I have known Jimmy Carter for more than thirty years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice. I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign. Shortly thereafter, my former student Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election. When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East. Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that he was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.
Recent disclosures of Carter’s extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source? And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School—Rachael Lea Fish—showed me the facts. They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up—a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son—hosted speakers who called Jews “the enemies of all nations,” attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States’ own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a “fable.” (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.
Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard’s decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." Carter’s personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot.
In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.
The extent of Carter’s financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter’s friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter “$500,000 to help the former president establish his center…[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects.” Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank—ostensibly the source of his funding—"the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists.” BCCI isn’t the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center—“in 1993 alone…$7.6 million”—as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.
It’s worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government’s myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center’s Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price. The bought quality of the Center’s activities becomes even more clear, however, when reviewing the Center’s human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan, or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center’s website. The Carter Center’s mission statement claims that “The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities.” How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel’s far less serious ones?
No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money? Ask Carter. The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks. It is Carter—not me—who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves. It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter’s own standards, it would be almost economically “suicidal” for Carter “to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine.”
By Carter’s own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position. It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.
I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is fooling himself).
If money determines political and public views—as Carter insists “Jewish money” does—then Carter’s views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter’s off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter’s sad legacy.
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
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 325
Not only has Kenneth W. Stein resigned as a fellow at the Carter Center, but also 14 of the 200 members of the center's board have also resigned. Steve Berman, who was one of those that resigned, said that the religious affiliation of those involved, mainly Jewish leaders from the Atlanta area, did not influence their decision.
In addition, there has been a steady stream of anti-Carter publicity since his book came out.
It is said that the book is riddled with innacuracies, but the only ones I've actually read about are that the word "the" was substituted in one of the UN resolutions and that Stein had a different take on a meeting that he and Carter had with Assad.
With all due respect, Professor, isn't all this flack proving President Carter's point that no politician in America can stand up against the pro-Israel lobby?
Your principal concern seems to be that the Carter Center has taken money from Arab sources and that at least one of these sources you accuse of being anti-Semitic. As an attorney, you must be fully aware, sir, that this is extraneous information and, in no way does it prove that the facts outlined in the book were influenced by these donations. Also, it is noted that no complaints about these donations, which must have been known by the board members, were made until after Carter criticized the policies of the state of Israel.
Let's turn your logic around for a moment. Between 1978 and 2004, pro-Israel PACs donated $42,365,498 to Congressional candidates in the United States.
During the 1999/2000 campaign, the Democrats received 62% of the donations made to candidates from the two major parties, with the Republicans getting 38%.
During the 2005/2006 election cycle, the Democrats' share of the donations plummetted to 47%, while the Republican portion increased sharply to 53%. The only event that occurred that might have had an influence on this rather major shift in the donation profile, was that the Republicans put us into a Mideastern war, a war that was clearly in the best interests of Israel.
Now, does anyone really believe that our politicians were influenced by this money and other pro-Israel donations? I don't think so.
So, by the same token, why would there be any reason to believe that Carter was unduly influenced by donations that the Carter Center received?
One of President Carter's main points in the book, as indicated by the title, relates to Israel's abominable treatment of the Palestinians. Nowhere in all the criticisms that I've read has anyone disputed these core facts.
I hope, Professor Dershowitz, that you intend to discuss this central point in one of your future segments.
that Carter benefitted personally from at least one of the transactions and that the origin of some of the funds may have been criminal activity, etc. No congressional candidate would likely take such contributions. It is significant that Carter chose not to disclose them in conjunction with the publication of his book.
Jimmy Carter has been involved with government most of his adult life. It is simply not possible that he did not understand the inference of bias that could be fairly drawn from his financial ties to the Arabs. Dershowitz is correct to call attention to them. It is silly to suggest that the nature of the contribution is extraneous or that nobody objected until he wrote the book. Why would anyone claim he was biased until evidence implying bias, the book, was available?
The issue here isn't whether Carter is right. It is whether he acted ethically by speaking out as an unbiased observer when he had financial ties unknown to his audience that could fairly be construed to have influenced him. There is no moral ambiguity here, just two different questions.
However, I think that the only solution for peace in the Middle East is the creation of a unique Palestinian state which would include both Israel and the sectors governed by the present Palestinian government. Where Jews and Arabs would live as brothers and sisters.
I know that many will laugh at my proposal. Others will criticize me for being too idealistic, but, according to me, the creation of a separate Palestinian state next to Israel will never bring peace. Arabs and Jews of Palestine cannot live separate from each other. They are too close to each other for that. They need to live under the same roof.
I am not a Jew. I am not an Arab. I have no connection whatsoever with any lobby of any sort. My only interest rests in world peace. I think it's time for man to show that he is in fact human and not the animal that has been waging wars, killing his own brothers and sisters, over centuries.
Did you ever ask Mr Carter why he gave the Panama Canal back? That has always bothered me and for this he never got a vote from me.
We lived in Panama several years before we had to turn it over and I saw it go down hill right before my eyes afterwards. The train was down they burnt up mules at the locks forgetting to put oil in them etc etc.
Hopefully by now That country is back on track.
TY In advance.
Yesterday, I was discussing with other Gatherites the "burden of proof" on bias issues. From the information that has come to the surface, I believe there is a prima facie case that his approach has been compromised by his funding sources; he now should demonstrate why we should give any real weight to his opinions.
Imagine my screeching alto: Why can't we all just get along?!?!?!
Should i post this or not? I vacsilate....i decide!
Accepting for the sake of argument the claims of Ms. Fish's article as fact it is clear that the Zayed institute has allowed some very controversial speakers to address their forum, some of whom have supported anti-Semetic (or at least anti-Zionist) ideas. This might condemn the Zayed institute as racist and it might not. I can think of another institution which hosts such speakers regularly and is not the force for evil that you are inferring the Zayed institue is: The United Nations.
