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 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," 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


Comments: 477
As I read his book, I was appalled at his description of the treatment of the Palestinians, however, and I hope that the subsequent sections of your six-part series will address this issue.
In particular, it would seem to be a legitimate concern, if it is true, that they have been deprived of their most basic human rights such as assembling peacefully, travelling without restrictions, held without trial for extended periods, denied legal representation, etc.
There was also the claim that Israel intercepted foreign aid from Arab countries and from the U.S. that was intended for the Palestinians and that Israel acknowledged doing this but explained that it was because the confiscated funds might have been used to finance terrorism.
It was also stated in the book that conditions were so bad in Gaza that "fisherman are not permitted to leave the harbor, workers are prevented from going to outside jobs, the import and export of food and other goods is extremely restricted and often cut off completely and the police, teachers, nurses and social workers are deprived of salaries. Per capita income has decreased 40% during the last three years and the poverty rate has reached 70%."
The book also mentions the walls which surround Gaza and which are snaking through the West Bank. It gives an example of the wall that nearly surrounds the city of Qalqiliya with its 45,000 inhabitants "with most of the citizens' land and almost one third of their water confiscated by the Israelis."
We obviously have no first hand knowledge of what is actually going on over there, Professor, but it would seem that the real issue here is the validity of these claims regarding the treatment of the Palestinians. If this information is faulty, I hope that you will be setting the record straight for us.
There is much to fault Israel for, but let us not fault them for the problems of others. The Palestinians are paying the price for choosing violence as a means to a political end, and now all politics in Palestine has become violent.
Israel was once the darling of the left when it was the embodiment of democratic socialism during the 1960's. With the rise of the Likkud and the courting of religious support in the United State, the media as well as the academic and political left switched allegiance to the Palestinians whose Marxist revolutionary leanings were more in-line with their own.
What I find most odd about the media's new alliances is its counter-intuitive glee with Islamic/Fascist groups like Hezzbolah which one should attribute to nothing more than a schoolboy fascination with revolution.
Ex President Carter has not only sold his politics he sold his soul and his ability to EVER be considered fair or even handed. What a shame.
PLEASE keep up the excellent work you do in bringing out the truth.
If not for Anwar Sadat wanting peace and willing to accept Israel's right to exist, together with billions in aid to both Egypt and Israel that we still pay today, Carter would have no standing at all.
Is it common knowledge that Israeli interests heavily influence American foriegn policy and that many supporters of Israel, both Jewish and non-Jewish are part of the media establishment. What Carter claims on this is obvious fact, just as the repression of "real life" info on the ground in the refugee camps. The media also represses the extent of chaos in Iraq at the behest of the Bush admin which is rapidly failing in influence.
Mr. Dershowitz finds Carter illumination of reality a threat as any two sided argument on Israel which may affect American public opinion a threat. This is Israeli damage control. It is doubtful Carter's book will have much influence in America. If the Palestinians would ever adopt Ghandi-like tactics instead of idiot militarism Israel might really be in trouble.
You bring up good points about the funding behind his library, Mr. Dershowitz. But perhaps the lack of funding from the Jewish community for his various efforts in the past since leaving office just goes to support his point that if you speak up about the injustices experienced by the Palestinians, you are punished for it.
Kathleen,
The title of Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" is inflammatory. Carter has dashed all non-partisan pretenses when he chooses this biased title. Even his publishers questioned his choice. Also, Gather is a perfect forum to discuss such controversial matters.
Please read the book and publish an article if I am wrong. I certainly am not going to waste my time since there are so many more informative sources to read about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Jacob Laskin works for a website where David Horowitz is prominently featured, and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of a think tank that includes Richard Perle, and several people who do commentary for Fox news. Everyone that I saw on the advirory board, seemed to have major Neo-con connenctions.
As well thought out as your article is, and it is worthy of consideration and thought, are you going to admit that you are being funded by the Neo-cons and that you may have an agenda against Carter? Given the tenor of your article, I would think that it would be only fair for you to disclose who you are really working for as well.
Please don't read into this some kind of rabid anti-semitism. I'm pro-peace and realistic enough to believe that the only road to peace often includes war. I'm married to a jew with holocaust escapees as grandparents. But there is certainly plenty of behavior on the part of the Israelis that can not be seen as good faith peace efforts. (And I admit that I can never fully understand the mindset of either the jew-hating Arabs or the 'homeland'-defending jews.)
