Deshowitz on Carter. I think these points are worthy of a new thread
Ex-President for Sale
by Alan M. Dershowitz
January 08, 2007 11:51 AM EST (Updated: January 09, 2007 10:22 AM EST)
It now turns out that Jimmy Carter--who is accusing the Jews of buying
the silence of the media and politicians regarding criticism of
Israel--has been bought and paid for by Arab money.
In his recent book tour to promote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,
Carter has been peddling a particularly nasty bit of bigotry. The
canard is that Jews own and control the media, and prevent newspapers
and the broadcast media from presenting an objective assessment of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Jews have bought and paid for every
single member of Congress so as to prevent any of them from espousing
a balanced position. How else can anyone understand Carter's claims
that it is impossible for the media and politicians to speak freely
about Israel and the Middle East? The only explanation – and one that
Carter tap dances around, but won't come out and say directly â€“ is
that Jews control the media and buy politicians. Carter then presents
himself as the sole heroic figure in American public life who is free
of financial constraints to discuss Palestinian suffering at the hands
of the Israelis.
Listen carefully to what Carter says about the media:
the plight of the Palestinians is "not something that has been
acknowledged or even discussed in this country... You never hear
anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis."
He claims to have personally "witnessed and experienced the severe
restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts." He
implies that the Jews impose these "severe restraints." He then goes
on to say that the only reason his book--which has been universally
savaged by reviewers--is receiving such negative reviews is because
they are all being written by "representatives of Jewish
organizations" (demonstrably false!). So much for the media.
Now here is what he says about politicians:
"It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to
espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest
that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of
justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to
visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or
even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents."
Each of these claims is demonstrably false, as I have shown in detail
The plight of the Palestinians has been covered more extensively, per
capita, than the plight of any other group in the world, certainly
more than the Tibetans and the victims of genocides in Darfur and
Rwanda. Moreover, Carter totally ignores the impact of Arab oil money
and the influence of the Saudi lobby. In numerous instances where the
Arab lobbies have been pitted against the Israeli lobby, the former
Even beyond these nasty canards, the big story that the media and
political figures in America have missed is how grievously they,
themselves have been insulted and disrespected by our self-righteous
former president. Carter is lecturing The New York Times, The
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and the major networks
about how they are incapable of reporting the news objectively because
they are beholden to some Jewish cabal. He is telling Pulitzer Prize
winning writers such as Tom Friedman and Samatha Power that they did
not deserve their prizes. He is telling George Will that his reporting
is controlled by his Jewish bosses (sound a little bit like Judith
Regan?). And he is denying that Anderson Cooper is capable of filing
an honest report from the West Bank.
As far as our legislators are concerned, he is accusing Barack Obama,
John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Patrick Leahy of being bought and
paid for by the Israeli lobby. On Planet Carter, even congressmen with
no Jewish constituents would be committing political suicide by taking
a balanced position on the Middle East. What an outrageous insult to
some of the best journalists and most independent political figures in
At the bottom, Carter is saying that no objective journalist or
politician could actually believe that America's support for Israel is
based on moral and strategic considerations and not on their own
financial self-interest. Such a charge is so insulting to every honest
legislator and journalist in this country that I am amazed that Carter
has been let off the hook so easily. Only the self-righteous Jimmy
Carter is capable of telling the truth, because only he is free of
financial pressures that might influence his positions.
It now turns out that the shoe is precisely on the other foot. Recent
disclosures prove that it is Carter who has been bought and paid for
by anti-Israel Arab and Islamic money.
Journalist Jacob Laksin has documented [ "Jimmy Carter and the Arab
Lobby" December 18, 2006 [url]http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26045[/url] ] the tens of millions of dollars that the Carter Center has accepted from
Saudi Arabian royalty and assorted other Middle Eastern sultans, who,
in return, Carter dutifully praised as peaceful and tolerant (no
matter how despotic the regime) . And these are only the confirmed,
Carter has also accepted half a million dollars 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.
Another journalist, Rachel Ehrenfeld, in a thorough and devastating
article on "Carter's Arab Financiers," [ [url]http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061220-092736-3365r.htm[/url] ] meticulously catalogues Carter's ties to Arab moneymen, from a Saudi bailout of his peanut farm in 1976, to funding for Carter's presidential library, to continued support for all manner of Carter's post-presidential activities.
