More from Brandeis.

The New York Times' account of the evening is not quite as you recount it. Were you there? Considering the disaster that was expected from the twofold program it seemed to work out well.

"While many students and professors said they disagreed with elements of the book, they said they welcomed the opportunity to hear Mr. Carter.

“I’m happy to have a contrary viewpoint, I’m happy to have a former president, I’m happy to have controversy,” said Daniele Kohn, 21, a fine arts major, who asked Mr. Carter why, in a television interview, he had seemed to suggest that the Palestinian condition was worse than the Rwandan genocide. (Mr. Carter responded that he had not meant to suggest that.) “I think this school hasn’t gotten publicly upset in far too long.”

"Mr. Carter initially rejected an invitation to speak at Brandeis because it suggested that he debate Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor who has sharply criticized the book. Wanting the university to welcome contrary views, more than 100 students and faculty members signed a petition contending that Mr. Carter should be invited without conditions. Questions were preselected by the committee that invited Mr. Carter, and the questioners included an Israeli student and a Palestinian student.

After Mr. Carter left, Mr. Dershowitz spoke in the same gymnasium, saying that the former president oversimplified the situation and that his conciliatory and sensible-sounding speech at Brandeis belied his words in some other interviews."

"Despite the warm and dignified welcome, several students said they were disturbed by the book and Mr. Carter’s conclusions.

“He did some great work in the past,” said David Kuperstein, a junior, but “it has made me a little bit angry, the unfounded skew and bias that he specifically shows in his book toward Israel.”"
[The New York Times http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?emc=tnt&tntget=2007/01/24/us/24carter.html&tntemail1=y]

College students were excited to listen to a former President of the United States even one they disagree with. It was the panic of some that Jimmy Carter could not withstand the debate that was the problem. Carter did seem to belie the suggestion often made here that Jews somehow squelch debate.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

To put it in more prosaic terms, Likudniks would do well to read the fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf and absorb the lesson therein.

You pointed to "BREAKING NEWS: Carter defends book, outlines vision for Middle East" article.
Where does it say that "And, best of all, most of the audience left the auditorium before Dershowitz showed up."
Did you just make up this?

I must be prescient: I predicted on an MJ Carter/Brandeis thread before the speech, almost exactly what Dershowitz apparently said:

"Don't listen to Carter - he's unreasonably reasonable."

After Mr. Carter left, Mr. Dershowitz spoke in the same gymnasium, saying that the former president oversimplified the situation and that his conciliatory and sensible-sounding speech at Brandeis belied his words in some other interviews

This tells me that Jimmy Carter remains a politician at heart, tailoring his words and views to suit his audience and trying to win people over through calculated insincerity. If the controversy at Brandeis had the effect of causing Carter to reconsider or modify his vile views, then despite the lamentations of Mr. Rosenberg, it will have been worth the trouble. More likely, he will continue to spew anti-Israel nonsense when speaking to friendlier audiences.

Brandeis students, like most Jewish Americans, no the difference between hating the occupation and hating Israel even if Dershy doesn't.

Gee, if Dershowitz doesn't know the difference between hating Israel and hating the occupation, then it must be a pretty safe bet that Dershowitz is for the occupation right? Oh wait...I just found a quote from Dershowitz I managed to find in about 30 second of Googling. Here he is in a debate with Noam Chomsky (!):

I think we both agree that Jerusalem should be divided essentially along demographic lines with the Palestinians controlling the Palestinian population and Israel controlling the Jewish population, that the borders between Israel and the Palestinian state should be based roughly on the U.N. Resolution 242, that Israel properly ended its occupation of the Gaza, and that it should end its occupation of all Palestinian cities and population centers on the West Bank, that terrorism must stop, and that the Palestinian state that results from this peace must be as contiguous as possible, and economically and politically viable.