And while we might hear lots about Israeli gunships firing on Palestinian settlement -- and you might be able to demonstrate that we read more newspaper articles about that than the Rwandan genocide, that doesn't mean that they are framed the same way. No one ever tried to protagonize the Hutus' poor behavior.
That said, you put your finger on what is, to me, THE crucial mitigating factor in this issue: the involvement of Arab countries who use Palestine to forward their own agendas. Criticism cannot fairly be leveled against Israel for basically defending itself against a number of countries bent on its annihilation. Those of us who are genuinely concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people must never mistake those Arab countries for friends: they aren't. Their national agendas and methods of governing are completely antithetical to everything the United States stands for, and anyone who thinks that these countries are truly interested in the wellbeing of the Palestinian people is crazy. Let's call it the way it is: we are "friends" with them because they have oil. We have prostituted ourselves as a nation to protect our right to driver Hummers on 128.
TK Kenyon
Author, RABID: A Novel, coming in April, 2007
Rather than crying out "unfair to Jews" over all this, let's take a good look at all the GREAT Jewish teachers and philosophers who have assisted the movement toward political and spiritual freedom for the whole planet. Then let's acknowledge how very, very difficult it must be for the Israeli DOVES to stand up for human rights of Palestinian residents of Gaza, against the political and military weight of the whole Israeli [U.S.-backed] government.
HOW ABOUT A STANDING OVATION FOR THE GREAT-HEARTED WORK OF THE DOVES?
YES! FOR PEACEMAKERS!
And WIN-WIN SOLUTIONS ONLY, please, for the planet. No more victim-perp games. Let's have more people like the DOVES.
"We obviously have no first hand knowledge of what is actually going on over there, Professor, but it would seem that the real issue here is the validity of these claims regarding the treatment of the Palestinians. If this information is faulty, I hope that you will be setting the record straight for us."
Plain ol Becky S
Are you serious? You are obviously misinformed. If you know anything about Dershowitz he is a Jewish NY Liberal. Have you watched any of his debates? He has debated many conservatives such as Anne Coulter and won.
For that matter what is Syria, Turkey and Iran doing for the Kurds? Or shall we say doing TO the Kurds. I find it beyond merely hypocritical for the Arab world and their friends on the left to be wringing their hands at the admittedly lousy treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli's while the very same governments are brutally repressing a minority group 10 times the size of the Palestinian population.
Or how about the Coptic Christians (original ethnic Egyptians) in Egypt?
I know, I know.......Kurds?, Coptic?, what's a coptic? Now back to our regularly scheduled red/blue clash........
I consider myself pro-Palestinian as well as pro-Israel. In my book, The Case for Peace, I support a two-state process based on the end of the occupation and a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem. That is why President Bill Clinton endorsed my book, along with former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israeli Peace activist Amos Oz. But the evidence is clear that the situation of the Palestinians is self-inflicted. Had the Palestinians accepted the Clinton peace parameters, they would today be celebrating the fifth anniversary of Palestinian statehood, with no occupation, a thirty billion dollar head-start, and an end to violence. There is an excellent analysis of the Clinton peace proposal, which was rejected by Yasser Arafat, in today's New York Times by Dennis Ross, who was one of the engineers of the Clinton proposal. (I am linking it here and I urge you all to read it.) The election of Hamas has exacerbated the plight of the Palestinians because Hamas, being a terrorist organization, is ineligible for international aid. I completely agree with the response that said that if the Palestinians had adopted the passive-resistance tactics of Gandhi (or may I add, perhaps Martin Luther King), they would have forced Israel into recognizing their legitimate interests more quickly. It is difficult to get a country to end an occupation when to do so merely gives terrorists more territory from which to fire their rockets and organize their terrorist attacks. When Israel left Gaza it was hoping to exchange land for peace. Instead it got land for terrorism, rockets, and kidnappings. The same is true of southern Lebanon.
Now for some of the personal comments. I can assure everyone that I am the furthest thing in the world from a neo-con. I am a liberal Democrat who supported Bill Clinton and John Kerry (I also support the right of everyone charged with crime to have a zealous defense). I oppose much of the neo-con agenda and I assure you that I have never been paid one nickel by the neo-cons or any other right-wing organization. I would be happy to disclose all of my finances if Jimmy Carter would be prepared to disclose his. I have even contributed to Jimmy Carter over the years, as have many Jews, who have supported the Carter Center financially. The power of Arab money and the Arab lobby—a subject that Carter fails to address—is far greater than the power of any pro-Israel lobby, certainly with Jimmy Carter.