For instance, it was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International
(BCCI), founded in Pakistan and fronted by a Saudi billionaire, Gaith
Pharaon, that helped Carter start up his beloved Carter Center.
According to Ehrenfeld:
"BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. [Agha Hasan] Abedi wanted
the bank to reflect the supra-national Muslim credo and 'the best
bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil
influence of the Zionists.'
As Ehrenfeld concluded: "[I]t seems that AIPAC's real fault was its
failure to outdo the Saudi's purchases of the former president's
loyalty. There has not been any nation in the world that has been
more cooperative than Saudi Arabia," The New York Times quoted Mr.
Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a major factor in U. S.
foreign policy. "Evidently, the millions in Arab petrodollars feeding
Mr. Carter's global endeavors, often in conflict with U.S. government
policies, also ensure his loyalty."
It is particularly disturbing that a former president who has accepted
dirty blood-money from dictators, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and
supporters of terrorism should try to deflect attention from his own
conflicts of interest by raising the oldest canard in the sordid
history of anti-Semitism: namely, that Jews have dual loyalty and use
their money improperly to influence the country they live in, in favor
of the country to which they owe their real allegiance. Abraham Foxman
responded to Carter's canard as follows:
As disturbing as Carter's simplistic approach is, however, even more
disturbing is his picking up on the Mearsheimer -Walt theme of Jewish
control of American policy, though in much more abbreviated form and
not being the focus of his work. Referring to U.S. policy and the
"condoning" of Israel's actions, Carter says: "There are constant and
vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies
in the West Bank but because of powerful political, economic, and
religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government decisions are rarely
questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate our media, and
most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied
territories." In other words, the old canard and conspiracy theory of
Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government is
rearing its ugly head in the person of a former President.
As noted above, the most perverse aspect of Carter's foray into
bigotry is that as he pours this old wine into new bottles he is
himself awash in Arab money. When a politician levels these kinds of
cynical accusations against others, it would seem incumbent on him to
show that his own hands are clean and his own pockets empty.
Accordingly I now call upon Carter to make full public disclosure of
all of his and the Carter Center's ties to Arab money. If he fails to
do so, I challenge the media to probe deeply into his, his family's,
and his Center's Arab ties so that the public can see precisely the
sources and amounts of money he has received and judge whether it has
corrupted the process of objective reportage and politics by Carter
and others who have received such funds. Finally, I ask the
appropriate government agencies to conduct an investigation into
whether Carter should be required to register as a lobbyist for
Let's stop invoking discredited ethnic stereotypes, look at the hard
facts, and actually see who's being bought and sold.
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book
is Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (Norton, 2006)
Join the conversation and read Alan Dershowitz' exclusive six part
series "Ex-President for Sale" on Gather at alandershowitz.gather.com
Board members keep resigning from the Carter Center because of Jimmy's lies. Jimmy was too chicken-sh*t to debate Dershowitz at Brandeis. He's confident enough to write a book and make money and earn praise from liberals, but too chickensh*t to defend his work. If his book is so important, he should WELCOME debates, no? What a p*ssy. Claudia Rossett is also all over his funding sources...He is a national disgrace.
Dennis Ross on Carter's Plagarism and Truthfullnes
Don't Play With Maps
By DENNIS ROSS
Published: January 9, 2007
I BECAME embroiled in a controversy with former President Jimmy Carter over the use of two maps in his recent book, ''Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.'' While some criticized what appeared to be the misappropriation of maps I had commissioned for my book, ''The Missing Peace,'' my concern was always different.
I was concerned less with where the maps had originally come from -- Mr. Carter has said that he used an atlas that was published after my book appeared -- and more with how they were labeled. To my mind, Mr. Carter's presentation badly misrepresents the Middle East proposals advanced by President Bill Clinton in 2000, and in so doing undermines, in a small but important way, efforts to bring peace to the region.
In his book, Mr. Carter juxtaposes two maps labeled the ''Palestinian Interpretation of Clinton's Proposal 2000'' and ''Israeli Interpretation of Clinton's Proposal 2000.''
The problem is that the ''Palestinian interpretation'' is actually taken from an Israeli map presented during the Camp David summit meeting in July 2000, while the ''Israeli interpretation'' is an approximation of what President Clinton subsequently proposed in December of that year. Without knowing this, the reader is left to conclude that the Clinton proposals must have been so ambiguous and unfair that Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was justified in rejecting them. But that is simply untrue.