It's a bit of a mystery why MJ Rosenberg has it in for Dershowitz, even going so far as impugn his role as a defense counsel, as if legally defending a suspect somehow renders one morally suspect. Dershowitz doesn't defend the occupation, he defends Israel, working tirelessly to rebut the great piles of nonsense that get published or spoken about Israel. It may be the case that Brandeis can "handle" someone like Carter. But Israel needs passionate advocates who are willing to stick their neck out and call out those, like Carter, who persist in mythmaking and propaganda about the conflict. Far from not understanding the difference between hating the occupation and hating Israel, Dershowitz is a great example of someone who reconciles passionate Israel advocacy with opposition to the occupation. I thought that's what Rosenberg thinks is the "true pro-Israel position."

It seems that MJ Rosenberg is the one who is unable to make distinctions. He is the one who can't tell the difference between a public defender of Israel and a defender of the occupation.

The main reason I can't stand Dershowitz is that every time he shows up on television defending Israel, Israel loses support. There are so many advocates for Israel who are articulate and appealing and do not use the obnoxious style and tactics of Dershowitz.

Everytime Dershy open his mouth, Hamas wins friends.

Also, the big supporter of Jewish victims everywhere happily defended the killer of Ron Goldman. Yeah, yeah, everybody is entitled to a defense....

Re Shulamit Reinharz's comment "You might believe that anti-Semitism was what Hitler was doing. I believe there are many forms of anti-Semitism, and that includes desire to do harm to the state of Israel."
-----------
Sigh.

Would Reinharz consider "doing harm" to the Jews of the Dispora in American to be "anti-Semitic"? Because that is what unreasonable, extreme obedience to the Likud line does.

It is too bad that Reinharz and Dershowitz are not intelligent enough to examine history and see HOW Hitler came to power.

Hitler gained power in the chaos and deep misery of Germany's economic collapse by deflecting the anger of the German populace away from wealthy elites and onto German Jews. He did this by pointing to the disloyal acts of a few Jews and claiming that disloyalty was characteristic of Jews as a whole.

A lie, of course. The 5 million common Jews killed in the Holocaust had nothing to do with WWI war-decisions or with the Versaille negotiations. Those Jews were not the Jews --the Rosa Luxembourghs --who led munitions strikes and revolution at critical moments in 1918.

But it never occurs to untrammeled egos like Dershowitz to realize that when he stands up and rants "I am a Jew! I am a Jew!" that his countrymen might judge Jewish Americans by Alan's extreme allegiance to Israel and by his indifference to the 6000 dead Americans that allegiance has cost us.

In the coming decade, as the full disaster of Bush's reign falls upon America (e.g., a federal debt that is $4 TRILLION more than what he projected in 2001), then the US right wing will be eager to deflect responsibility from itself by pointing to the dubious acts of people like Dershowitz, Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham etc and blaming the "Israel Lobby".

"Ah, but the Democrats will save us?" Maybe. But when I look at SOME of the Democratic leadership, I see the same corrupt, self-serving, selfish morons who led the Social Democrats to their doom in Weimar. It is never safe to entrust one's security to the loyalty and strength of a whore. Such do not stay bought and they crumble like cookies.

Re Daniel's comment "New York Times' account of the evening is not quite as you recount it".
--------
Ha ha ha. Is this the same "New York Times" that assured us on Sept 23, 2001 ("Israel as Flashpoint, not Cause") that US support for Israel was not a motivation in the Sept 11 attack?

The same New York Times which refused to report evidence to the contrary -- Bin Laden's 1998 fatwas, 1997 interviews with US TV networks, Nov 2001 interview with Pakistan's DAWN,etc.

The same New York Times which promulgated, without challenge, Bush's claim that Sept 11 occurred because "they hate our freedom"??

The New York Times whose editor for a long time was Zionist Abe Rosenthal --winner of the "Guardian of Zion" award? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_of_Zion_Award

The New York Times of Judith Miller?

ha ha ha. You guys crack me up.

The vehemence comes because the criticism never amounts to anything Israel never suffers any reduction in the support it gets from this country no matter what it does. Israel has suffered no consequences from the United States for it's actions no matter how deplorable those actions are. That makes people really intense because they feel they are helpless and because their government is encouraging bad shit. It's worse when dealing with Israel because this has been going on to a greater degree for decades. And look at the profile on the ADL head, he fully admits he is pinning the anti-Semitic label on people for advantage.