Keep the comments coming—I will have more to say about this in the days to come.
Professor Dershowitz points out that Mr. Carter's book contains a collection of particularly vile insinuations supported by outrageous allegations and then bolstered with easily verifiable falsehoods: Represntative of the latter is Mr. Carter's claim that 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." Only someone who has assiduously ignored all media in the U.S. and abroad for the past 40 years could make that claim with a straight face. Mr. Carter is either exaggerating, lying or mistaken in a manner that would cast doubt on every other statement he makes in his book. Still, Professor Dershowitz has asked for nothing more than an open and honest debate of Mr. Carter's thesis. Mr. Carter has said when interviewed by NPR that he hoped his book would spark debate. Well, I say 'have at it', gentlemen. I hope and trust that he will accept Mr. Dershowitz' challenge. - If Mr. Carter does not rise to the challenge, then those who rely on Mr. Carter's version of the story should consider most seriously the myriad reviewers who have put the lie to Mr. Carter's allegations and take stock of their position acordingly.
In your opening paragraph you say: " 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. "
I find this very telling. You have inferred your own conclusion as to what Carter is "really" saying and then spend the rest of your article criticizing him for having said what you inferred.
Jimmy Carter is the only President of the United States ever to have delivered concrete results for the state of Israel in terms of preserving its existence and fostering peace in the region. The Camp David accord, entirely Carter's doing, resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, the Arab nation that had previously been the main threat to Israel's peaceful existence. That peace treaty has endure now for thirty years. All other US Presidents have only managed to hold the line for Israel.
That Jimmy Carter (even Jimmy Carter, the author of the Camp David Accord) cannot start a debate on the Palestine-Israel conflict without evoking shrill cries of anti-Semitism is tantamount to proof of what he is saying about the inability to debate the issue.
Not because "Jews own the media" or because "Jews own the polticians", though there are many Jews who do have interests in media outlets and many powerful Jewish lobbyists and a lot of money donated to campaigns by Jewish supporters. Not because of some vast "Zionist conspiracy". But for many reasons, amongst them: anti-Arabic and anti-Islamic prejudice which is widespread in America and the rest of the Western world; geo-political interests tied in with the oil-rich nature of the region in which Israel is an important Western ally; the collective guilt many Westerners feel for our part allowing the Holocaust to happen; because Israel, Israeli politicians and some Jewish lobbyists cleverly use this guilt to shout down any debate that criticizes Israel (and before you characterize this as an anti-Semetic remark, let's be clear, it is merely human nature to use every advantage one has available, and Israel has had the advantage of the moral high ground being conceded on the matter of anti-Semitism due to the horror that resulted from it in the 1940s).
Are you claiming that there is no effective Jewish, pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S.? Surely not. Are you suggesting that there is no influence in the media of pro-Israeli lobbyists and journalists? Surely not. Are you saying that Jews, alone amongst all ethnic groups, do not vociferously defend their own? Surely not.
What amazes me is that critics of Carter's book have spent so much time debating the man, his motives, his connections, his credibility but so little debating the ideas and issues he has brought forward.
Sad.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070108/cm_thenation/1155513
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/December_2006/0612022.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TgBsW3s5_xU
If anyone can dispute this information, go for it!
Sadly, the media has switched from an overwhelming pro-Israel stance to an equally overwhelming anti-Israel stance. I have become far more pro-Israeli than I ever would have expected while reading the pro-Palestinian stories. They document a situation where the only acceptable course of action for the Israeli people would be to sit back, allow their land to be overrun by the Palestinians and to ignore any and all provocation from the Arab world. This is unacceptable for any sovereign nation.
As for President Carter, this article merely serves to document what I have long suspected. Actually, it is fortunate for Carter that the anti-Israeli groups are providing him with such an adequate financial base. Someone has to - we have more sense than that here in America.
Alan Dershowitz a neo-con? I almost fell off my chair laughing at that. As someone with 2 law degrees under my belt, I have long admired his legal acumen and trial stratagems in many (but not all) of his high profile cases but I have never been impressed by his too-liberal leanings. He would be laughed out of the room if he came to a meeting of true conservatives and I am positive the neo-cons would be no more welcoming.