I know that Americans have a very dim view of the UN, and I know there are plenty of valid criticism to lay at its feet. Still, it is the only institute we have for broad international discussion that can prevent war, help foster co-operation and build a better world. What allows the UN to fill this role is the very fact that all voices may be heard, even when what they say is offensive to us. The UN, for all its many faults, has helped to make the world a more peaceful place since its inception, has helped relieve suffering in many places around the globe and has helped to foster respect for the concept of human rights and international law.
Freedom of speech is often unpleasant. The old maxim of "I loathe everything you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is severely tested when the speaker says things that are odious and patently false. Hate laws are limits on free speech which attempt to prevent such public discourse. Generally I support them, but they can go too far and extreme political correctness can be just as damaging as the hate-speech that it tries to suppress.
Sometimes the kind of speakers that the Zayed institue has hosted, according to you and Ms. Fish, must be given a forum if only so that their claims and ideas may be revealed, exposed, opposed and discredited.
Your basic suggestion is that Jimmy Carter is awash in dirty money (despite the incomplete evidence you present to support that contention, evidence which you surely realize would never pass muster in a court of law -- and shouldn't in the court of public opinion either). You also infer that Carter is unable to be seen as an impartial commentator due to his associations, especially those with people like Zayed and the House of Saud. I would like to raise two points in regards to this inferrence:
1) Carter has also been associated with many prominent American Jews, such as yourself and the fourteen former Carter Center board members who resigned after the publication of the book. If his book had been received as a condemnation of the Palestinian authority and of the broader Arab community over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would this make him a biased commentator in favour of his Jewish associates? Would you be speaking out so vociferously to proclaim him so?
2) If association with certain people means that you are indistinguishable from them in terms of ideology and moral character then your association with O.J. Simpson would equally condemn you, as some commentators to your previous article suggested. However, I do not believe that either you or President Carter are so besmirched by your associations. We all have dealings with people whose moral character we might find lacking, especially in professional circles. We all have friends who do not always live up to the standards we would like them to. If Mr. Simpson was indeed responsible for the deaths that your defense helped exonerate him for, as the civil trial concluded, this does not make you an accomplice after the fact for having helped clear him of criminal charges. Nor does Jimmy Carter's association with the House of Saud nor his friendship with Zayed make him responsible for the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia nor for the choices the Zayed institute makes in who they invite to speak. If such association did amount to guilt, every American administration since the First World War would be guilty of criminal violations of international law.
As another reader posted above, the fact that the Jewish board members of the Carter Center who resigned had no public objection to the Saudi money the Center received prior to the publication of the book is a salient fact. You state that without the publication of the book there is no evidence of bias. Perhaps not, but if the money is dirty then it is dirty and it effects the entire operation of the Center and tarnishes all its good works whether or not there is a book published by the head of the Center which seems biased in the eyes of some. Harvard did not publish a book which revealed a bias, yet you and Ms. Fish allege that their acceptance of the Zayed funds amounted to the institution being anti-Semetic or anti-Zionist. If the money given to the Carter Center by the House of Saud and other Arab sources is dirty money, then those members of the Center's board who did not resign upon the receipt of it, and who knew or should have known where the funding of the Center was coming from, are hypocrites for having resigned only after the public attention is drawn to the Center by the controversial book.
I know that there are many installments to come in your series and I know about and have read your article in the Jerusalem Post. Still, I hope that the rest of your series will focus on the ideas discussed in the book, not on the character of President Carter and what amounts, in my view, to an attempt to assassinate his good name.
If one were to follow the money trail to politicians there wouldn't be much space left on the road for the rest of us. Jimmy Carter has devoted his years out of office to the cause of peace and he wrote a book that put the word "Palestine" first. Israel has a truly rotten record for ambling off the roadmap to peace and shouting at the other guy -- much like you do. Condaleezza Rice, even today, says that "we must not rush to formal negotiations." This perfectly illustrates why Mr. Carter wrote the book. Whether or not he has had monetary or friendly relationships with Arabs is irrelevant. Perhaps he will write a book of memoirs on his friendship with you, but more likely he won't think it's that important. It seems he is a man who is able to keep the larger issues in their proper perspective.
So, Carter is also on the Bin Laden payroll. Well, I'm not surprised. Sadly, though, I'm beginning to think that Mr. Dershowitz is correct here. If Carter is actually claiming that the massive foreign funding he receives isn't tainting his rather forieign perspective then he must take the American public for fools.
And for Carter to then smear Congress for disagreeing with him is loathsome. The fact is, the politicians who support Israel (and Korea, and Nato, and Japan, etc.) are not getting funded by Israel. They get money and votes from Americans of all faiths and backgrounds who support their positions. Even those NGOs who lobby in favor of the American-Israeli alliance are not paid by Israel to do so, any more than environmental lobbyists are being paid by the whales. They're simply independent Americans who commit the "crime" of disagreeing with Carter.
Rather, its Carter himself who gets oodles and oodles of money from foreign (mainly Saudi) sources. And when he's getting his payola, I wonder - does that "good Christian" ever question his Saudi paymasters on the situation of Christians in Saudi Arabia itself. Like the fact that Christians can't even worship publicly or enter certain cities? No, I didn't think so. He just takes their money and spews their PR for American audiences. My my, what a great humanitarian.
I second Rory M.'s comments on the article. I see no information presented in this second installment that was not in the first. If you are going to attack Mr. Carter and accuse him of being "bought" by the Saudi's, then a better argument would be to respond to Mr. Carter's assertions about Palestine and Israel.
you and you dishonest articles, Prof. Dershowitz, you are reading me
right.
I
think it's so cool how you can change the topic of discussion from the
harmful work which the Israeli Lobby in the US is doing, causing untold
damage , and the war crimes of the Israel aggressions and
occupations, on the one hand, to obsessing on Jimmy Carter and his
attempt to discuss the mess, on the other.
Please read:
Rewriting Israel's Story :: Views :: thetyee.ca
I invite all to my blog, which is primarily press clippings:
Bill Giltner's News Review"</span>
Bien dicho.