How do you see that the Israel standard is higher? It is their actions in the occupied territories and Gaza. How is the criticism there any more intense than the horrible things Americans have done in Iraq (like torture)?

As with America and torture, if you're going to call yourself the Good Guys you need to ACT like the Good Guys. Is it fair? Sometimes. But even if it's not in this case, life isn't fair. Was it fair for blacks to have to act "better" in 1950s-70s? No. But it better achieved the goals of the civil rights movement.

Addition: Look, a huge part of the problem is the way AIPAC has functioned to STIFLE debate in this country concerning Israel. The other part of the problem is thinking Israel = Jews. Am I attacking anglo-saxons when I attack British policies? Criticism of Israel is often taken as an attack on Jews because of the efforts of some proponents to tie them together.

Criticism of Israel that holds Israel to a standard demanded of no other nation in the world is, in Larry Summers' formulation, "anti-Semitic in effect, if not necessarily in intent."

Israel is a country and, therefore, one cannot be anti-semetic for "speaking truth to power."

In my mind, while Israel seems to be a "walled zoo" for Jews, protected habitat if you will, philanthropy is never an apology for actions.

People like myself stop "being religous" because we've seen things like the oil spill in the Mediteranian, Rachael Corrie, the settlements, etc... things which are imperialistic and violent.

I certainly don't want to "be a Christain" simply to extend irrational love towards a government that ultimately, I think, won't be a blessing for the Jews unless it repents-- and isn't that what Israel is asking the Palestinians to do anyway?

In my mind, God is so much bigger than Israel and, thus, my love of God would be adulterated to think otherwise.

For nationalism to survive, I believe that countries need a creed like a church. And that's where I part ways with Israel because I don't believe their creed, just like I don't believe Bush's creed because victory, in my eyes, isn't obtained through an imperialism which is justified through God via covenant to a "promised people."

"The People Are Saying, Give Peace A Chance!"

keep on preachin' to salvation! when people get upset with Bush, I quote the bible and say: "why complain about a speck in his eye when you have a log in yours!" Damn, it's hard to repent. nobody wants to take Responsibility for anything.

Strong positive feelings about Israel right now (see the polls) come from two groups: Jewish Americans and some fundamentalist Christians.

Where do you get this nonsense?  Your coffeeklatsches with your insular, parochial liberal DC bubble?

Here's an ACTUAL poll conducted last year by Gallup:

Republicans (77%) are significantly more likely to sympathize with the Israelis than are Democrats (50%) or independents (50%). Gallup also finds that Americans who say they follow news about world affairs "very closely" are more likely to sympathize with the Israelis (66%) than Americans who follow foreign news only somewhat closely (59%) or who do not follow it closely (52%).

Gallup's World Affairs Poll also obtains basic favorable ratings of a variety of countries each year, including Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The new poll finds 68% of Americans saying they have a favorable opinion of Israel, including 21% who are "very favorable" toward it. Twenty-three percent view Israel unfavorably. Those numbers are essentially unchanged from last year, and are the most positive for Israel aside from a 79% favorable rating in February 1991 during the first Persian Gulf War.

Try putting aside your prejudices for once and follow the actual evidence.

A few years ago, George Bush's approval rating was around 88%.

So how's that going?

You've seen my posts re Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham,etc. It would take, what?, $15 million to send those posts to every American household.

Take your poll then.

Nope it doesn't drive me nuts. It's frustrating because I think that my government is acting against its own best interests (and mine) but what frustrates me more is that any attempt to have a debate is shouted down with cries of "Anti-Semite!"

Implacable enemy? Certainly some of its enemies you could class as implacable. But Egypt is no longer an implacable enemy, Jordan is no longer implacable. Have they been placated? Perhaps they are placatable, but they certainly have changed their stances when they went to war with Israel. Calling an enemy implacable does nothing except narrow options in finding a workable solution.