"Are you claiming that there is no effective Jewish, pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S.? Surely not. Are you suggesting that there is no influence in the media of pro-Israeli lobbyists and journalists? Surely not. Are you saying that Jews, alone amongst all ethnic groups, do not vociferously defend their own? Surely not.
What amazes me is that critics of Carter's book have spent so much time debating the man, his motives, his connections, his credibility but so little debating the ideas and issues he has brought forward."
I do not think that Carter has been implying that the Jews are behind the "Taboo" here in the states (I personally don't think that that is the case either); it seems to be more of a conclusion you are drawing. I think that it is both Jews and Christians here that have self intrests involved and have difficulty talking about it.
Though his intention seems to be to initiate more disscusion of the human rights situation of the Palestinians, I do fault Mr. Carter for not drawing in enough of a broad broad view of the situation. What brought the Jews to Israel in the first place? How have they had to struggle to exist?
But I do think a discussion of the situation is important.
Israel is a modern invention based on lies, manipulation, and deceit.
It is time for the US to stop funding Israel, as they are not our friends, nor are they Jewish, in any manner of speaking. No religion justifies genocide and land theft.
No religion justifies fascist totalitarianism, or racism.
This is just another example of your treasonous misrepresentation of what is Israel, and what is it's leadership's manipulation of the USA.
Further, Israeli Mossad is a rogue operation that most likely took down our Towers, in order to manipulate the US into fighting Israeli wars of aggression.
You sir, are part of the big problem.
No, I don't. I do believe that he deserves the same kind of scrutiny for his articles that he has given Former President Carter. I do believe that people's motives and sources should be questioned when they make accusations of bigotry and collusion with people who would seem diametrically opposed to their public face.
So, Professor Dershowitz used the names of a couple of people as sources for his article who are connected to the Neo-Cons. Why can't be be questioned then, about his connection to those people, given his questioning of Carter? Only seems fair and balanced to me.
For the record, I am not a "follower" of Carter, nor am I an apologist. I believe that people make decisions, in good faith, for causes that they think will be advanced by their decision. Professor Dershowitz has done a lot of good work, legally and as a defender of the Constitution. I am aware of his background and his public face. So questioning his motives is done in the spirit of gaining knowledge, and not in the spirit of an attack.
Also, for record, I would love to hear Carter and Dershowitz debate, in any forum. This would be a lively and interesting exchange that may go toward furthering the understanding of situations in the Middle East. This is not a bad thing, in any light, and doesn't need to be a situation where you must take sides. Questioning peoples motives and their true goals is a healthy part of gaining understanding.
Bono works with Paul O'Neill, and visits George W. Bush in the White House. He is criticized by people who think he is selling out to the powers that be. Is he? Only he knows.
Mother Teresa takes money from people with horrible human rights abuses on their record, Christopher Hitchens questions her charitable bona fides. And yet, she did do much good.
Questioning people's motives, funding, and source material is just a way of figuring out the truth. If you are a lawyer, law student, journalist or common citizen, I see no harm in asking direct questions. Or in throwing tone and conjecture back in the face of people who are making accusations and implications.
I'm sure Professor Dershowitz understands the technique, and the intent. Even if he doesn't like the questions. I am looking forward to reading the rest of his series on this matter. However, I believe that I am allowed to ask pointed questions and to make up my own mind about his motives. This is a unique opportunity for a working mother of seven, I get to ask Professor Alan Dershowitz questions about one of his opinions and how he arrived at them. I'm not going to just look at him with rose colored glasses and blindly believe everthing I read.
resigned his post at the Carter Center over factual inaccuracies in 'Peace not Apartheid.')
In a democracy, lobbying is perfectly appropriate, and both Israel and the Arabs have extensive lobbying operations in the United States. Carter is part of the Arab lobbying operation. He is being paid by Arab sources to lobby for Arab interests. I am paid absolutely nothing and take my positions entirely based on what I believe is right.
Rory criticizes Carter's critics for not dealing with the merits of Carter's position. I have done so extensively elsewhere (see my article in the Jerusalem Post.). Moreover, I have written three books dealing with the merits of the Middle East conflict. I urge any readers who are interested in reading my views in greater detail to do so in these sources.
I thoroughly agree with your second to last paragraph. We should require this of all leaders, people, in such a position as his.