Terrorist cell groups were being formed in the United States during his administration. Corporate accouting scandels were going on. Embasies in Africa were bombed. The Cole was attacked. The first World Trade Center attacked happed. As a diversion there was a cruse missel attack on Afganistain. esides Arab money there was Chineese money involved with the campaign.
So I always wondered, what is with Bill Clinton for sitting idly by. He was obviously interested in other things. Monica Lewensky was not entirely on his mind. The Saudi's are probably not intesrested in an unstable Middle East region. Accomodatingly, China and Korea were treated with a blind eye.
Things appeared well in the United States for most Americans. I do not think we understood what was going on, until Bush became president.
The long and short of it is, Clinton sold the United States out.
You also neglect to mention that Harvard had to spend the time and money to hire a private investigator to uncover the connections between Zayad and the views espoused by people at his center.
YOu also neglect to mention the discrepancy in dates. Carter recieved the $500,00 in 2001, Harvard rejected the fund 3 years later in 2004. Also, the "monetary reward " was really a monetary AWARD.
Apparently. Zayed was really into sustainable development and received an award, as well as a slew of other international awards. from the UNited Nations in recogntion of his commitment to the environment. The Zayed International Prize for the Environment was the established in his name and is considered "the most prestigious environemtnal prize in the world." It seems to be than a AWARD named in someone's honor is a little different than a donation received directly from that person, as Harvard received.
In 2003, the BBC received this prize money and in 2005 Kofi Anan also accepted this prize money. The jury for these prizes, even in 2005 after Harvard returned the Zayed donation, was comprised of leaders from all over the world including the US, Sweden, Japan, England and many more.
The BBC didn't return the money either, so clearly it is anti-semitic and biased too. YOu forgot to mention that in your article. OH neither did Kofi Anan. He decided to use the prize money for agriculture and girls' education. WHat a jerk.
I don't see how Ex-President for Sale 2 really adds much more to the debate than your first article. i was hoping for a real debate, not just more empty attacks on an American president and Nobel peace prize winner.
No matter who speaks on this ssue, I'm going to listen to what they say and evaluate their evidence. If Satan came up to me and told me my arm was on fire, I'd assume he was lying. But I'd still check my arm.
And doesn't Dershowitz, by saying Carter is influenced by the money he receives, prove Carter's point that Congress is influenced by the money it receives? If both sides are tainted then we're back to having to discuss the issues, not the people. And again, issues have not been discussed at all.
The sanest of the bunch - I nod my matriarchal head
to the wisdom of this youngster.
not pointed to specific errors in Carter's book. That is because elsewhere
I wrote one of the first reviews on Carter's book in the New York Sun. In
that review, I pointed out twelve or so errors. Here's the link.
Another commentator says that I do not discuss the plight of the
Palestinian people. I am a strong advocate of Palestinian rights. I
consider myself pro-Palestine and pro-Israel. The reality of the
Palestinian situation is largely self-inflicted. The Palestinians could
have had their own state in 1938, 1948, 1967, 1992, 1993, and 2001. Each
time they preferred for there to be no Jewish state than there to be a
Palestinian state. When the Palestinians want their own state more than
they want to see the end of the Jewish state, only then will we see the two
state solution. When Palestinian terrorists stop targeting innocent Israeli
civilians, Israel will stop attacking Palestinian terrorists, will end
security checkpoint and the security barrier. Terrorism is the root cause
of the suffering of the Palestinian people.
The fact that others may have also taken money from questionable
sources does not excuse Carter's heavy reliance on questionable funding.
Moreover, remember what Carter's central thesis is: that because
politicians and the media receive such heavy funding by Jews that it is
impossible for them to remain objective on the Middle East. Why does he not
impose the same caveat?
He has received so much Arab money, that under his own standards, his
objectivity must be questioned. That is why there is a movement afoot to
sever all ties between Emory University and the Carter Center. Universities
should not be affiliated with an advocacy group. The Carter Center has now
lost all claim of being an objective human rights organization and has
become a lobbying group for Arab interests.
Let's see... First, the costs:
1. In direct costs, the cash out of our Treasury has amounted to an average of approximately $16 million a day since Israel's foundation in 1948, nearly sixty years ago.
2. In response to our support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War, OPEC dramatically reduced the supply of oil flowing to the United States and increased the costs significantly. This has cost America literally TRILLIONS of dollars.
3. It is likely that the events of 9/11/01 were a result of our complicity with and support of Israel's maltreatment of the Palestinian Arabs living in Israel and in the occupied territories, so all of the costs that we incurred as a result of those attacks, both directly and by our responses to it, can be attributed to our "special" relationship with Israel.
5. The costs of Desert Storm, Desert Shield, and our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can be assessed against this "special relationship." This is further TRILLIONS of dollars.
6. Our loss of diplomatic influence throughout that one-third of the world that is predominantly Moslem as a result of our knee-jerk support of Israel has had tremendous and ongoing costs that are difficult to fully assess.
Certainly the list above is only partial. Now let's look at the benefits America has derived from its support for Israel:
1. Ummmm... Uhhhh... Oh well, I can't really think of any.
As I said before, with friends like Israel, we will never want for enemies.
As the arguments of Israel's defenders are increasingly limited to those being put forth exclusively by Israelis and other Jews, and as criticism of Israel is increasing in credibility and persuasive power, Israel's defenders are increasingly resorting to particularly shrill diatribes, insulting, invective-laden ad hominem, and pointless appeals to authority and religious prejudice in an effort not to make any kind of valid point but instead to assassinate the character of anyone who dares to criticize even the most obvious abuses and violence of the Israeli government.
To imply that Jimmy Carter, truly the most honest and honorable among men, has done anything dishonest or corrupt, as Alan Dershowitz does even though he KNOWS his allegations to be false, is utterly despicable. Jimmy Carter is a dispassionate observer of events in the Middle East whose only aim is a lasting peace.
Alan Dershowitz is a strident advocate of a particular point of view with deep and abiding loyalty to Israel. One man is objective, and the other's bias is demonstrable and clear. Who do you trust?
