Good point. Brandeis does not employ hacks like the loudmouth.

nice post.

As I said flavius, your claims of an assault on academic freedom is Orwellian. Your analogy with the AUP is absurd. Carter isn't being restricted or boycotted by Brandeis, they are the ones who invited him, and it was Carter who turned the invitation down over the idea that someone would challenge his views. It is Carter and his defenders that are assaulting academic freedom. How does one come to the absurd conclusion that simply including another speaker to debate with Carter amounts to a denial of the rights of Carter himself to speak?

One thing I'm getting absolutely sick of is this ridiculous comparison between the nature and quality of the debate about the Arab-Israeli conflict in Israel itself vs. here in the US.  The argument seems to be that because Israelis themselves have a free and open debate and views critical of state policy are presented uncontroversially, then we shouldn't worry about having the same kind of debate here in the US.  After all, if Israelis aren't afraid of open debate on their own country, why should we be?

There are a couple of things wrong with this view. 

First, it is simply a myth that views critical of Israeli policy get no airtime in this country.  Open most newspapers, listen to NPR or the BBC or go to virtually any college campus and you will find opinion  and commentary critical of Israel.  And that's not even counting the way hard news is reported.  On any given day, you can find stories talking about the suffering of the poor Palestinians or the brutality of the IDF, all presented without any context as to why Israel needs to do the things it does or how the Palestinians got into the mess they're in.  In the case of the BBC, it isn't even subtle.  Never will you see a story about the victims of Palestinian terrorism.

Second, the nature of the debate about another country within that country is necessarily of a different quality than a debate outside that country.  In the case of Israel, that is doubly so because a very sizeable chunk of Israel's critics aren't of the Israel-is-legitimate-but-its-policies-aren't variety.  Rather, they believe that fundamentally Israel is an illegitimate entity.  One need only peruse most Israel-related threads on this very blog to see this. 

And that's the fundamental difference. In Israel, people debate policy vigorously, but virtually no one questions the legitimacy of the state.  Outside Israel, criticism of Israel's policies is fine.  Criticism of Israel's legitimacy isn't.  But it's all too common.  And how do we know when someone is straying into questioning Israel's legitimacy?  When they present factually incorrect, misleading or one-sided criticism, such as what's in Jimmy Carter's book.  Nowhere apparently does Carter present the Palestinians as sharing any responsibility for their own predicament.  Nowhere does he acknowledge that Israel has made attempts at peace that were rebuffed.  Any book that biased is not coming from a position of honest criticism of Israeli policy.  It is indicative of a mindset that has serious problems with the notion of Israel's legitimacy and as such must be cut off at the knees in the public debate in this country.

This seems like the previous canard about the speakers at the Polish Embassy being stopped by the ADL. That turned out to be a lie.

It looks like Carter was invited to debate Dershowitz at Brandeis, not just speak there. It looks like Carter refused the debate saying "There is no need for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

That is Carter's right. However Dershowitz is a very successful defense attorney and a professor at Harvard Law School. It is rather close to Brandeis a short drive from one to the other. Perhaps some of you have heard of Harvard Law School.

Like the Evangelicals there is the need to create a imaginary view of the pro-Palestinian and anti-israeli voices being under siege. Is there a college campus in America in which being anti-Israeli is not the predominate voice? I guess it is more ennobling to believe you are the righteous few rather than the smug and pompous. If Carter does not want to debate Dershowitz fine. Let him address Bill Clinton, Dennis Ross and Shlomo Ben-Ami who in their books say Carter is a best mistaken.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Daniel, we know what Dershowitz is. Dershowitz is a joke, a media clown.

Dershowitz's great love is not Israel: it's Dershowitz.

"Eizenstat said he suggested to Reinharz that Carter come to Brandeis and debate Dershowitz. A debate “would make this a real academic exercise,” Eizenstat said. Reinharz said he thought a debate was “a terrific idea.”
Carter, apparently, did not. "
---
Why this is a 'sickening new wrinkle" is beyond me. If Carter wants to play he should play, or shut up.

But of course: "This seems like the previous canard about the speakers at the Polish Embassy being stopped by the ADL. That turned out to be a lie."

is bullshit..
(and here)
---

The following letter was sent to Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, regarding the ADL's role in the cancellation of Professor Tony Judt's scheduled lecture at the Polish Consulate of New York in October. Given the attention this affair has received in the press, and the important principles at stake, we thought this document might be of interest to your readers.

After sending the letter we received a reply from Mr. Foxman, in which he proposed a private meeting to discuss the matter. We responded that, given the importance of the issues, and the fact that providing a public forum for discussing them was precisely the matter in dispute, we would be publishing the letter in The New York Review of Books and invited him to reply in your pages, should he wish to.

