an alternative view on what he says is the most taboo foreign-policy issue in the United States -- Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.
But others say it shows Carter himself is unwilling to debate his own best -- selling book, which has sparked allegations of errors and omissions, charges of anti-Israeli bias, and protesters at his book signings.
"President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate. Then why won’t he debate?" Dershowitz said.
[...]
Reinharz thought the debate was "a terrific idea," he said in a telephone interview.
Carter, however, was stunned by the proposal.
"I don’t want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz," Carter said. ‘‘There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."
Jimmy Carter: the Omid Safi of ex-Presidents.
Pretty soon I suspect will go all the way and convert to Islam and before you know it will be on the way to Mecca to run around the Kabbah. what an idiot.
And then Carter will travel back to the States to spread the 'word' on Islam how its a religion of peace but he will be drowned out by the loud laughter of Americans. lol.
I notice that Jimmy isn't building houses for Habitat For Humanity anymore. Could it be that HFH finally figured out that he is an incompetent boob?
Despicable.
Peanut Khadr the slanderer, the accident in history, the alleged 'Gutmensch' who turned out to be such a vicious, Jew-hating moron...
Surprised? Not really. His pathetic existence offends, his babble annoys, his attention grabbing gymnastics are revolting and why Larry King, a Jew, gives him airtime is incomprehensible. But at least it refutes Khadrs own lies that 'the Jewish Lobby' controls freedom of the press....
What an insignificant s#*t this guy is!
I can proudly say that I did not vote for Peanut. I even voted for Kennedy in the '80 Democrat Primary, then voted for Reagan. If one considers the '76 election, I have voted against him three times.
When will we learn to avoid Democrat ex-governors from the South?
Peanut should know something about the situation in "Palestine," he helped create it.
I would never dismiss Alan Dershowitz like Carter did. That guy's pretty tough business.
But for all those trashing Carter, I'd like to say I'm 41 years old and I remember the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan like it was yesterday. I remember how this was proof -- nothing else needed to be said! -- that Carter was weak and incompetent and the Soviets were on a roll.
Then, many years later, it became "common knowledge" that Afghanistan was a bear trap purposely set by the Carter administration, and that as a result of that the Cold War ended years before it otherwise would have.
He started the military build-up.
He appropriately responded to the Soviet challenge. Reagan and his people -- including Richard Pearl -- cooked the intelligence books and lied through their teeth about the strength and intentions of the U.S.S.R. What they did in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the issue of WMD's was long old hat to those guys.
Carter beat Reagan by a country mile on job growth.
Real economic growth was higher under him than under Reagan; that is, growth adjusted for inflation. This is despite the oil shock following the Iranian revolution. This is despite the fact that the personal computer industry came into its own during the Reagan administration. In fact, the 80's had the lowest real economic growth rates of the post-WWII era.
On the Muslims I say: be on your guard. On the "elites" who run this country I say: they'll lie through their teeth about everything. Trust nothing.
Pneumatikon, I think you were asleep from '76 to '80. Carter was an inept fool. I think you purposefully left out the 14% interest rates and the failure of the "rescue mission" to free the Iranian hostages.
Oh, I turn 60 in three months.
You wrote: Then, many years later, it became "common knowledge" that Afghanistan was a bear trap purposely set by the Carter administration, and that as a result of that the Cold War ended years before it otherwise would have.
I need proof, common knowledge, eh. Common, where, on the Moon?
"He appropriately responded to the Soviet challenge." by pneumatikon
THE ONLY THING CARTER DID IN RESPONSE TO THE SOVIET'S INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN WAS TO BOYCOTT THE 1980 SUMMER OLYMPICS.
It was because of Carter's weakness that the Soviets were emboldened to invade, knowing that Carter was too busy wringing his hands over the hostages in Iran.
I can visualize Jimmy in the Oval Office saying, "Oh,lawdy Mista Hamilton what is I gwinna do? I doesn't know nothin' 'bout innernational politikkin."