Israel does carefully pick their tactics, I applaud them for that. Sometimes (as in Lebanon and the initial Yom Kippur War) they make strategic mistakes.

Your third bullet point does nothing but reveal that you at least, have little desire to engage IN a debate about these issues save in polemical statements.

Substantively, the Palestinians did certainly ignite the conflict. But Israel has given up on stopping conflict, and is doing plenty to keep it at a slow burn now.

As an American of Indian origin (South Asia), I have deep sympathies for the state of israel. Since India has long suffered from Pakistani state sponsored terrorism, and continues to do so, India has much to learn from Israel in how to fight terrorism within its own boundaries. Unfortunately, during the cold war, India's socialism-inspired ruling class abdicated principles by supporting the Arab league Muslim nations (primarily to placate and pander to the large Muslim minority in India). Only now has it realized where the state's true interest lies and recognized Israel and extended a hand of friendship. Between the two nations people, there is great affection. Perhaps the largest number of foreign tourists in India are from the state of Israel. India is close, is exotic, and cheap - many a Israeli youth take time off after selective service to sample Indian hospitality.

Having said that, there are many policies of state of Israel that I fnd repulsive. And political correctness be damned, I have no hesitation in saying so when I can rationally defend my view. YES, there is NO parity in the US support of Israel. No doubt that the Arabs are to blame for much of what ails them today, including the misguided philosophy of Yaser Arafat (specially on the Oslo accord, and the Wye River Plantation intransigence). But the current hard line state policies of Israel are also to blame.

I find it disturbing that whenever a balanced viewpoint emerges, there is a significant pro-Israeli lobby that kills it - so no proper balanced dialogue ever takes place in USA - EVER! There is no parity in the dialogue that takes place. And that honestly, makes me HATE the state policies of current Israel.

Nothing to do with Jews or semitism or anti-semitism.

The right wing narrative on Carter has always been that he is too principled and naive to handle foreign policy.

But then I'm not a right-winger.

It is true that this was the right-wing criticism of Carter while he was president. His emphasis on human rights was anathema to right-wingers who thought a realist foreign policy would be more effective against the Soviets. Of course there's an interesting argument about that, but that's another story.

But the criticism of Carter on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with this. The objection to Carter is that he's hopelessly biased against Israel. How else can you explain the distortions and outright falsehoods that appear throughout his book and which have been extensively documented? It would be one thing if it were just sloppiness. But all the errors are ones that are unflattering to Israel. What does that tell you?

Now we're told that Carter appears in front of a largely Jewish audience and significantly tones down his rhetoric, even repudiating some of the things that appear in the book.  Either he's lying, insincere or doesn't know what he thinks.  I'm going with insincere.

So Dershowitz has truth on his side when he claimed that Palestinians are responsible for the Holocaust and therefore should be ethnically-cleansed?

An "implacable enemy" whose repeated peace offers were rejected by Israel:

In Israel, every international initiative designed to put an end to the conflict passes through three stages: (a) denial, (b) misrepresentation, (c) liquidation

Syria is serious about resuming peace talks with Israel and even proposed holding secret high-level talks during the war in Lebanon last summer, which Israel rejected, retired diplomat Alon Liel said Thursday.

Israel Rejects Palestinian Peace Offer By SARAH EL DEEB The Associated Press

Another Hamas Peace Plan Ignored by Ira Chernus

http://english.people.com.cn/200203/29/eng20020329_93066.shtml

But then I'm not a right-winger.

Carter was a terrible president. Once out of office he tried to regain stature by being holier than thou.

In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict he simply chose a side. Saint Carter suddenly became a regular blame-Israel guy. He has the right to do so. His language and approach are harsh and extreme for reasons people disagree on. He did successfully insult and anger Israelis. What is the point in doing it, unless you really care less about peace and more about lesser goals?

Sadly, we spend a lot of time on a colossal failure whose best destiny is the dust bin of history.

Instead of shooting the messenger, did you bother to read his book? Have Israel's policies thus far of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians helped peace in any way?

"Sadly, we spend a lot of time on a colossal failure whose best destiny is the dust bin of history."