Shortly after receiving Mr. Foxman's reply we then received a letter from Patricia S. Huntington, of Network 20/20, the organization that originally issued the invitation to Professor Judt. She now informs us that she is requesting a retraction from The New York Sun and The Jewish Week, disavowing statements she apparently made to those papers about the ADL having exerted pressure on the Polish Consulate to cancel the talk.

However, we have in our possession earlier correspondence from her that states unequivocally that, in her words, "what I said is accurately quoted in the NY Sun article of October 4" (e-mail correspondence to Mark Lilla, October 6). On October 5 she then suggested that Professor Judt issue the following statement about what happened:

At 4:15 PM when the President received a telephone call canceling the event scheduled to take place within the hour, she [Ms. Huntington] was informed that ADL President Abe Foxman was on the other line to the Consul General. We can only imagine what kind of pressure was brought to bear to prevent me from speaking on such short notice. It was no surprise to me that I received a call from the New York Sun within 10 minutes of the news. The Sun must have been contacted by the ADL; who else would do so? [e-mail correspondence to Mark Lilla, October 5]

We are in a difficult position as a start-up non profit that has benefited greatly from the Polish Consulate's generosity. You saw the article in the NY Sun...the Consulate denies what I said which is not surprising. They have to. But our lawyers caution Network 20/20 from possibly fueling an unnecessary conflict with the Polish Consulate by repeating what is already clearly stated in the NY Sun. I was clear in that article and responded to them as I promised to Tony Judt [e-mail correspondence to Mark Lilla, October 6]

Mark Lilla
Richard Sennett

Dear Mr. Foxman: continued here
----

There was no 'intellectual' debate over South Africa, only one between right-wing hacks and various adults. But this time around these same responsible adults are unwilling to toe the moral line on Israel, and yet they demand that the Palestinians get themselves a Mandela before being granted intellectual respect.

"I want the occupation to end, which means negotiating an end to it with the Palestinians whether we like them or not, and thereby preserving a majority Jewish state called Israel forever"

That's another quote from Rosenberg. And that's sickening.

The situation is: "Carter wants to come and talk about his book, not have a debate about his book."

Certainly, the university can set up a seperate debate, etc... afterwards but I don't see why the university needs to take over the event.

This interference isn't something new and I remember that, when the "My Name Is Rachael Corrie" play came to New York, the "New York Theater Workshop" canceled the show because its financial supporters were uncomfortable with the show.

Obviously, for people like myself, the reputations of these organizations will be tarnished forever because "freedom of expression" wasn't protected.

Carter attacks Israel's policy since 1967 and believes that the lives of occupied Palestinians are as bad as those of black South Africans under apartheid.

He's entitled. That doesn't mean he is right.

That doesn't mean he's wrong either. As I noted elsewhere, the Palestinian GDP is down to $2 billion and, as you know, the US and Israel are continuing their coordinated efforts to economically strangle the Palestinians into a genocide.

In my opintion, after reading your TPM posts, you just want people to accept the status quo and stop thinking about the hell which the US and Israel hand out in the mideast.

As far as I know, you haven't proven Carter wrong and listed your metrics to show why.

Unfortunately, I have a stack of books to read, but I will try to get to Carter's book ASAP because, so far, everything on this blog about the book has been sketchy.

I just started reading Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival and found it "better than anticipated."

as I posted elsewhere, if Jimmy Carter doesn't want to debate, that's his choice and, obviously, that choice doesn't limit Brandeis from setting up a seperate event where people can openly debate the subject.

in general, Brandeis is trying to substitute a nice, quiet book discussion for an event where people start arguing with each other and go home mad.

in my mind, Carter isn't running away, but instead, he's chosen not to waste his energy arguing with the bigots who have repeatedly supported the aparteid.

while you seem to think that there would be a winner and a loser in the debate, I think that Carter would probably focus on humanism and helping people understand the inhumane aspects of Israel and US policy.

Thus, his opponent would probably throw around phrases like "they're terrorists" and "remember the halocaust," liberally, in an effort to distract people from thinking more deeply about what Jimmy Carter has to say including Israeli GDP is $156 billion and Palestinian GDP is $2 billion.

The sad part is, while Brandeis' doners will probably reward the university's sensorship and smackdown, people like myself will show less admiration for colleges when they make the claim that they're the center of intellectual debate because differing viewpoints aren't given room to grow.

Dershowitz may be a media hog but he is also an extremely skilled lawyer and my guess as smart as Carter is Dershowitz would take him apart.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Carter said he hoped Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid would provoke a debate on Israeli policy and now he refuses to debate his critics.
What's a pathetic loser!