Fitzgerald, please post a link to the essay you did a year ago belying the "land theft theory" of how the Jews came into possession of all that property in Palestine.
A synapse just fired. Carter got both his view of Jews, and this debating style, from Rickover.
Apologize for the drift, but Rickover probably was thinking of Carter when he gave this address to Columbia University in 1982:
… A major flaw in our system of government, and even in industry, is the latitude allowed to do less than is necessary. Too often officials are willing to accept and adapt to situations they know to be wrong. The tendency is to downplay problems instead of actively trying to correct them…
http://www.govleaders.org/rickover.htm
Pelayo and Pneumatikon: I'm no longer young, either. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the papier-mache grin came unstuck and Carter said, "I've learned more about them in three weeks than I have in all the previous three years together." Give him credit for learning. It was then that Zibigniew Brzezinski, the one-eyed Pole for whom the enemy was Russia rather than Communism got the idea to "pee in their back yard"--and Brzezinski was the "tame" hawk in Carter's foreign policy team. Yes, the beginning of covert aid to the Afghan Mujaheddin did begin under Carter--but after he'd been kicked in the arse due to his original credulity about Soviet intentions and getting himself into a position in which he invited a kick in the arse.
It was better to have Reagan, who was always clear on who the enemy was. And I also remember the stagflation of the Carter years.
Still, I'm no fan of Dershowitz. I once watched him debate Allan Keyes, and when Keyes made a point about the importance of morality, Dershowitz replied "I don't know what right and wrong are"--and that's the sort of person whose been training the legal elite of America for decades. Maybe he woke up on 9/11 like a lot of others (Dhimmi Khadr, however, seems to have sunk deeper into torpor), for which I'm thankful, but I still think that Dershowitz is cut from the same relativist liberal cloth that too many in our national elite are.
pneumatikon,
I remember the invasion of Afghanistan too; I'm a bit older than you but as I recall, it began on Christmas day. They invaded Afghanistan because they knew Carter wouldn't do anything about it, and he was busy kissing ayatollah a--ses. Carter knew the invasion was imminent and he wasn't about to get involved. The four years Jimmy Carter was president were awful. Carter did nothing to lay the groundwork for Reagan's successes and God knows the liberals hated Reagan as much as they hate Bush. They, with the help of the media, relentlessly attacked him and everything he did for eight years. I would give anything for another eight years of Reagan.
During Carter's term the economy sucked, interest rates were sky high, energy prices were exorbitant, and instead of addressing the problems, he went on television with his little fireside chats and blamed the mess on the American people! I can still remember his lectures about our overindulgence in everything and I distinctly remember in one of his little diatribes, he stated that all of the world's oil supplies would be depleted by 1995. Carter was a weak, stumbling, inept president and he is an embarrassment to this country.
I lived in Georgia during his presidency and I still do and I can assure you that he is not well liked or respected in his home state. He gave away the Panama canal; he thought the Ayatollah Komenhi was a "holy" man; he bungled the hostage crisis; he sold out the Shah; HE WAS AN IDIOT!
"To Carter, the episode was proof that many in the United States were unwilling to hear an alternative view on what he says is the most taboo foreign-policy issue in the United States -- Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory."
The request for a debate is interpreted by Carter as a symptom of the 'Jewish problem', that is, the taboo of criticizing Israel created by the Jewish influenced media and Jewish influence in Washington.
Imagine a Jewish political scientist in the 1930s asking for a debate with Adolf Hitler to question and discuss his assumptions in Mein Kampf. Hitler would treat him with far more contempt, of course, but the general strategy would be the same: "I will not talk to you because you are part of the problem that needs to be solved!" Hitler's solution is to actively seek extermination of the 'problem'. Carter's solution to the 'problem' is to let those bent on extermination of the 'problem' have their way.