And what do the Israeli's expect, that the dispossessed Palestinian people will forever accept a second-class status for themselves and their offspring throughout eternity? I know I wouldn't. One man's terrorism is another man's blow for justice.
Lumping anti-Israel rhetoric with anti-semitism is typical of the defenders of Zionism. I think Dershowitz owes his readers more of an explanation about why taking Arab money is such a bad thing... otherwise, he is clearly demonstrating his own racism, or should I say, anti-semitism.
"As another reader posted above, the fact that the Jewish board members of the Carter Center who resigned had no public objection to the Saudi money the Center received prior to the publication of the book is a salient fact. You state that without the publication of the book there is no evidence of bias. Perhaps not, but if the money is dirty then it is dirty and it effects the entire operation of the Center and tarnishes all its good works whether or not there is a book published by the head of the Center which seems biased in the eyes of some. Harvard did not publish a book which revealed a bias, yet you and Ms. Fish allege that their acceptance of the Zayed funds amounted to the institution being anti-Semetic or anti-Zionist. If the money given to the Carter Center by the House of Saud and other Arab sources is dirty money, then those members of the Center's board who did not resign upon the receipt of it, and who knew or should have known where the funding of the Center was coming from, are hypocrites for having resigned only after the public attention is drawn to the Center by the controversial book."
Just another example of PC trying to muzzell a man telling truth how Israel violates Security Council matters just like the recent hanged Saddam
and they are no less evil for doing so.
I think Rory M. has pretty well covered my feelings on this series.
I would add only this: if you are going to accuse Mr. Carter of being an anti-Semite, then at least stand up and be a mensch about it. Insinuations and veiled allegations are the weapons of a coward.
FROM Gather.com
"The latest work of this renowned criminal lawyer is a Gather exclusive. It debates former President Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The story was featured on FOX News, among others. Dershowitz has posted the second installment of this six-part series today. Join the conversation."
.....so NOW FOX News is a viable organization???? and frankly though Dr. Dershowitz did address a couple concerns in a REPLY the articles so far have been entirely to discredit Carter and almost NOTHING about he book itself, certainly not a "debate".
Of course not. Any new organization you don't like because they don't tow your line is not viable. Amazing how close minded the left has become...
politicians and the media receive such heavy funding by Jews that it is
impossible for them to remain objective on the Middle East. Why does he not
impose the same caveat?
This is an easy one. Nowhere does the Zayed prize boast that its award helped achieve the writing of Carter's book. The Carter Center has an annual operating budget of $36 million. In 2001, the year the award was received, the Carter Center had over $80 million in grants and donations. That half a million was a drop in a very large bucket. PLus the Carter center works for a variety of causes. Who is to say that money didn't go to fighting ANWR or alleviating poverty in the over 65 countries that Carter CEnter works?
HOWEVER, right on AIPAC's own website they take credit for billions of American taxpayer doallars going to Israel. http://www.aipac.org/recentlyAchieved.cfm
If Dershowitz could find such a clear link between Arab finaciers and Carter's actions, his case would have some merit. As it stands, it is entirely circumstantial and he has no basis for claiming Carter was "bought."
Also, he writes "The fact that others may have also taken money from questionable
sources does not excuse Carter's heavy reliance on questionable funding." Yes but it does put your argument in an entirely different light. in your article, you balatantly misrepresent the nature of the Zayed prize. It is fundamentally different from the Harvard donation, it was given years before Harvard rejected their donation, and it is highly presitigious and nominations for it are made from over 65 countries.
BTN V again with the anti-Israel/anti-semitism link. It's not true. What interest me in this argument is Dershwoitz's blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
Anti-Semitism
American Heritage® Dictionary
n. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.
As for Woody S. Nice to see that you're pulling propaganda off of White Supremacist sites. Jew hatred makes strange bedfellows, no?
I wasn't refer to you Lauren. Do you deny that there are posters on here who are clearly anti-Semitic?
" What interest me in this argument is Dershwoitz's blatant misrepresentation of the facts. "
Have you read his article about "the Facts."
Is he merely going to write 6 essays on how Jimmy Carter gets money from Arab Financiers. Isn't the point to debate the points that Jimmy Carter raises? He did state that the Israel Palestinian conflict is the most covered conflict. THe point of the matter is the Palestinian side is the least covered. No where in American media does it show the widespread poverty, the no means of economic escape, air strikes, home demolition, property confiscated, etc. The list goes on and on. The best thing right now for Israel is palestinian terrorism. A militant fires a gun, a neighborhood gets confiscated. A suicide bomber detonates, city blocks are then leveled. Israel has never once wanted peace. They constantly portray themselves as the victim while antagonizing the Palestinians by whichever means nescessary to insight violence within them. Palestinians then retaliate, then Israel pretends to simply defend itself while confiscating more and more terrortory.
This seems to me to be the heart of the issue. What is "justice" for the Palestinians? Is it to destroy Israel and return "home"? If this is justice, then terror, violence, and war is the strategy. Is it to live in peace with a viable two-state solution and, in the course of those negotiations, find a reasonable solution to the "right of return?" if this is justice, then negotiations toward a two-state solution is the strategy.
"I have yet to see Alan M. Dershowitz for 1 second debate any of the issues that Jimmy Carter presents in his books. "
He gave you a link to an article where he does that. Did you not read it?
I guess it's clear from the rest of your post you only read one side of this issue, so it obvious you didn't read his article...
As for everything else you said please provide some backup to your wild claims? I mean if what you say is true it's amazing that any Palestinians are alive and that they control Gaza strip and the majority of the West Bank...
It's a shame that people like Dershowitz and other pro-Israel apologists are now carrying this Jihad against Carter... and shame on Gather.com for facilitating the whole thing... how did Gather go from being in bed with Public Radio and other intellectual media, to getting excited about being mentioned on Fox News??