You're right, davai, he is a pathetic loser, in every sense. But as long as the format for his appearance allows students and professors a full opportunity to challenge his nonsense, let him come.

It's imposible to do this in such format.
Did you see a speech a former Iran President in Harvard a few weeks ago ? He won the debate.

Personally I consider Carter a decent man(as I do Dershowitz . He BTW is careful not to associate himself with judgements such as yours- as he pointed out to Glen Beck he voted for Carter and thought he was a good president ).

I think , he indulged himself in chosing the book's unfortunate title. "Old age is shipwreck ", and his shows.

That said I agree with your conclusion.

Hell, Mel Gibson and Richard Gere--who both visited Harvard--could win debates there. I have every confidence that students and professors at the school which won the GE College Bowl in 1968 will know how to grill Carter just fine. Of course, if goons who enforce their brand of political correctness show up and disrupt the event, like the ones that recently prevented the Minuteman leader from speaking to Columbia students, I fear that will only make Carter more sympathetic.

Now who are the American Ahmadinejads out to ruin your day? Inquirings minds want to know.

You don't have to be Ahmadinejad to question Israel's legitimacy.  He's just the most extreme example of a phenomenon that is way more widespread than just those that want to wipe Israel off the map.

I believe that anyone who presents one-sided, biased, factually incorrect analyses of the Arab-Israeli conflict does so because of a certain mindset that questions Israel's legitimacy.   It may also be the case that the person offering these views thinks they're being terribly fair and unbiased.  Usually they're not.

Here's an example:  Anyone who claims that "the occupation" - defined here as the Israeli presence in the West Bank -  is the sole or even the primary cause of the continuing conflict has swallowed the Arab propaganda hook, line and sinker.  As anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history should understand, Arab attempts to eliminate Israel long predate any "occupation" of the West Bank.  Furthermore, the Palestinians turned down multiple offers to take back the West Bank and Gaza (or most of it) and responded with an orgy of terrorist violence.

Now it may be that the person parroting this bit of propaganda is doing so out of naivete.  It may be the only argument they've heard or that it's become such conventional wisdom in left-wing circles that it is just taken as given.  Or it also might be the case that they have a personal stake in it that affects their views.  But for someone as intelligent as Jimmy Carter, with as much command of the history as he has to offer such one-sided, factually incorrect nonsense - well, you just have to wonder where that comes from.  You can say the same thing about Mearsheimer and Walt.  Perhaps it isn't Israel's existence per se that they think is illegitimate (and make no mistake, they're not eliminationists like Ahmadinejad).  But they do question the right of Israel to defend itself from hostile neighbors in the way that it sees fit, the same as any other nation in the world.  In other words they call into question the first role that a state is supposed to play, which is to protect its people.  It that's not questioning legitimacy, I don't know what is.

QFT:

Thus, his opponent would probably throw around phrases like "they're terrorists" and "remember the halocaust," liberally, in an effort to distract people from thinking more deeply about what Jimmy Carter has to say including Israeli GDP is $156 billion and Palestinian GDP is $2 billion.

The sad part is, while Brandeis' doners will probably reward the university's sensorship and smackdown, people like myself will show less admiration for colleges when they make the claim that they're the center of intellectual debate because differing viewpoints aren't given room to grow.

Universities with a religious orientation are probably more tempted to silence dissenting scholars than are more completely secular institutions. Catholic schools once taught , probably still do, that a Catholic State must prevent its citizens from acts allowable under their own doctines but contrary to Catholicism's : "Error can not be given equal standing with the truth." e.g. birth control etc.

The slippery slope argument is of course nonsense ,life is full of matters of degree. But
a university that believes it possesses theological truth is probably somewhat more likely than its secular peers to be unhappy with faculty who proclaim divergent opinions about economics, feminism , Jerusalem or what will you .

I'm by no means saying that I either agree or disagree with Carter (I haven't read the book and probably won't) but universities very, very often allow people with controversial opinions a platform to speak and they don't tend to turn those speeches into debates. I mean, universities typically let people like Michelle Malkin and Anne Coulter speak, unopposed. Recently, The New School of Social Research let John McCain give a commencement address, unopposed, and over the objections of most students... So, why not Carter at Brandeis?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Daniel, you always make such a good case and you did it here too. But, I'll take one issue... in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, BOTH sides are claiming victimhood and both have reason to do so. To me, that makes this argument far different than, say, American conservative Christians who claim to be victims even though our very culture seems to assume their beliefs as true.

Like you, I hate people who falsely claim to be victims. In the Israel/Palestine debate, though... well, I kind of see that both sides can legitimately claim victimhood without stretching the truth at all (though, natually, both sides do stretch the truth, as humans are won't to do.)