But, the problem, "Jewish existence" (which in modern times gets translated as "Israel's legitimacy" or "Zionist presence" or "Zionist occupation") is conceived in similar ways; the imagined Jewish conspiracies, media control, mysterious, overpowering influence, are like in kind; the irrational refusal to openly discuss criticism is eerily similar, and the nature of the solution the same: allow the German people/ the Palestinian people, control over their own destiny, resist Jewish/Zionist attempts to influence and control world government, world media, put the Jews in their proper place (give the 'Palestinians' a 'state' and allow them to return home: that is, destory Israel/give the Aryan Germans control over their true destiny and give them the power to eradicate the Jewish 'presence'), and the 'problem' will be solved.
Note: the 'eradiction' of the 'Zionist state' and 'cultural and economic presence' is made perfectly clear in both the Hamas Charter and the Fateh Constitution (documents Carter would surely not refuse to discuss because to do so would be a symptom of the problem: bending to Jewish will). There can be no question about how major 'Palestinian' political faction envision the 'destiny' of the Palestinian people: Israel destroyed and Jews gone.
The analogies hold.
Words of one of my four heros; increasingly so…
He must be able, in effect, to “kill his own child” if necessary and must require his subordinates to do likewise. I have had to go to Congress and, because of technical problems, recommended terminating a project that had been funded largely on my say-so. It is not a pleasant task, but one must be brutally objective in his work.
It's not just Dershowitz, all of the mainstream liberals, Pelosi, Dean, et al, are distancing themselves from Carter and his book. During the '90s Carter had a slight resurgence in popularity as an elder statesman, but that's all gone now, thankfully.
limes,
I may be a bit biased due to my handle, but that sounds like something Gen. Buck Tergensen would have said. HEHE :)
WnGCS; Don't know the man. Doesn't Google well either. -L
I have to admit, while I wasn't surprised Carter pussed out, I was surprised by his stated reason. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with Mr Dershowitz, he is certainly knowledgable about Middle Eastern affairs. The dismissive comments Jimbo made reveal not only a thin-skin about the criticism he's receiving about the book, but a contempt for opposing viewpoints in the face of a previously stated desire to "spark a dialogue."
I have a prediction. Carter will publicly apologize to Alan Dershowitz.
limes,
The spelling of the name may be off, but check out info on the flick: "Dr. Strangelove" with Peter Sellers and all will be clear.
What's wrong with Chicken Jimmy? Why won't he stand up?
Geoff
Limes & We need G.C. Scott, Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson did not say any thing like that that I can remember. Check out The Internet Movie Database (IMDB.COM) They have dialogue excerpts from "Strangelove."
I will quote Major T. J. "King" Kong: "Well, I've been to one worlds fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones." or hear an ex-president say.
Carter was the most incompetent president in the history of the US.
He did more damage to the US and to the entire world (facilitating the north koreans to get nuclear technology and Khomeini`s islamic revolution in Iran),than any other person that i could think of.
Carter`s name should be down there with the likes of Stalin and Lenin.
The day the N.Y.Times will publish his obituary will be a great day for America and for the rest of the civilized world.
He continues to be a disgrace for our great nation.
Will someone PLEASE get Jimmy checked out for senility already? The man is becoming more embarrassing by the day. Must he wet his pants before he gets the medical attention he desperately needs?
On the issue of anti-Semitism and Israel, Carter has never before been so publicly and strongly attacked by a famous centrist/center-left intellectual (Dershowitz). Carter's already beat-up but in some quarters still radiant reputation seems seriously threatened. So maybe Carter has decided to stand pat rather than risk having himself further exposed by debating someone as brilliant and principled -- and hugely knowledgeable about Palestine -- as Dershowitz.
Dershowitz is one of the top experts in the world on Palestine, and Carter must know that, so I suspect Carter rejected debate with him to avoid losing, though not only and perhaps not mainly for that reason. I suspect Carter probably feels personally offended by some of the very sharply negative comments Dershowitz has made about Carter's book. So Carter is responding ad hominem. Dershowitz strongly criticized Carter's book not merely on a literary or factual level, but on an ethical one. Dershowitz argues it is a very biased, shoddy, irresponsible and inaccurate book.