I agree, but, unfortunately, George W. Bush will still be president for two more years.

Brad Speaks: "I would argue that while there may be uneasiness with some of the tactics Israel has had to resort to while defending itself, the public at large realizes that this pales in comparison with the depravity of the Palestinians."

Brad thinking, Germany 1942. "I would argue that while there may be uneasiness with some of the tactics Germany has had to resort to while defending itself, the public at large realizes that this pales in comparison with the depravity of the Jews."

Brad, if you were Irish Catholic, you'd be a Sinn Fein man. If you were an Irish Protestant, you'd mouth propaganda from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If you were a Turk, you'd deny the Armenian holocaust. If you were Japanese, you'd blame WW2 on the Chinese. If you were a Serb, you'd blame everything on the Croats and vice versa. And so on. And so on. Thank God for Brad. He gives us all a demonstration why millions of people are dying in various ethnic wars year after year. Politics determined by the accident of birth into a particular ethnic group. Pathetic.

I'm going with insincere.

I think that Jimmy Carter's words were a little harsh for some folks and he's simply reducing the rhetoric, offering an olive branch, to balance the psychology. As the bible says, "men have trouble eating solid foods."

If you look at the timeline in Carter's book, Hamas and Hezbolla were needed to give security to the terrorities.

One can bicker over how wars are fought, and how people protect their interests, but, until there's peace, both sides will continue to do hateful things to each other in the "glorified name" of security.

mcs,

"The People Are Saying, Give Peace A Chance!"

The trouble is the people are only saying it to one party to the dispute.

This post simply beggars belief and is unworthy of a response. Rosenberg has now officially blasted off into outer space.

Trollrated to offset CVilleDem's fanfare for ad hominems.

How about a sub-blog for people who

a) want the tightly-owned US news media to publish the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- as opposed to false myths which deceive more by what they leave out than by what they reveal

b) want the US public forums to discuss what is in the interest of the United States and what is consistent with American values --as opposed to a fixation on the interests of a small country on the other side of the world to whom we, the People, owe nothing. Especially since some leaders of that country repaid our friendship, past aid of $91 Billion, and our protection with arrogance,with smug assurance that all US politicians are whores, and by sabotaging peace talks in 2000 in a way that motiviated the 911 attack.

c) how about forum which reveals the selfish interests manipulating US policy,who in Congress are their toys, and what the malign effects have been on America

d) Finally, after 6 years, how about giving the families of 911 victims a TRUTHFUL discussion of why the Sept 11 attack was executed -- the things done by the US government that Bin Laden said motivated the attack -- rather than a pack of deceitful lies?

OK - you lied when you said that according to UN resolutions, the Occupied Territories were called "disputed" rather than "occupied." When you got caught, you changed the subject.

You will say, of course, that you were merely mistaken, but in light of your failure to address the truth when I presented it (you dodged it for at least a week, IIRC), I am entitled to conclude that you lied, and were seeking a face-saving way out.

This is in addition to the overall lying tone of so many of your posts, which I think needs nobody's efforts other than your own, and the readers' eyes, to establish.

You forgot to deny my charge of distraction, or are even you embarrassed to do so?

Ah, yes. So why do we have a Museum of the Holocaust --an event that happened in Eastern Europe and which killed few to no Americans -- on the US national Mall?

But we don't have a Museum of the American Indian Extinction?

Ah well. Maybe they'll put one up in Berlin.

In your post, you offered a poll to refute MJR's claim, and you blockquoted the following as the words to which your reply was aimed:

Strong positive feelings about Israel right now (see the polls) come from two groups: Jewish Americans and some fundamentalist Christians.

You said that, au contraire, support for Israel among Americans was rising, and offered us a poll that was taken six months after the Gaza pullout and very shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, and while a media blitz was being waged against Hamas in the US media. The poll was a measure of support generally and your linked page did not mention the occupation, the West Bank, or Gaza. It was your unsupported conclusion that the poll reflected American approval of the occupation, but for all you know, though, if Israel had stopped its illegal settlements, collective punishments, random killings, stopping ambulances at checkpoints, etc., etc., the poll's figure for American support for Israel might have been higher.