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Right, it's not like Brandeis students aren't at least as capable as Dershowitz of marshalling their facts, but they may be less willing to smear Carter with a bogus charge of anti-Semitism. God knows, some of them might even have agreed in part, or in toto, with Carter, to the possible detriment of Brandeis' fund-raising. So, more than likely, they brought in Dershowitz as a deal-killer.

In any case, Carter doesn't need Dershowitz, he's just a bad-faith publicity hound. He's the legal version of Geraldo Rivera, aka Jerry Rivers.

Also, he seems to have stereotyped any pro-Palestinian thinker as either confused or ractist.

But, he did it on unfair grounds. Even if his argument that the occupations post-dated the animosity are true (and, he's right, they are) that doesn't make it true that the occupations are either right or just. In fact, one would rather expect people to rise up after another people occupaies their land...

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Well, similar universities allow people like John McCain, Newt Gingrich and Anne Coulter to speak unnoposed... why does Carter suddenly need an opponent?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

He doesn't call Israel an apartheid state in the book because the book isn't about affairs in Israel, it is about the brutal apartheid occupation of the West Bank, which does not belong to them.

Now, a case could be made that the way Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel (yeh, they can vote, all right) has some of the flavor of S. African apartheid, but again, he doesn't need to get into that because the book is about the W E S T B A N K.

So stop with the subject-changing distractors, we can all see what your trying to do.

If you need a Golem so badly, what could your self-image be like?

Ann freakin' Coulter and Newt freakin' Gingrich get to speak at collegfes, without opposition. Why should Carter expect anything other? I mean. John McCain gave a commencement talk to the New Schhol for Social Research this year and he wasn't counter-balanced at all, even though most New School graduates hate McCzain...

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Unbelievable!!!
Larry Johnson writes about Iraq and gets 5 comments.

M.J. Rosenberg writes about obscure event of discussing obscure book authored by obscure former president about a tiny strip of land and gets 55 comments.

I bet if somebody write about Darfur, he’ll get 0 comments.
So, what’s wrong with you people ?

The problem with Israel is that a) it buys WMD's, and other stuff, 2) it partly pays for these with hard earned US Tax dollars.

All genocides are important to me but, as you know, most Americans don't have the time to audit their governments actions.

I'm slow to assign motives. "You can ask a whore her price but not her reasons."

Carter is...senile

Fascinating diagnosis, Dr. Sage. What do you think about Terry Schiavo?

I am curious. How is any nation's existence made legitimate? Are the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. to name four former British colonies that became English dominated nations,legitimate?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

LOL! That's an ambush?

I see you've just accepted the notion, which is a given in left-wing discourse, that Israel operates outside UN resolutions. In fact, in the eyes of the UN, the West Bank has the status of "disputed territory", meaning who has the right to it has yet to be determined. That is the language of the resolutions and they were deliberately worded that way.

As for the Old Testament, I never claimed that Israel's exact borders should be set according to the Bible. What I meant was that the legitimacy of Israel as a nation is in part rooted in the fact that there was an ancient nation of Israel.

Destor

Thank you but I disagree. I was not talking about the Israelis and the Palestinians I was talking about anti-Israeli voices. Rosenberg's entire point is the those who are anti-Israel have no voice or have their voices silenced. Since this site is perpetually anti-Israel, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak are regualarly on TV , the Walt-Mersheimer papoer is quoted on anti-Israel site after site it hard for me to feel sorry about this view being silenced. Just go into the Grad Center of CUNY or walk on the campuses of Columbia or Emory and you will see plenty of support for the Palestinian position.

The Palestinians are largely the victim of their own leaders and their supporters.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Nice try. I didn't say you claimed that Israel's exact borders should be set according to the Bible. I asked what the source of Israel's legitimacy was. So my point still stands.

Second, if you were to google, say, Jews Against the Occupation, you would find a list of several dozen UN resolutions that Israel is defying. Obviously, the resolution establishing Israel is no more or less legitimate that the ones it continues to violate.

This is total nonsense. If you are claiming that the occupation of the West Bank is "apartheid" and it is Israel that is administering that occupation, then you are claiming - or at least insinuating - that Israel is an apartheid state. And that's the crux of this bit of dishonest tripe. Carter wants to provoke by using the loaded term "apartheid" in the title of the book, but he's too much of a weasel to make the argument how Israel is actually guilty of apartheid. He can't do that because then the dishonesty of that argument would be there in plain sight.