Check out Chapter 2, "Did European Jews Displace Palestinians?", in the book The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz.
truth is Jimmy Carter is a some one but knows nothing about what he is talking about, he basically is a peanut farmer and dummy -- rantif he knew what he was talking about he would not be spouting is nonsense even the corner and bag -- Lady knows more about the Middle East than he does
If you could reverse the history, you have supported serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo and sovietic in Afghanistan, Because I had done it.
CAIR and Carter
Running their mouths, but unwilling to step on stage to debate.
The carter years are a reminder what we can expect from future dems, lots of talk not much action, it seem that the upperclass of our nation( BOTH REPS/DEMS) has different ideas on what it takes to be an American, we 7/11 and walmart dwellers see a real idea, vote for the future of your childrens wellbeing, not a party affiliation!!!
Carter needs a little medicine.
http://librarianinblack.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/thorazine.jpg
Once again I will state the "Jimmy Law of American Intelligence"
Jimmy Carter who is the absolute zero for which intellgence in measured. At absolute zero all intelligence stops. On the scale of American Intelligence called the "Peanut Curve" Jimmy Carter equals zero and is represented by C.
C = 0
At one time many felt (like me) that W also equaled C (thus W = C) but it has never been proven. That no matter how low W is he will never fall below or equal C.
has carter ever been checked for obsessive schizophrenia
Jimmy Carter is not stupid, nor is he silly or cavalier. Therefore, since he believes such lies (or claims to), and will not enter into debate, I must say that I think he is evil. There ARE evil people in the world.
As for Jews and Palestinians: I wish to God there would be some way to peacefully remove all Jews from Israel (temporarily) and then sit back and watch what the Arabs do to the land, the structures, the holy places, and one another. Within a few weeks the place would be a deserted rat-trap. Then Emperor Michael Paleologus (the new Emperor of the East) would send a chain-gang composed of Turks and Persians to Israel and clean the place up so that the Jews could move back in and (again) turn the place into the lush, productive land they made it in the first place. The Arabs, of course, would be comfortably ensconced in some oases in Saudi Hell, burning camel manure for heatand reading goat entrails to figure out which one of their counsins their daughter should marry.
Once that fantasy came true, Emperor Mike could sit enthroned in Aghia Sophia and watch the Pope and the Ec. Patriarch celebrate the Eucharist together.
The Turks could all be put on some rickety old school-buses and sent back to central Asia, and the Iranis could go back to live in Persia, perhaps under a Zoroastrian emperor
I know, ...I know... But someone once said that if you can dream it it can be done.
Not only is Carter an ignorant, arrogant ass, he's a coward to boot. What a slime ball. Mr. Peanut should just stick to doing what he knows best -- farming peanuts, collecting Saudi bucks, and being a racist redneck...anything else and he's outside his league.
Carter doesn't think himself to be a racist, he can't see that far!!!!
Adela: While I have no fond memories of the Carter presidency, I think that lining up JEC with Stalin and Hitler isgoing just a bit too far. He was a useful idiot; not destructive himself.
Carter is such a national embarrassment. No question there.
Yet, I caution JWer's to not put much stock in Dershowitz. He can be the liberal's top advocate--and he can be tenacious in a conservative cause too. The question I ask is:
Is Dershowitz' integrity trustworthy? I have my doubts.
I was told about his supposedly lifting much info for his "A Case for Israel" from Joan Peters' 1984 book, "From Time Immemorial."
http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_dershowitz_plagiarism.pdf
Who told you that, BB? Norm Finkelstein, who had to eat his words over his allegations against Dershowitz? As for Peters' book being flawed, I'd say her scholarship is considerably greater than Nutty Norm's.
Dershowitz made some good points against carter in his review of the book [if we may call it a book]. But he lost me when he wrote that carter was "decent" or some such. I don't see what is decent about carter. A fraud and liar is not decent.