So, in response to your post I pointed out that the poll you cited was taken in February a year ago, and could not have accounted for the PR beating Israel took for its latest invasion of Lebanon.

In light of your evident agreement that American support of Israel was hurt by the invasion of Lebanon and the destruction of its infrastructure, how can you maintain, with a straight face, that Israel's brutal and overreaching occupation of the West Bank INCREASES it's American support? You can't, so stop trying. The poll results were not approval of the occupation, they simply showed American disapproval of Hamas and the Gaza unrest that occurred after Israel pulled out its "settlers" (gotta love that word).

The poll was yet another distraction, and a mendacious one at that.

Whatever,
So what is your position, how you want this conflic to be resolved?

So what is your position, how you want this conflic to be resolved? We don't need to forcefully be divided into sub-blogs.
We'll just see if we have anything to discuss.

The Gaza trail of tears was staged in August 2005 IIRC-- the poll, in February 2006, right after Hamas won the Palestinian election.

Nonsense - his positions are quite aligned with the Right on Israel. That's just a fact. You only discredit yourself when you try to evade this fact by calling me a "troll"

bmastiff,

But your
jeers -- and those of the Israel Lobby....

Help me out here.  By "the Israel Lobby," are we talking about AIPAC, or any American Jew who cares about Israel?

I just love it with the proponents of Israeli ethnic cleansing use the genocide of American Indians as a justification - because they are in fact admitting to and endorsing genocide too.

I mean, why stop there? Why don't we start passing out smallpox blankets too? And why limit ourselves to the misdeeds of the US - why not say "Heck, Genghis Khan did x,y and z - so we should too..."?

Oh, and another one of Dershowitz's justifications for the genocide of Palestinians: just think of genocide as a form of Affirmative Action!

Even for those who reject any blameworthiness on the part of Palestinians and Arabs for the plight of the Jewish refugees from Nazism and Islamic apartheid—an untenable position in light of the history of widespread Palestinian support for Nazism—the case for some affirmative action for a people who suffered so grievously at the hands of others is powerful...Those of us who support affirmative action with regard to African Americans do so, at least in part, on a theory of reparation for past wrongs...Even for those who did not believe in 1947 that partition of Palestine was just to the Palestinians, when the partition is viewed as a form of international affirmative action it seems more than fair. For those who support affirmative action based on the need for diversity, a Jewish state certainly adds considerable diversity to a world with more than forty Muslim states and numerous Christian, Hindu and Buddhist states.

Talk about a tribalistic mindset.

I would be seriously embarrassed for Harvard to have a plagiarist proponent of ethnic cleansing and genocide as a law professor:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349044

Sorry ZIonista - rating this as a zero just blew what little credibility you had left - which was very, very little. If you can't handle the facts, accusing everyone of being trolls isn't going to help you.

King Elvis,

When you're talking about a state centered around not just a moral system, but a faith that has lasted millenia, you end up with all this back and forth about who gets to criticize whom.

Except that Israel is governed by civil law, not Rabbinic law (halacha), and Jewish identity is not limited to religious observance.  The Jewish people is a nation with a particular language, ethical codes and laws, culture and shared history marked on a calendar peculiar to it.  Therefore, we are in fact talking about a state centered around the same legitimate national elements as just about any other state in the world.

Greenline.

People who find religious significant in Jerusalem get to go to Jerusalem unmolested.

Palestinians get to travel between Gaza-WestBank unmolested.

Jewish communities in West Bank areas (NOT SETTLEMENTS) get semi-autonomy with international monitors to make sure they don't quietly get cleansed.

Personally though I care about this conflict in so much as 1)People on both sides are suffering 2)this really fucks up the state interests of the United States

I don't expect I'll live the required 50 years, give or take, for history to coalesce around a judgment of Carter as President and Carter as Man.  I hazard the following predictions (knowing I won't be around to be ridiculed when they're proved wrong, if they're proved wrong).