In a way, using the word "apartheid" is like calling someone a Nazi. It's a way of demonizing your opponent by comparing them with the very worst episodes in human history. As such it trivializes what Nazism really was about. In the same way, Carter trivializes what apartheid was. Apartheid was a system of racial classification driven by notions of racial superiority. Israel is involved in a land dispute driven by nationalist, religious and security issues. The two aren't even close. Israel is as much of an apartheid state as Britain, Spain, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia or any of the countless other countries around the world that have a hold on disputed territory.

You can't be serious. Here's an excerpt from a review of Carter's book that appeared in the Washington Post:

Carter makes it clear in this polemical book that, in excoriating Israel for its sins -- and he blames Israel almost entirely for perpetuating the hundred-year war between Arab and Jew -- he is on a mission from God.

or this:

He is famously a partisan of the Palestinians, and in recent months he has offered a notably benign view of Hamas, the Islamist terrorist organization that took power in the Palestinian territories after winning a January round of parliamentary elections.

or this:

The murder of Israelis, however, plays little role in Carter's understanding of the conflict. He writes of one Hamas bombing campaign: "Unfortunately for the peace process, Palestinian terrorists carried out two lethal suicide bombings in March 1996." That spree of bombings -- four, actually -- was unfortunate for the peace process, to be sure. It was also unfortunate for the several dozen civilians killed in these attacks. But Israeli deaths seem to be an abstraction for Carter; only the peace process is real, and the peace process would succeed, he claims, if not for Israeli intransigence.

Maybe you have struck a fair balance in your assessment of the conflict. Jimmy Carter certainly hasn't.

Oh Jesus F Christ, just respond to Judt or the emails he presented.
Just a little substance...please.

The Palestinians could have turn their efforts to building their society. The Palestinians could have offered a real peace for land deal. Instead Arafat stole how many billions? Hamas offers the fiction that they are going to drive the Zionist entity into non-existence does what for the Palestinians.

Carter's comment about Arafat being assinated if he took the deal offered at Taba might be right. Afterall the Palestinians are promised over and over that they will make Israel go away. It isn't and until that is accepted Palestinian leaders and their supporters are the Palestinians biggest enemies.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

"Why is Judt, who has said he thinks it would be better if Israel did not exist, be an expert on what the ADL did or did not say to the Polish Consulate."

Because he asked questions of more than one side.

You rant a lot but say very little.

I don't rant, I quote, everybody.
There's a record to look at dear, if you choose to.

"People who attack Israel are always right and the Palestinians are not responsible for their fate."

Now there's a rant! It's all very Rodney King to you isn't it? The logic of S&M: the bottom's always the one in control. Sexy.

And my posts are more full of boredom than anything else, at least where you're concerned. It's the "liberals" who piss me off.

Speaking as someone who is strongly pro-Israel, denying that Israel/Palestine is similar to the former South Africa/Bantustan situation would require silliness. Both situations involve two populations, separated by race and religion, where one of those populations has largely stripped the other of land, rights, and freedom to travel. The difference, if you're going to make a rational assessment, has to be argued from the standpoint that the Palestinians deserve it, whereas the blacks of South Africa did not. It should go without saying that in both cases the argument is about deserving it on the whole. Obviously both comprise diverse populations with some ratio of guilt and innocence among them.

So why can't those of us more pro-Israel than perhaps President Carter is simply admit that our strongest case is that the Palestinians deserve their suffering? Israel is treating the Palestinians harshly - much the same as South Africa treated its blacks. But the parallel in harshness, even in the details of policy, does not in itself show that the instances are morally equal. The African National Congress, while a guerilla organization, indulged neither in suicide bombings, nor rocket attacks, nor bringing in neighboring states to war against their opponents. The PLO and Hamas have done all those things. And the Palestinian population has openly supported them. For this - especially when they have had repeated opportunities for peace on favorable terms - they deserve no mercy.

Carter: (paraphrased) The "apartheid in the Occupied Lands is not based on race, but on greed for land" (and I might add, for water, which most people forget). Carter says it has nothing to do with race. You may quibble that he is being ahistoric, but I know you would prefer Carter's label to quibble over so you can avoid solving, or even discussing, the actual problem on the ground.

Instead of "apartheid," how about: "Israel's brutal, unlawful, and soul-destroying occupation of the Palestinian lands with the intent of depriving them of what has been their home for centuries."

Would you be happier with that label?

"I'm all for people who are concerned about the welfare of innocent Palestinians."

I notice that you did not say: "I'm concerned about the welfare of innocent Palestinians."

Interesting semantic shrug-off.

Then, not satisfied with your forthright first statement, you follow with: "They, like any other people going about their business but caught up in a way, deserve our sympathy out of simple humanity."

