Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Deshowitz on Carter. I think these points are worthy of a new thread

  1. #1

    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 – 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
    elsewhere.

    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
    has prevailed.

    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
    the world.

    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,
    public donations.

    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
    foreign interests.

    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

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    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.

  3. #3

    Dennis Ross on Carter's Plagarism and Truthfullnes

    [URL]http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30617F63E540C7A8CDDA80894DF404482[/URL]
    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.

  4. #4
    [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!

  5. #5
    I have allot of sympathy for the Palestinian, But in all truth they have become their own worst enemy. They have aligned themselves with murderers pure and simple. I hope someday they will wake up!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us