Ultimately something good is coming out of this whole issue.. the fact that we are debating the US relation with Israel.. after all, Carter's book broke into the top ten, something that I'm sure is driving the neo-cons and the zionists crazy. For decades they have controlled the narrative on all things related to Israel... they covered for the apartheid state when needed, they told lies about "making the desert bloom" and " a land with no people for a people with no land", they used Hollywood to push their agenda, etc... etc... However, now that the media rules are changing, it is no longer easy to maintain the lies... and people like Dershowitz are trying in vain to maitain the old propaganda... sadly for him, it's a lost battle, for ultimately, truth always makes its way through, and truth is not on his side.
But when Brandeis University invited him to debate me, he refused. In fact, he refused to debate anyone. He will be speaking at Brandeis on January 23 from 4:30-6:00PM. Several groups of students have invited me to offer a rebuttal to Carter's talk at 6:00PM. The model they propose is the Democratic response to President Bush's speeches. I have accepted. I hope this sequential debate will go forward with the cooperation of Brandeis University.
I agree with several of the commentators that the burden of proof has shifted to Carter. Let him now make full disclosure of all the funding to the Carter Center so that the public can judge, by his own standards, whether his objectivity has been compromised. Let him explain why after receiving funds from the Saudi government why the Carter Center has never investigated and reported on human rights abuses within Saudi Arabia despite that country's numerous known human rights violations.
Nope, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of logic knows you cannot prove a negative. It is YOUR duty, Prof. Dershowitz, to create a persuasive argument that Carter has been "bought" and swayed by Saudi money. You have not proven your case beyond a shadow of a doubt, and you rely on a shadowy argument the omits some important truths.
AIPAC's website, which clearly boasts its achievements, is excellent proof supporting Carter's argument that the pro-Israel obby in American is very powerful and influential in politics.
And maybe the Bush family can do the same thing regarding their much more massive funds received from the Sauds. Oh wait, Bush is pro-Israel. Never mind.
The question is - "Why is Jimmy Carter so one-sidedly biased in favor of the Arabs and against Israel?".
The answer - he gets oodles and oodles of money from foreign governments and foreign nationals who are in an official state of war with Israel (Mainly the Saudis). And you can't get much more biased than a state of war.
On the other hand, those who support America's alliance with our democratic ally, Israel (or England, Korea, Japan, etc.), are not being paid by Israel for that support. No more than environmentalists are being paid by the whales and trees. These are simply Americans thinking for themselves. Now, I know that's a scary concept for some, but the point is - America's pro-Israel policy, like our pro-Nato, or pro-Korea policy is an American perspective. Jimmy Carer's propaganda is paid for by the Saudis.
Thus far, I am duly unimpressed with the caliber of Dershowitz's work and I can't really blame him for not wanting to engage in debate with someone who misrepresents the facts and who doesn't want to engage in a public debate with a former friend.
Carter does not need to be present for an honest and rigorous assesment of his book. His book should stand on its own and anyone who read it should be able to debate it it. Carter's resistance to debate Dershwoitz is no excuse for a sloppy argument.
they are creating ethnicty bombs- ethnicty created virii
They are a nuclear power
hell they far surpassed the nazi in racial laws in israel
the israeli learned very well from ww2
"The answer - he gets oodles and oodles of money from foreign governments and foreign nationals who are in an official state of war with Israel (Mainly the Saudis). And you can't get much more biased than a state of war."
Doe she get "oodles of money?" Thus far, it looks liek Carter received a half million dollars in earned "prize money" a drop in the bucket for his center, and he received the same millions of dollars in funding from Arab financiers as many ohter American presidents and Dershwotiz's own Harvard. Nowhere in his article does Dershowitz prove that Carter has received "oodles" of money and that Carter is unique in receiving the money he has received.
More importantly, Dershowitz does nto prove an cause-and-effect relationships. People tend to donate money to people and prganizations that support their cause. If I donate money to PLanned Parenthood because I'm pro-choice, will PP suddenly start performing abortions? No. I donate money because PP supports my own personal beliefs. In all likelihood, if Carter is receving "oodles of money" (which hasn't been proven) it doesn't mean Carter was "swayed," it means people are giving him money because they believe in his cause.
Dershowitz represents the worst voice in support of democracy and not the best interests of the Israeli or Palestinian people. He would have the Palestinians silenced and the United States continue to be a vassal of the State of Israel. The people of Israel live in an artificial economy supported and protected by the American taxpayer. With 20 years of unparalleled financial aid (billions annually) and military largess; planes, missals, bombs and training and the direct and unassigned financial aid one would expect Israel to be an economic success.
What Dershowitz wants is continued and unmonitored taxpayer support of Israel without public debate that is open to the full spectrum of opinion and experience available, including those that don't coincide with the narrow views if the Israeli government and professor Dershowitz.
Wow, those Sauds are really leveraging their Carter donations to oppress Israel.
Oh and that same year, Carter writes "Because of this historic action, the US removes its name from the list of pariah countries, such as China, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa, that have refused to accede to international human rights instruments."
Wow, Carter really capitulated to the Sauds there! If he calls his friends pariahs, I hate to see what he calls his enemies.
Also, I want to express my appreciation to the Gather members, who are, on the whole, taking a high road in debating this article.
If Dershowitz honestly thinks that his analysis on the Middle East, and the US role, is accurate, and that his charges against Carter (e. g. influenced by money) are on-target, it is left to the reader to question Dershoitz' discernment, not his honesty.
I am so disappointed in him, and this article in a highly articulate format brings together the reasons for my disappointment. I saw him a man of honesty, even though I didn't always agree with his decisions.
Thank you for lending your voice to expose the decline and collapse of his integrity. It's like watching a Greek tragedy.
I feel angry and sad that we no longer can look to him as a wise elder statement whose post-presidential work serve to bring about positive change in the world. He's just another oily pol. What a shame. So many leaders, so little leadership, so much greed and corruption, so many lives lost, so much damage to the environment--all in persuit of black gold. (that means oil for those of you who might be young enough not remember the expression.)
Again thank you for the article.
No, he wrote a book misrepresenting the experiences of others, including Dennis Ross. Please read Mr. Ross' op-ed in the NY Times. In additions Carters book is full of factual mistakes.
"It is not anti-semitic to criticise Israel."