1. Carter will most likely rank as a good, if not great president, willing to take the heat for unpopular decisions which ultimately saved lives, willing to call the American public on over-consumerism, (turn down those thermostats--drive at a reasonable rate of speed)--willing to take political risks in the name of peaceful resolutions of mid-east conflicts and concerns, and demonstrating, beyond the shadow of a doubt, and probably for one of the first times, that a white southern man could be a politician without being a racist. 
2. Carter may be the first 20th Century American President treated as a cartoon, not by the cartoonists, but by the mainstream print media; op-ed writers and reporters alike .  This was commonplace in the 19th century when Lincoln was called "that black ape," but modern journalism, we thought, had risen above that.  But New Yorkers, especially, mocked his accent, his cardigan, his morality (remember all that 'lusted in his heart' fluff?).  And they got away with it!  Want to know why Gore was gored by the press?  Look to see how nobody protested when the same supercilious treatment was given to Carter.  (Much the same treatment was given to Clinton occasionally by those effete elitists who couldn't stomach the idea of a "bubba" in the White House.)
3. Carter will be judged the most thoroughly consistent man, in office and out.  He believes in doing good and tries to do good.  He didn't whine when Sadat and Begin received Nobel prizes and he didn't...Norwegians weren't all that fond of Americans at the time.  One of the greatest wrongs was rectified when a later Nobel committee honored him.  Before casting slurs on him, read the Nobel Committee's Presentation Speech, Then read Carter's Nobel Address.  It isn't great prose, I guess:  but it articulates much of what is wrong with this world and a clear vision of how to make it right.

aMike

bmastiff,

So why do we have a Museum of the Holocaust --an event that happened in Eastern Europe and which killed few to no Americans -- on the US national Mall?

But we don't have a Museum of the American Indian Extinction?

Americans just might feel better about liberating Jews from Buchenwald and Bergen-Belson than massacring Cheyenne at Sand Creek.  Not that hard to figure out, really.

hass,

...what is a "Jewish" state of Israel mean excatly - will it be a democratic state in which pople of a particular religion/ethnicity are given preference? Is that a democracy by any definition? Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Happens all the time.  Israel is a state that promotes its Jewish character.  The state of Israel legislates its laws and conducts its business in Hebrew.  Ireland, Germany, Italy are democracies with laws of return that award preference to immigrants of Irish, German and Italian descent, respectively.  In Israel, all citizens are qualified to vote and hold office, not only Jews.  Lebanon and Jordan are democracies (or a partial democracy in Jordan's case) where Jews are prohibited from owning land.  So, cheer up.  You can have it both ways.

"Israel Lobby" refers to anyone who is winning an argument with me or who I dislike for some reason.

It's A very useful term. Useful vague. Anyone can labelled a member as I find convenient.

I don't even have to go to the trouble of identifying exactly who is doing wrong and defining the specific wrong they are doing. Much less prove my claims.

That's why I like it. It's kinda like the phrases "Anti-Semite" or "self-hating Jew".

I have an uninformed question about the occupied lands. I believe I have heard that the reason why the Jews (Israelis) insist that the must keep the occupied lands is that it provides a buffer for them as protection from hostile Arab states, such as Syria. If the land is kept as an uninhabited no-mans land, I can understand that position, but if it is settled, then what has been accomplished, other than providing a buffer for the likes of Jerusalem, at the expense of what, expendable settlers in the occupied lands? All they've done is taken over more Arab lands, but just moved at risk citizens into the space. Enlighten me. BTW, I watched a fair part of the Carter appearance at Brandeis, and was impressed by his willingness to tackle all questions, clearly and rationally. He convinced me.

Yes, I'm aware that it's not a pure theocracy, but then I've heard there's no concept of civil marriage - you have to get a Rabbi.

I'm trying to be open and intuitive about it, rather than defending or making points.

Rather than focus on the logic of who's construing UN Resolutions correctly, look 'between the lines.'

When Israel is accused of wrongdoing - then the accuser is confronted with this argument like "what right do YOU have to criticize this holy country? Are YOU holy? Then you could talk."