While I do not pretend to be as politically savvy as everyone else here, I would like to offer my humble opinion. Personally, I feel both sides are guilty of committing terrible atrocities against each other, and that both sides are guilty of teaching and fostering hatred to each other. This attitude has existed since Bible times, for whatever reason, right or wrong, and if they have not yet learned that hatred is getting them nowhere, then they never will. Peace between Israelies and Palestinians, if and when it is achieved, will only be achieved when both sides want it more than anything else in the world, if for nothing else than for the sake of their children. I also feel that the powers that be owe it to the world to tell both Israelies and Palestinians that this conflict will no longer be tolerated. Period. No country or political regime should support either of them. Either come up with a mutually agreed upon plan by a certain date, or it will be done for them.
I realize my views are simplistic. I do not think they can ever peacefully co-exist because neither side wants to.
Can anybody point me in the direction of where there is a legitimate Palestenian peace proposal that openly and enthusiastically allows Israel not only to exist but where they will help defend Israel's right to do so?
I understand that Israel must inflict harsh treatment (searches, checkpoints, etc.) on the Palestinian population as a matter of self defense. As a Jew, it pains me to see harsh treatment (brutality, etc.) that is unjustified.
I lived in Boston from 1996-2004, and sought every opportunity to hear Alan Dershowitz speak. I applaud his courage and conviction; it isn't easy to put oneself on the front lines of a debate as contentious as this one.
Giving Jimmy Carter the benefit of the doubt, I assume he believes a fair and honest debate in the United States will ultimately result in a renewed, U.S.-led peace initiative between Israelis and Palestinians. But I would ask Carter this: does the U.S. really need to pressure Israel into negotiations? Is Israel the problem here? After all, Oslo wasn't that long ago, and what the world learned then was 1) Israel once again was ready to trade land for peace, but 2) few if any Arab leaders have the courage to make peace with Israel, because they'd likely be signing their own death warrants. Now, of course, the dynamics are even more complicated, given Hamas' refusal to negotiate with Israel or honor past agreements with Israel. I would never suggest that the U.S., Israel, Europeans, Arabs, and the Palestinians should wait for the dynamics to change before again aggressively pursuing peace, but I'd encourage Jimmy Carter to at least acknowledge that Israel is not the primary roadblock to peace here.
Frankly, there's enough blame to go around, including the British missteps in the Middle East in the early 20th century, failed Israeli and Palestinian policies, and Arab antisemitism. At the end of the day, though, for me, it comes down to this: there will be peace between Israelis and Palestinians when Arabs stop trying to destroy Israel and reach out to it in peace. And despite what many may argue, I believe the Arab goal to destroy Israel has little to do with the plight of the Palestinians.
President Carter deserves an opponent worthy of an ex-President.
Professor Dershowitz has more than proven himself capable and, as a most recent example of his ability to document EVERYTHING he mentions, his book "The Case for Israel" is excellent and recommended to anyone who thinks there is a 50/50 moral equivalency, i.e each side is half wrong and half right. Wrong! look at the facts, the action, the history, the truth, if you can take it.
I don't expect Carter to accept the debate, but we should all demand it of him, as we should full disclosure of his financial support.
I don't care whose money HE uses to pay you with, warn them, Mr Jimmy, warn them!
Thanks, Gather, you piece of trash, propaganda mechanism.
This bespeaks of the recent quote by Dennis Overbye
"... the conscious mind is like a monkey riding a tiger
of subconscious decisions and actions in progress,
frantically making up stories about being in control."
I can't understand why seemingly rational people would feel that Israel is at fault for attempting to exist. But then I know that some people's eyes are forever clouded; they were made NOT to see the truth.
You believe that 9/11 was caused by the US goverment (loony). As a result your comments have little validity in this discussion.
Tim,
This is classified as a rant w/ no substance. You have not addressed one piece of the article but have instead gone for cheap shot attacks. This is a unique opportunity to ask questions and you have blown it. Go home.
Jimmy Carter is a courageous man.
So I will, instead, say something critical of Gather.com. I was appalled to click on the Dershowitz link and see a large advertisement for this six-part series spread across the top of the page. I have never seen any other Gather writer get such exposure. I guess "selling out" is popular among all kinds of folks.
1- Jews control the media
2- Jews were responsible for 9/11
3- The Palestinians want a 2 state solution and want to live in peace
4- 5 Million Jews are bullying 250 million Arabs
then you're part of the problem.
As we can see, there are people with no maturity, or respect who would stoop to name calling, and plain rudeness. This shows little of their character, and the truth in words written by those who they attack.