It's not of course. But I've yet to meet an Anti-Semite who doesn't criticised Israel. Then again many on here don't believe Anti-Semitism exists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Semites, White Supremacists Exploit Jimmy Carter's Book for Propaganda Value
New York, NY, January 4, 2007 … Jimmy Carter's efforts to promote his book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" and his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have created a sensation among domestic white supremacists and anti-Semites in the Arab world.
In the U.S., white supremacists have enthusiastically embraced the former president's accusation that the Israel lobby stifles debate in this country, saying it confirms Jewish control of government and foreign policy as well as the inherently "evil" nature of Jews, according to racist Web sites and forums monitored by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
Meanwhile, the mainstream Arab media has used the controversy over Carter's book to espouse and build upon their own virulently anti-Israel and anti-Jewish views, according to ADL monitoring of media in the Muslim and Arab world.
"Jimmy Carter's book and especially his suggestion that he is under attack by a powerful Jewish lobby is candy for white supremacists and the Arab media, who exploit it to perpetuate conspiracy theories about evil and controlling Jews," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "While we know President Carter never intended this kind of reaction, it shows how his use of loaded terms and classic stereotypes of Jewish power have created a sensation among anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers the world over.
"President Carter's embrace of rhetoric frequently used in extremist circles has had the unintended consequence of encouraging anti-Semitic extremists to exploit it and run with it," added Mr. Foxman.
Excerpts from articles in the Arab press, posts on white supremacist forums, and reactions by pro-Palestinian groups in response to Carter's book are available on the League's Web site.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
In the present context of the world/Nations money is
synonymous to Power. There is no use pretending blind and searching an absent black cat in a pitch dark room. Of course it will be a good absurd drama.
The positive approach will be to point out the mercenary stances, if any, in the proposals made out.
impossible for them to remain objective on the Middle East. Why does he not
impose the same caveat?" That is the whole point of your article.
There will never be a solution to this problem in which both sides are happy.
In my opinion, former President Carter has lost all credibilty. It is sad. I feel he had all good intentions, but they are now tainted and will be forever.
It is also sad that we, as Americans, do not seem to care where our politicians and media derive their money. Maybe you should write another series after this one entitled, "America for Sale".
--------------------------
Frankly, I'd be interested in seeing Carter engage in with actual Americans, the way Dershowitz does on this blog, even if we aren't Saudi princes flush with petro-dollars. Now, Carter's email address is on the Carter Center webiste (its at Emory University). I've forwarded him the link to this site and asked him to comment several times. Unsurprisingly, though, he clearly hasn't the courage to sign on and participate, and respond to real questions, as opposed to the softballs the mainstream media constantly pitches to him. I guess its predictable though. After all, his bias is clear, and now the monetary source of that bias has been exposed for the world to see. Or perhaps, his Saudi handlers won't allow him to be embarrassed.
Now he's taking up the aggressive defense of Israel. As usual, Derschowitz's key strategem is diversion -- rather than try to defend Israel's misbehavior on the West Bank/ Gaza, the discriminatory, second-class treatment that it provides for its own Arab citizens, or the role that its stubbornness and beligerant overreactions have played in the rise of Islamic extremism, we end up debating President Carter's MOTIVES, whether or not Carter accepted payments from various sources, whether Alan and his sources are "neocons," and so forth. This is the standard result once we attack motives rather than stick with the substance.....
Among other things, this overlooks the substantial number of outspoken, intelligent critics of Israel (many of whom happen to be Jewish) -- like Norm Finkelstein, Robert Fisk, Edward Said, Michael Hoffmann, Avi Shlaim, Noam Chomsky, Benny Morris, Alan Hart, Lenni Brenner, and Ronnie Kasrils -- who have never taken a dime from any one, and yet have made essentially the same arguments that Carter has made -- or even strong ones.
In the memorable words of Ronnie Kasrils, a leading post-apartheid South African government minister who just happens to be Jewish:
"I recently visited the occupied territories for the first time. And yes, I'm afraid they can reasonably be described as resembling Bantustans, reminiscent of the ghettoes and controlled camps of misery one knew in South Africa. The few days I spent there left me with strong but conflicting impressions ... The inanity of your occupation — all those lit-up detour roads built for the exclusive use of settlers and Israeli citizens. The surly pettiness of your controls at checkpoints, having little to do with security and everything with the primitive urge to humiliate, harass and drive to insane rage an occupied population...The extreme youth of your soldiers. The ruthlessness with which you destroy the Palestinian economy. The ancient revenge: bulldozing houses, destroying olive groves. The Berlin walls around your settlements in Gaza ... and then the rubble of destroyed Palestinian quarters looking like Ground Zero ...You have not broken the spirit of the Palestinian people. They are now more resolute than ever to build a state."
BTW, just for the record -- I have never taken any money from any Arab or Israeli sources, either directly or indirectly. I also do not hold any interests in any Arab or Israeli companies. A simple question: can Alan Dershowitz, or for that matter Gather's investors, make the same statement?
-intersting article from the ADL, an organization that openly advocates for Israel. I wonder where they get THEIR money...
I think to say that he was "bought off" is frankly absurd. Speaking for myself I have no reason to be sympathetic or unsympathetic to either Jew or Muslim (Shock horror I know, since I am allegedly a rampant anti-semite according to the omniscient Gather right-wingers). However sound logic, reasoning and history and current events have brought me to the conclusion that the aggressors in the Middle East have been predominantly the Israelis. That conclusion is not hard to reach.
Perhaps Mr Dershowitz will do some research into Republican lobbying for Arab money, and the (by now) boring, yet accurate and critical involvement of the Bush family's involvement with the Saudi Royal family.
The bottom line is that the US government is interested only, as it always has been, in the defence of Capitalism and earning the dollars from wherever it can. Politics is a minor issue for the Whitehouse.
how about it folks? you want a discussion show that not everyone AGREES with Dr. D.
I join Rabbi Lerner and many others in saying "Thank You, Jimmy Carter."
I cannot agree om some points with you.