This is classic "lip service." Do you mean they are entitled to the same sypmpathy we might give, say, school kids in Cleveland when their bus is late because of heavy snow? Or do you have even more compassion in your heart than that?

The Fisk article is excellent.

The Toronto Star article is already gone.

Here it is at CommonDreams.org

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1217-21.htm

Yep. I caught that, too. Ask an American black how he or she feels when a white person refers to blacks as "you people."

Show us the text of the UN resolutions describing the West Bank as "disputed territory."

The United Nations calls the West Bank and Gaza Strip Israeli-occupied (see Israeli-occupied territories). The United States generally agrees with this definition. Many Israelis and their supporters prefer the term disputed territories, claiming it comes closer to a neutral point of view; this viewpoint is not accepted by most other countries, which consider "occupied" to be the neutral description of status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank

The United Nations Security Council (in Resolution 446, Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others), the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, have each resolved that the territories discussed in this article are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply. In its decision on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice ruled that the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are occupied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#Applicability_of_the_term_.22occupied.22

I guess you like Dore Gold's handout better than the facts. Here it is in case you have misplaced your copy.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

Vile is over the top .

AD's  a litigator and by now he's internalized the particular style to which he's become accustomed . It's a pretty common one but not universal. John Edwards's would be different.

And he's combative. At times I've welcomed his two guns blazing  when he had happened to be on my side.

And he's deeply committed to the well being of Israel No surprise for Jew. And for those  who grew up wondering whether their relatives would survive Hitler and then finding they had been murdered , completely understandable.

His position on torture, with which I disagree , is non trivial ,honest , and worth discussing...... but not here. Ironically  a pretty close analog  is Carter's position on why he chose that title . My reaction to both  : "Good try". Or as my generation once said " Close but no cigar." 

If he and Carter were sitting alone together on a plane . I have absolutely no doubt they would have a useful exchange and many areas of agreement. But a debate would be a disaster for both . Dershowitz would make Carter appear foolish and himself boorish and intellectually disreputable. As Dennis Ross said about Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount : I can think of lots of bad ideas but not of a worse one.

Let's see, Mr. Rosenberg, Jewish kids at Hebrew University get blown up by a remote controlled IED and you don't see any nuances when Israel institutes checkpoints and builds a wall to prevent a recurrence of that. Like I keep telling you, misguided pishers like you will never influence any Democrats who matter

Rosenberg says "kills kids," you hear "institutes checkpoints." I think you're a good example of what he was talking about.

“A Jew who is outraged by Darfur but sees all kinds of nuances when Israelis kill kids in the West Bank/Gaza is no liberal either.”

I agree, there are no nuances.
A death of a Palestinian child is a tragic event by itself and a victory for Hamas.

Hamas is doing everything it can to make sure that Palestinians children die, dead children is the only currency for them. This is the only strategy for them.
Israel is trying very hard to prevent the death of Palestinian children but sometimes it fails.
It’s very sad when this happen.

"Why are you staying in Brooklyn anyway?"

How deliciously stereotypical of you to think of me living in Brooklyn. Never have and never will live there. Sorry to disappoint you I've never been, and will never be, a Chasid or a Lubavitch either.

I proudly support the security of Israel as an American and as a Jew, and when Israel has a credible partner for peace I will support Israel making territorial concessions consistent with the level of security its democratically elected leaders deem appropriate--just as I supported the withdrawal of Israelis from Yamit and the Sinai by the two guys you hated: Begin and Sharon.

I'm very happy to exercise my rights as an American citizen to vote, to donate to like-minded candidaes, and to use every means of peaceful communication to proclaim that support and to urge other Americans to demonstrate their support for America's only democratic ally in that
part of the world.

Most Israelis are glad people like me are here to make sure people like you are ignored by American decision-makers.

Hamas held a unilateral ceasefire for how long? You know the answer, right? Sure you do.

Israel wants the territories and uses Hamas' tactics as an excuse even when they hold back. I mentioned the moderation of Hezbollah and Rosenberg and Josh Marshall both rated my comments a '0' , even though I quoted US government reports. Boycotts of Israel aren't even debated.

If the Arabs has Jesus as a leader israelis would be shitting bricks.

"This is the only strategy for them.
Israel is trying very hard to prevent the death of Palestinian children but sometimes it fails."

Go to Gaza Jackass.

