Thursday, December 21, 2006

Carter's Corrupt Ties

More here on Carter's Arab Financiers and Alan Dershowitz doesn't mince his language about why Carter refuses to debate him at Brandeis:
YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion.

And you can always tell when he's a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I'm talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."

Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post), "laughable" (San Francisco Chronicle), and riddled with errors and bias in reviews across the country. Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by "representatives of Jewish organizations" as Carter has claimed. Carter has gone even beyond the errors of his book in interviews, in which he has said that the situation in Israel is worse than the crimes committed in Apartheid South Africa. When asked whether he believed that Israel's "persecution" of Palestinians was "[e]ven worse . . . than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think -- yes."

Dershowitz also reminds us of the extent to which Carter is beholden to Arab money:
Nor is Carter the unbiased observer of the Middle East that he claims to be. He has accepted money 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. Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest.

Labels: , ,


At 10:58 AM, Anonymous Ben bayis said...

I think that debates are overrated. They usually are won by the better debater, not necessarily by the person with the better argument. Dershowitz is an aggressive debater, full of sound and fury, etc.

Plus, Jimmy Carter is 82 (14 years older than Dershowitz) and may not be as mentally spry as is ncessary for a debate. He's also a former president, which entitles him to some respect.

Carter's book sounds terrible (I haven't read it), but the idea that he's under some obligation to debate Alan Dershowitz is crazy.

At 11:06 PM, Blogger Alcibiades said...

Well I agree with you that winning a particular debate does not equate to having the better argument, but being the better debater. And he's certainly under no obligation to debate Dershowitz, who is no doubt more agile mentally and verbally.

Nevertheless, Carter did say publicly that Alan Dershowitz had no clue what he was talking about. And he did say he was writing the book to start a debate in America.

And all he has done in the interim is spew rhetoric, which is also not the same thing as debating.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home