(1) On your first point you say that Mr Dershovitz is not allowed to defend Israel over Palestine. This is a strange argument to me. Are you or are you not allowed to choose who you defend? Please clarify.
(2) Lawyers typically get payed by their clients that they represent. On the other hand, political figures getting payed by highly discutable sources is not really that common or is it? Sheryl and Rory, sorry, I don't want to follow you in an argumentation that all on top are corrupt.
I do not believe that all US politicians are payed by highly discutable sources.
Ami Ayalon, the former head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency said: "The things a Palestinian has to endure, simply coming to work in the morning, is a long and continuous nightmare that includes humiliation bordering on despair. Is the option of Jewish democracy with apartheid acceptable? I think not."
Yossi Alpher, a former senior adviser in the Israeli government, once warned that with their unwavering support for Israel's approach to Palestine, neoconservatives in the Bush administration have encouraged Israel to create "an apartheid reality that is the very antithesis of the democratization that they preach for the region."
B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights says: "Israel has established in the Occupied Territories a separation cum discrimination regime, in which it maintains two systems of laws, and a person's rights are based on his or her national origin. This regime is the only of its kind in the world, and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa."
Israeli historian Benny Morris observes that Zionists could choose from only two options: "the way of South Africa"--i.e., "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority"--or "the way of transfer"--i.e., "you could create a homogeneous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out."
The editorial board of Israel's leading newspaper Haaretz, published an editorial in September 2006 which said that "the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation."
In an article, "Road Map to Grand Apartheid? Ariel Sharon's South African Inspiration," Israeli researcher Gershom Gorenberg concluded that it is "no accident" that Sharon's plan for the West Bank "bears a striking resemblance to the 'grand apartheid' promoted by the old South African regime." Sharon himself reportedly stated that "the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict."
In a 2002 speech in the United States, South Africa's Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu referred to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Christians and Muslims as "Israeli apartheid."
Former President South Africa Nelson Mandela in a March 28, 2001 speech said: "As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system."
And Mr. Dershowitz, if you are taking topic suggestions, and if I may be so bold as to suggest something, I would be fascinated to know your thoughts on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, backed by the Madrid conference resolutions in 1991.
Thank you.
What do you expect from a man who defends a murderer that brutally stabbed an innocent woman. (i would think that makes someone a misogynist more than an anti-Israel person an anti-semite.)
And yeah, I'm starting to think Gather think we're stupid to buy into this BS.
For 500 years, under Turkish Muslim rule, there was no legal place called Palestine in the Middle East. On my map of the region, published in 1908, there is no Syria, no Iraq, no Jordan, no Palestine, and no Lebanon. None of the nations we now know of between Egypt (which was there then) and Iran (which was there then as Persia) existed. The many named provinces of the Turkish empire all had capital cities, and Jerusalem was not one of them. The province in which Jerusalem lies seems have had no formal name nor capital, and of its boundaries, only the sea and the Egyptian border remain.
Mark Twain, traveling through the Holy Land in the 1850s, observed a settled, town population of perhaps eighty thousand, sixty thousand of whom were Jews. There was an additional uncounted population of Bedouin Arab nomads, who called no town or country "home", and who ranged across all of Arabia from Suez to Baghdad.
Zionist settlement in the Holy Land began under Turkish rule, with the approval of both the Turkish government and the then leaders of the Arab world, the Husseinis of the Hejaz. The first wave were of investors and overseers, who hired Arab farm labor. This led to a tremendous influx of migrant workers, swelling the settled Arab population. The second wave were Communist refugees from a failed revolution in Russia. They evicted Arab laborers and worked the land themselves. This was the origin of the Arab-Zionist conflict.
The League of Nations established all the legal national boundaries in the Middle East, led by agreeements between France and England over spheres of influence and client states. The present boundaries of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and the boundaries of the Palestine Mandate, were all established under this body of international law. By resolution of the League of Nations, the Palestine mandate was established for the formation of the Jewish National Home, to be administered until its declaration by the British. The Zionists themselves selected the British; they could have asked for and gotten the French instead. There was no Arab opposition to this at the time, and the deal was approved by the Emir Feisal al Husseini, Sharif of Mecca and nominal leader of the entire Arab world.
Land titles were badly messed up by formation of the Mandate. Under Turkish rule, most titular landowners were absentee, as locals avoided holding title to their land in order to evade Turkish taxes. The British assumed that the existing lack of title meant no formal ownership, and took title to all undocumented property in the name of the Mandate. The Mandate lands that wound up on the Israeli side after the 1948 partition became State lands. Resident Arabs who did not hold formal title to such lands "lost" them. Furthermore, Arabs resident on land where title had been held by Turks who sold out to Zionists were also evicted by the new Zionist landowners.
The Palestiininian grievance is not about nationalism, because Islam has no concept equivalent to the European concept of nation. It is about land - tribal, village, feudal land. Most Arabs do not care who the Government is, or where the Government is, or what the Government is - their lives revolve around family, tribe, mosque, and village. As long as the Government does not bother them, they ignore it. The entire upset is that the Zionists are nationalists, and equate "land" with "nation", while the Arabs do not.
Most of the rest of the issues and arguments in the Middle East are trumped up in response to the fundamental question of village and tribal land. Fatah politicians have used the conflict to enrich themselves. Hamas and Hezbollah have used it create power bases for their Syrian and Iranian backers. Saudi fundamentalists have used it to spread Wah'habism (a heretic sect of Islam dating from the 1800s). Bin Laden has adopted it as a further cause in his desire to drive all Western influence out of Arabia. The facts and fictions about the Holocaust have been asserted by various factions to justify their positions. However, all of these are later accretions, secondary to the primary problem - the Mandate evicted Arabs from the farms they called home, the 1947-8 war for Israeli statehood caused thousands more to lose their towns and villages, and until and unless the displaced Arabs are placed on land they can and will call their own, the conflict will continue.