Uri Avnery:

IS IT possible to force a whole people to submit to foreign occupation by starving it?
That is, certainly, an interesting question. So interesting, indeed, that the governments of Israel and the United States, in close cooperation with Europe, are now engaged in a rigorous scientific experiment in order to obtain a definitive answer.
The laboratory for the experiment is the Gaza Strip, and the guinea pigs are the million and a quarter Palestinians living there.
IN ORDER to meet the required scientific standards, it was necessary first of all to prepare the laboratory.
That was done in the following way: First, Ariel Sharon uprooted the Israeli settlements that were stuck there. After all, you can't conduct a proper experiment with pets roaming around the laboratory. It was done with "determination and sensitivity", tears flowed like water, the soldiers kissed and embraced the evicted settlers, and again it was shown that the Israeli army is the most-most in the world.
With the laboratory cleaned, the next phase could begin: all entrances and exits were hermetically sealed, in order to eliminate disturbing influences from the world outside. That was done without difficulty. Successive Israeli governments have prevented the building of a harbor in Gaza, and the Israeli navy sees to it that no ship approaches the shore. The splendid international airport, built during the Oslo days, was bombed and shut down. The entire Strip was closed off by a highly effective fence, and only a few crossings remained, all but one controlled by the Israeli army.

Patrick Cockburn:

Gaza is dying. The Israeli siege of the Palestinian enclave is so tight that its people are on the edge of starvation. Here on the shores of the Mediterranean a great tragedy is taking place that is being ignored because the world's attention has been diverted by wars in Lebanon and Iraq.
A whole society is being destroyed. There are 1.5 million Palestinians imprisoned in the most heavily populated area in the world. Israel has stopped all trade. It has even forbidden fishermen to go far from the shore so they wade into the surf to try vainly to catch fish with hand-thrown nets.
Many people are being killed by Israeli incursions that occur every day by land and air. A total of 262 people have been killed and 1,200 wounded, of whom 60 had arms or legs amputated, since 25 June, says Dr Juma al-Saqa, the director of the al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City which is fast running out of medicine. Of these, 64 were children and 26 women. This bloody conflict in Gaza has so far received only a fraction of the attention given by the international media to the war in Lebanon.

Other soldiers who had served in the West Bank and Gaza came forward. More photos were gathered, as well as about 400 audio and video testimonies.
In them, soldiers talk about the total power of the occupiers over the occupied — throwing Palestinians out of their homes; making them stand for hours for disobeying the curfew or trying to bypass a checkpoint or even smiling or arguing at the wrong time, Shaul said.
"We can play with them. This is the mindset from which everything flows."
In Hebron, Shaul manned a machine gun. "It can shoot dozens of grenades a minute up to a distance of about 2,000 metres. We'd shoot 40 or 50 a day ...
"We had three high posts, two where we had kicked the Palestinian families out of and the third was a Palestinian school which we had closed down.
"The idea was that anytime they shoot, we shoot back.
"But the machine gun is not an accurate weapon. You just shoot in the direction of the target ... We have no idea how many we killed. I hope no one."
Shaul said some acts "flow from being afraid or being bored. You are there eight hours a night at the post. You just aim and shoot the water tank."
Or, "when you drive your tank or your APC (armoured personnel carrier), you bump into a streetlight. As you turn a corner, you bump into a wall. It's fun ... It's all about you. Nothing else matters ... Palestinians are no longer human."

As a non-Jewish Deis grad, I learned after 4 yrs at Brandeis to avoid discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  This seemed to me to be the most intractable, emotional discussion possible on campus, and it was exceptionally one-sided.  I still don't like discussing it, almost 10 years out of college now.

I don't disagree with Carter's ploy with his book, to generate discussion, to offer Americans a different perspective.  Seems unsurprising for an 82 yr old respected senior statesmen with nothing to lose.  I also don't blame him for declining an event with someone he obviously doesn't respect.  If you didn't respect someone's views, would you want to stand across the dias from them and engage with them?  (Whether Dershowitz is worthy of his respect is another story.)

I think this sounds like a publicity stunt on Brandeis's part that backfired, and now everyone looks bad (with the possible exception of a victimized Dershowitz...).  I agree with a prior remark that Brandeis shouldn't be orchestrating the event, nor do I think there's anything wrong with Carter declining it as proposed.  Carter could have suggested a more worthy debate opponent, but maybe he just wants to go on a book tour or hog the stage for a few minutes - since his m.o. behind the book is to make what he sees as an untold side of the story known.

Brandeis is always doing stuff like this - when I was there in the mid/late 90s, there was this whole ruckus about whether or not Farrakhan was going to speak on campus (and I can't remember or track down if he did or not).  When I was a freshman the student newspaper printed an ad run by Holcaust deniers.  Recently students were all up in arms that the school appointed a "Jihadist" as a Fellow at their Middle Eastern studies center.  etc. etc.