Why is it, that Jimmy Carter has yet to answer the questions brought about by many, including his main assistant about the inaccuaracies, and out right misrepresentations? CAn we look into this.
Respectfully Mr. Dershowitz, I would prefer less meat into the articles, so that all can look into the information you provide, and give reasonable responses. If they can handle giving a reasonable response, with so much bitterness already displayed.
George L.,
Can you be more specific? Please back up your assertion.
How Courageous is Carter since he turned down a chance to debate Professor Deshowitz. I would indicate his actions say other wise.
It was his choice to write this book and his choice to not only present a one sided view but also distort the facts (and I'm being kind.) If you'd like to read what one of the people who was there has to say about Carter read Dennis Ross's piece in todays NY Times.
You are talking about in ALL media. Sure, coverage of the Palestinian plight is heavy in other countries, but most certainly not in the United States. I am news-junkie and I don't think I have once seen a piece on the plight of the Palestinians on any of the big 3 (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News).
Coverage in the U.S. is what is important since the assertion is that Israel's case is being advanced by the United States where we can not have an open discussion about our support for Israel without being labeled anti-semites.
Mr. Dershowtiz, I am a Jew, and THAT is demonstrably the case. Every time someone even tries to prevent another view on Israel than the AIPAC/ right wing view, they get called anti-semites. For example, Mersheimer and Walt. Their piece wasn't that well done, but yet their assertion was proven TRUE only because you and others did exactly what they asserted you would, called them anti-semites.
I find many are trying to silence your words, and not dispute your words. I am seeing those who want to turn this information, and series from that of information on Jimmy Carter to one of you and your true intentions.
These are not of the most worthy endeavors, to say the least. I look forward to you offering more substantiated information, to your opinions, and ascertions.
Again, thank you for stepping up, and giving an indepth point of view on a very important issue.
Robert Taylor,
Are you serious? Re read the article or did you skip it and comment first. The professor took passages directly from the book and discussed it.
See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070108/cm_thenation/1155513
and what was Carter's crime?? calling a spade a spade? refering to the situation in Palestine as Apartheid? well, guess what? it is. Anyone who has been near Palestine can only describe the system as one of apartheid (ask the south Africans, they would tell you). But God forbid we shoudl compare the Israelis with the old South African regime.. oh no.. not the "civilized" Israelis who are supposed to be the light amongst nations.. well, facts are facts, Israelis are destorying homes, stealing lands, imposing collective punishments, imprisoning democratically elected leaders, and more horrible things. and they are doing it with our tax dollars (gee, I wonder why the world hates us...)
So, back to Dershowitz point... oh yes.. Carter took money from the Arabs.. quelle scandale.. quelle crime... so what? Many institutions have taken money from all kinds of international sources. If we are to send back all the money that international governements are sending to the US we would go bankrupt in an instant. Ah, but it's not any money.. it's Arab money.. you know.. Arab, as in the new boogey man.. the new "communist".
Bravo Mr. Dershowitz.. Bravo on your efforts to become the new McCarthy... yes, let's go around seeking all sources of Arab money.. let's question anyone out there with relations to anything Arab or Muslim.. let's unleash the thoguth police on them.
It is interesting that Dershowitz prefers to use the term "Jew" as opposed to "Zionist" or "Proi-Israel".. it really brings back the tired equation of "Anti-Israel = Anti Semite"... well, guess what, we ain't buying it. What Carter's courageous book tell us is that it's ok to question Israel.. that this apartheid state has failed judaism.. that it no longer has (and never had) a monopoly on all things Jewish.
And as far as the media, when was the last time you watched a news show which hosted an "Arab World Specialist" who was actually an Arab? think about that... it's always some neo-con with major pro-Israeli point of view. You need an expert on "terrorism", call in the Israelis.. since they are such experts at it (mainly at inflicting it), that they can't seem to stop it.
Sadly, there is no debate in the US about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict... thank god for the internet and international news sources, including Israeli ones. For here, in the good old USA, land of the free, the thought police headed by the likes of Dershowitz are making sure that anyone that tries to bring any balance to the matter is exposed as an anti-semite.. is discredited.. is questioned.. that their financial history is scrutinized... that their personal life are studied...
So, rather than join the growing number of Jewish intellectuals who are speaking out against what Israel claims to be doinbg in the name of Jews worldwide, Dershowitz has chosen to join the likes of Daniel Pipes and Ann Coulter...to play dirty.. to go on the attack...
for shame, professor, for shame...