The Arab side could have settled all this many times, but the leaders to whom the displaced Arabs have looked have failed them, refusing every good and feasible offer in favor of a perfect but impossible outcome. The Israeli side could have taken the force out of the conflict by accepting the monetary claims of the the displaced Arabs and buying them off, but has refused to even try. The overwhelming majority of Arab claims would go away given cash and a passport. Since the Zionists are unwilling to take back or pay off those who fled, and the Arab demagogues are unwilling to accept the partition that international law has declared for the sttlement of the conflict, the stalemate continues, while other parties, pursuing their own interests, borrow the cause for their own ends and pour fuel on the fire as fast as they can.
The Arab side is not innocent of the Holocaust, although not primarily responsible for it either. The leader of World Zionism, Theodor Herzl, foresaw it, in the French anti-Jewish movement surrounding the case of Captain Alfred Dreyfuss, who was framed for treason. Hitler in fact took most of his propaganda from the same originally French sources. The Jewish National Home movement was founded to create a place for Jews to flee to in the likely event of deadly persecution in Europe. Had the Mandate accepted the emigration, in the 1930s, of all those Jews who wished to flee Europe then, there would have been at least 3 million fewer Jewish deaths. However, under Arab pressure, Britain closed the Mandate to Jewish emigration. In consequence, Hilter was able to have almost six million Jews killed, along with five million other people, in his mad attempt to "purify" the gene pool of Europe. The mass grave death sites and the Nzis own records of the killings are proven facts that anyone who cares to can go and see. There is an area north of the birch grove at Auschwitz, where there used to be a marsh of eleven acres area and up to three meters depth, now dry land, where every handful of earth consists of human bone fragments and ashes. How many corpses must have been burned nearby to produce enough cremains, at a cup and half per body, to entirely fill that old marsh?
No nation has been a constant friend to the State of Israel and Zionism, so no nation is in a position to tell Israel what to do. In contrast, many nations have cozied up to Arab oil states, in their national interest, since Middle East oil was first discovered. If there were no Arab oil, there would be little support for the Arab cause outside the Islamic world. Zionism, on the other hand, has gained what support it has primarily through propaganda - all the Jewish wealth in the world is a drop in the bucket compared to Arabian Gulf oil. Jewish power is founded on effort, intelligence, and moral suasion alone, as whatever money there is in support of Israel comes mostly from Jews who earned it the hard way. The world Jewish population is, perhaps, 18 million men women and children. The population of Iraq alone is 25 million. Who has whom outnumbered and out moneyed?
The Arabs would have won already if they had taken their playbook from Mahatma Ghandi instead of Mao Tse Tung. An enemy with a conscience can be defeated with non-violence, but the same enemy, with a history of being attacked, can never be beaten with force. Arab violence on behalf of their cause in "Palestine" has always been, and will always be, counterproductive. No power which attacked Jews with force has ever triumphed in the end, and the history of the destruction of the enemies of the Jews and the prosperity of the friends of the Jews goes back three or four thousand years. Hamas and Hezbolah are swimming against the historical tide, as even the Koran predicts the return and resurgence of the Jews in the Holy Land, under conditions that, arguably, the State of Israel has fulfilled.
On the other side, Jewish law requires the pursuit of justice, and the expression of mercy, above all other worldly pursuits. Israel must deal justly with the displaced Arabs, or else, because the millenia of Jewish history also contains examples of Jewish national injustice leading to the downfall of Jewish nations, at least twice.
Let both sides learn the lessons of history, and all of you learn them too.
Also, is jst me or did we really only get TWO responses from Dershowitz in this Gather "exclusive." Laaaaaaaaame.
It's clear that Lauren and many others lack the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject at hand. In addition I'm amazed at the close mindedness of these people. Lauren would rather bash an ADL report not based on what it says but because they're a Jewish Org. Show you the mentality of these people. Perhaps Lauren,you should go to the ADL site and read the following links before you dismiss them.
"Excerpts from articles in the Arab press, posts on white supremacist forums, and reactions by pro-Palestinian groups in response to Carter's book are available on the League's Web site."
----------------------------------------------
Hmmmm..So let's tabulate. Mr. Carter has received at least $18- 20 million from the Saudi Royals and other Arab sources for his pet projects. And we're supposed to believe that this doesn't influence his pronouncements on the Arab/Israeli conflict.
Gee, can anyone imagine if some US Congressman ever got $20 million from the Israeli government for his or her pet projects. The terrorist supporters here would be screaming through the roof about them "being bought" by Israel. But somehow, when Carter gets the big 20 mil from the Arabs, that's okay, because Saint Carter is above it all. LOL. Talk about hypocrisy.
meanwhile, the painful truth is that those who support America's alliance with its democratic allies (Israel, England, etc.), are not getting money to do so. These are simply Americans who give votes and money to politicians who support their policy views, much like those who support environmental NGOs, or planned parenthood, or the AARP, etc.
And that after all is truly why our government so strongly supports Israel (or Nato for that matter). Because its the result of genuine American sentiment whereas Carter simply hews the line of his foreign princes.
Mr. Dreshowitz is not here to give you a history lesson Lauren, though you clearly need one.
As for your comment T.E. it's beyond funny. I'll be more then happy to ignore your Right Wing Supremacist viewpoint!
Mr. Dreshowitz is not here to give you a history lesson Lauren, though you clearly need one.
As for your comment T.E. it's beyond funny. I'll be more then happy to ignore your Right Wing Supremacist viewpoint!
I did read the ADL article earlier and was duly unimpressed. If people can use the Bible to justify death, than anyone can use anything, like Carter's book, to justofy their misguided causes. It's a sahme that his book is being misused that way, but certainly you don't believe that was his intention. His book is also stimulating some excellent debate and may be a real catalyst for positive change.
And I wonder if you think this problem could have been solved a long time ago if the Israeli's handled it the way the Jordanians did. After all the Jordanians killed 25,000 palestinians in one month, Sept 1970 and haven't had many problem with them since...
Yes, I am a paid poster. And every Passover I kidnap Christian children so I can use their blood to make Matzah. Didn't you see that 41 part series on TV throughout the Arab world?