It strikes me that the university has made a real effort to expand its conversation about the ME beyond its quite esteemed Judaic studies, and this is certainly a step in the right direction.  I also don't think that the Administration of the university would shy from bringing just Carter on board to speak if that had originally been proposed.  But what I think happened is they saw this opportunity for an even bigger event - scholarly debate, wahoo! - and jumped at it.  Only it didn't pan out. 

I'm not sure anyone is really to blame here, except perhaps the media for leaping all over this story.  However, I do know that when I was there almost 10 years ago, it was impossible to have a balanced conversation about Israel and Palestine, and these kinds of public skirmishes trouble me that he campus still has a long way to go.  Would be interesting to see what Brandeisians think about this debacle, since we're only hearing about the Admin's machinations so far. 

I've posted other reasons about why I feel these times are different but, after reading your post, I remember, just a year ago, that a teacher at the U of M talked about how he was on a committee that studied how to make it nearly impossible for students to hang up rally signs around campus.

In particular, he wanted the "big whig visitors" to see a "pretty campus that was free from [activist] flyers."

And, depending on what you think is pretty, they started putting up marble plaques along the paths that glorified various professors.

Honestly, I couldn't wait to go home because I felt way too much pretense and my soul just couldn't connect.

Brandeis, I think, is "bucking the trend" if they aren't trying to build the perfect "fairly land" where corporate america feels welcome.

Not a great exchange.

From:the poorly named Sage

"I'm very happy to exercise my rights as an American citizen to vote, to donate to like-minded candidates, and to use every means of peaceful communication to proclaim that support and to urge other Americans to demonstrate their support for America's only democratic ally in that
part of the world."

In other words, you live in this country for the sole purpose of supporting another country. Wow! Like a sleeper cell.
You feel precisely the way 99.9% of Jewish Americans do not. It must be weird living in Teaneck, New Jersey and caring not a damn about your fellow Americans.

Yuch. Sickening.

Interesting enough, under the Bush administration, you can't necessarily give your money to who you want because he'll say "you're giving to a terrorist organization."

Sage, who knew you were an AIPAC member? They tend to be sophisticated and I've never known one who would say that the only issue they care about is Israel. If I sent your comments over to HQ, you'd be kicked out (unless you give alot of moola).

Maybe coming here and reading what "we (stupid)people" write, also works for you as a substitute for having friends. I'll bet you think this world would be wonderful if it just weren't for all the pesky people in it?

Jan Knaus

Good luck to you! I also plan to spend less time on line. BTW, I wish I could play the guitar -- I took a class once and my teacher politely asked me to drop out.

Jan Knaus

thanks for your "wish of good luck!"

I took about 6 guitar lessons and then dropped out because, as you can tell, I have an independent mind.

my teacher was great and told me: "play less notes" and that's what I do, i.e. I find ways to build up to "playing everything."

I have an S90 ES and use SmartScore 5 so I can OCR sheet music and then have Overture 4 (GenieSoft) feed it to the S90 ES as midi notes.

I now have a pretty good christmas repertoire on the piano and guitar and I will be using SmartScore 5 to get skills beyond the first 5 frets on the guitar.

I love the S90 ES because it's willing to play a piece over and over again until I get the tempo and fingerings correct! And, of course, it can play at any speed and output lots of beautiful sounds including brass, organ, piano, strings and woodwinds!

My friend at work recommends the stuff at www.playpianotoday but, for now, I just buy books and use them along with SmartScore 5 and Overture.

Wishing you the best too!

In blogosphere ad hominem attacks have a certain etheric quality. We do not attack opponents according to their personal characteristics, but according to the characteristic of somewhat artificially constructed persona.

Got it.

I'm not sure what kind of guitar you have, but my cousin has one, a classical, thick necked guitar, and I had a hard time playing it.

I recently "picked up" a [DCX1E from Martin] and I really like it.

It has a fairly thin neck and came with light gauge strings for easier play.

Some people get the "action lowered" so they can press down the strings more easily.

If you find the right guitar, you can get the right stuff at home, like SmartScore and MIDI, practice a lot and, during it all, fantasize that you're getting good enough to need a teacher.

My father gets paid to play professionally and he made my sister memorize an "encylopedia of piano facts" before he paid for a teacher. Now she "gets paid to play."

You've probably seen my posts that push independent learning and part of that is motivated from the thesis that students should work on their own until they really need help.

I like solving my own problems and, for example, I recently saw a really good accordian player [Cafe Accordian Orchestra] who played with his eyes shut, so I started doing that and improved greatly. I told my friend about that and he said: "that's what the [Play Piano Today] instructor suggests. If a teacher told me that, I'd think he/she was crazy so I was glad that I noticed professionals do it and then tried to pick up the habit.