That being the case, any talk by supporters of Israel about wanting peace is ridiculous.
The sort of religeoethnic tier-ing of citizenship enshrined as fundamental constitutionally in the state of Israel is not something we would tolerate in the US. It points out a major difference between the nations. As such, this is not something US citizens should by mandate be required to support nor should it be allowed by those who chose to.
No amount of "he started it," "He's just as bad," or Pavlovian assignation of anti-Semitism at so fundamental disagreement changes the raw correctness of that reality and until it is confronted and dealt with, there will be no lasting peace possible in this region of the world. That said, who seem to be the parties failing to embrace peach and progress in your mind? Those who recognize the disconnect or those who refuse to and blame those who won't accept their values as supercitizen in the world?
The most responsible course of action of traditional US sensibilities is an immediate termination of government foreign aid and ban on private transfers of wealth from the US through any means which ultimately benefit this rogue nation state perpetuated in part on an embrasure of human rights abuse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070108/cm_thenation/1155513
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/December_2006/0612022.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TgBsW3s5_xU
If anyone can dispute this information, go for it! If not, shut-up!
1) "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."
Way to put words in someone's mouth! What Carter is really saying is that there is a Jeweish Lobby. That's not scandalous and erroneous. It's TRUE and even discussed int he NYTimes.
It's certainly OK for Jews to have their own lobby to advocate their politcal interests. It is the Anmerican way. It is also, however, the American way, to criticize a powerful lobby's influence on our elected representatives whether it be oil, agricultural, or Jews. If a lobby is too powerful it can end up influencing our leaders to represent the interest of a few instead of that of many. This becomes problematic when it leads to unchecked price-gouging from big oil, farmers paid to burn their crops in Idaho, or America to take an international stance that causes us to be under attack.
2) Professor Dershowitz accuses Carter of receive Arab money. The BUsh family has received more Saudi money than any other American family and Bush remains stolid in his support of Israel's right to exist. While I personally do not find it palatable when individuals receive lobbying money of this sorts, it's a politcal reality commited by all politicians, pro-and anti-Israel.
This article is incredibly sensationalist. It draws erroneous assumptions from Carter's words and actions. (When and where did Carter say ever say jounralists did not deserve their Pulitzer Prizes.)
Just as many journalists and politicians lobby for Israel's right to exist for moral reasoons, because they believe the Jews have a right to their homeland, Carter also has moral motivations of his own, that the Palestinians' plight is neglected and deserves to be acknowledged and understood. Money is flwoing in and out of the pockets of people n both sides of the issue.
I for one, believe this is a solely religious issue. I do not believe any scrap of land, any grain of earth on this planet was promised to anyone by any god. I believe that America is acting out of religious principles when it should not. If Americans really cared about giving Jewish people a safe place, they would establish one elsewhere. Instead, it seems religion, as usual, is blinding people to the need for peace and causing countless deaths. Maybe we should just sew the "holy land" with radiation so no one gets to live there!
http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/carter_letter_121506.html
Gathers' members are a pretty sharp lot generally...
They can see through specious smears like this, and as much admiration as many of us have for the Jewish people, it has become yet another 'terror tactic' used to negate ANY QUESTION of the actual working of the Israeli lobby.
Gather has had and lost some fine commentators, mostly because Newspaper, TV and Magazine writers aren't comfortable being disagreed with in near real-time. Your average 'letter to the editor' even in a newspaper will almost always run weeks after the item being complained about... I think it is why they have such trouble KEEPING commentators.
Let's see a discussion of the issues - please show me where in the media the plight of the Palestinians gets much coverage. Show me the amount of press reports a suicide bombing in Israel gets as opposed to the amount of press reports you see about Israel littering Lebanon with tens of thousands of cluster bomblets.
I agree Carter was not a very good president but that is the american process. We elected him. We didn't do it again. Or is it possible the Arabs elected him?
Will gather grant JC the same forum?
I appreciate getting a different point of view, having my eyes opened. I do thank you for that.
The Pope has already felt the need to apologize for quoting a history book because it inflamed some militant groups. The Dutch have had their problems after an editorial cartoon. So they have been coming for the Jews since the 1948 founding of the State of Israel, the Dutch and now the Pope. As a Jew I think the peoples of the world need to wake up before there is no one there to help.
The middle east will never have happiness until Israel and Palestine each have wise leaders devoted to negotiating peace. Currently, neither has.