In actuality, President Clinton offered two different proposals at two different times. In July, he offered a partial proposal on territory and control of Jerusalem. Five months later, at the request of Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister, and Mr. Arafat, Mr. Clinton presented a comprehensive proposal on borders, Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and security. The December proposals became known as the Clinton ideas or parameters.
Put simply, the Clinton parameters would have produced an independent Palestinian state with 100 percent of Gaza, roughly 97 percent of the West Bank and an elevated train or highway to connect them. Jerusalem's status would have been guided by the principle that what is currently Jewish will be Israeli and what is currently Arab will be Palestinian, meaning that Jewish Jerusalem -- East and West -- would be united, while Arab East Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state.
The Palestinian state would have been ''nonmilitarized,'' with internal security forces but no army and an international military presence led by the United States to prevent terrorist infiltration and smuggling. Palestinian refugees would have had the right of return to their state, but not to Israel, and a fund of $30 billion would have been created to compensate those refugees who chose not to exercise their right of return to the Palestinian state.
When I decided to write the story of what had happened in the negotiations, I commissioned maps to illustrate what the proposals would have meant for a prospective Palestinian state. If the Clinton proposals in December 2000 had been Israeli or Palestinian ideas and I was interpreting them, others could certainly question my interpretation. But they were American ideas, created at the request of the Palestinians and the Israelis, and I was the principal author of them. I know what they were and so do the parties.
It is certainly legitimate to debate whether President Clinton's proposal could have settled the conflict. It is not legitimate, however, to rewrite history and misrepresent what the Clinton ideas were.
Indeed, since the talks fell apart, there has emerged a mythology that seeks to defend Mr. Arafat's rejection of the Clinton ideas by suggesting they weren't real or they were too vague or that Palestinians would have received far less than what had been advertised. Mr. Arafat himself tried to defend his rejection of the Clinton proposals by later saying he was not offered even 90 percent of the West Bank or any of East Jerusalem. But that was myth, not reality.
Why is it important to set the record straight? Nothing has done more to perpetuate the conflict between Arabs and Israelis than the mythologies on each side. The mythologies about who is responsible for the conflict (and about its core issues) have taken on a life of their own. They shape perception. They allow each side to blame the other while avoiding the need to face up to its own mistakes. So long as myths are perpetuated, no one will have to face reality.
And yet peace can never be built on these myths. Instead it can come only once the two sides accept and adjust to reality. Perpetuating a myth about what was offered to justify the Arafat rejection serves neither Palestinian interests nor the cause of peace.
I would go a step further. If, as I believe, the Clinton ideas embody the basic trade-offs that will be required in any peace deal, it is essential to understand them for what they were and not to misrepresent them. This is especially true now that the Bush administration, for the first time, seems to be contemplating a serious effort to deal with the core issues of the conflict.
Of course, one might ask if trying to address the core issues is appropriate at a moment when Palestinians are locked in an internal stalemate and the Israeli public lacks confidence in its government. Can politically weak leaders make compromises on the issues that go to the heart of the conflict? Can the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, compromise on the right of return and tell his public that refugees will not go back to Israel? Can Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, tell his public that demography and practicality mean that the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem will have Palestinian and not Israeli sovereignty?
The basic trade-offs require meeting Israeli needs on security and refugees on the one hand and Palestinian needs on territory and a capital in Arab East Jerusalem on the other. But producing such trade-offs won't simply come from calling for them. Instead, an environment must be created in which each side believes the other can act on peace and is willing to condition its public for the difficult compromises that will be necessary.
So long as mythologies can't be cast aside, and so long as the trade-offs on the core issues can't be embraced by Israelis or Palestinians, peace will remain forever on the horizon. If history tells us anything, it is that for peace-making to work, it must proceed on the basis of fact, not fiction.
Dennis Ross, envoy to the Middle East in the Clinton administration, is counselor of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
[QUOTE=jets5ever]Board members keep resigning from the Carter Center because of Jimmy's lies. Jimmy was too chicken-sh*t to debate Dershowitz at Brandeis. He's confident enough to write a book and make money and [B]earn praise from liberals[/B], but too chickensh*t to defend his work. If his book is so important, he should WELCOME debates, no? What a p*ssy. Claudia Rossett is also all over his funding sources...He is a national disgrace.[/QUOTE]
There aren't too many liberals I know who are praising him. I think he has made himself a pariah and it will be very difficult for any democratic candidate to be associated with him now. Just watch!