It dovetails with the (perhaps) misconstruing criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews in general, so if you say Israel did something wrong, you are saying Jews do bad things - "These pious people do bad things? So what are you some kinda Saint? Who are YOU to criticize. You're impugning my personal morality!"

That's essentially what the Brandeis President's wife did with Carter. She's saying "Hey what are we? Jesus? Besides, your not Jesus either because of your silly Playboy interview."

Eventually only Jews can criticize Israel - but then what's the rhetorical tack? "You're a 'self hating' Jew!"

OOPs! I just got the Kimosabe! You are so right!

Jan Knaus

Can't take a joke, eh? Actually, taking yourself too seriously (or Brad, in your case) is just a minscule part of the problem. Not that I expect you to own up to it -- just trying to educate you. Hopeless, I know.

Jan Knaus

Don't knock yourself out, Jan.  Just keep making friends among the herd along the path most traveled.

Sorry, try looking in the mirror. You are in the herd, spouting the same old familiar talking points -- not me. As I said -- you're taking yourself too seriously.

(I honestly get a mental image of Brad Pitt when I see Brad the Dad's screen name. It honestly disappoints me when I read his screed. Is THAT being a troll?)

But if you want to rate me as a troll, it says a whole lot more about you than it does about me, that is, based on my many posts here (and yours, I might add).

Jan Knaus

1.FYI, Israel is a tiny narrow strip of land (less then 15 miles in the some places) I think people on this list imagine huge Israel keepeng tiny Arab world hostage.
2. Israel agreed to Clinton plan (see Carter book),
so what do you want from Israel?

Hee hee hee. Fair enough, Zionista. I couldn't resist pulling your chain. My apologies.

As I've noted before, I don't think it's fair to blame America's 6 million Jews for the acts of the Israel Lobby. Most of those Jews are middle class professionals who are largely ignorant of what's going on behind the scenes.

While a number of them have some understandable sympathy for Israel, their views are all over the map and neither their numbers nor their aggregate political donations have enough Ooomph to account for the political pathology we are seeing. And it's only fair to note that for every Haim Saban and Richard Perle there's a Noam Chomsky and George Soros.

I've been fairly straightforward in naming some names, I think. Haim Saban. S Daniel Abraham. I can provide more. Note that I condemm these men not because they are Jewish but for their actions. For their attempts to influence US Middle Eastern policy in ways which harm America.

Just as I've condemned gentile billionaire Conrad Black, long time sugar daddy for Richard Perle.

By contrast, There are Jewish billionaires, even Jewish Billionaires who make sizable campaign donations, who I regard as major assets to this country. Steve Kirsch, for example, has done a lot of good.

Given the lost lives we have suffered in Sept 11 and Iraq, I have little patience for whores in the media business who make a career out of being unquestioning advocates for Israel.

Consider Jeffery Goldberg's review of Carter's book which was published in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701835.html

Is that a serious review? -- once which fairly discusses the strengths and weaknesses of a book by a former President? Or is it an ill-tempered hatchet job a la Ann Coulter? Does Jeffrey
reflect the attitude of an American citizen?

AND WHY the FUCK is Goldberg's attack PROMINENTLY posted on the Amazon.com page where the book is sold?? Every other book I've seen for sale on Amazon has a short summary blurb by Publishers World.

Alexander Cockburn wrote a funny article deriding these ham-handed tactics -- see
http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn.html?columnsName=aco

But it is the behavior of two major Jewish-owned newspapers -- the New York Times and Washington Post -- in this matter that really pisses me off.

I would have thought that the price of their past deceit -- 3000 dead in NYC and 3000+ dead in Iraq -- would have shamed them into trying to objectively portray the truth. Because a republic cannot survive if the gatekeepers of public discourse regard the voters as a herd of sheep to be conned.

That Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing is simply a fact rather than "squelching debate"; and you can deny it until you turn blue and die, but the whole world has seen Israel for what it is: a racist apartheid state. Troll rate me all you want - its an honor.

A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads..."

Depends what 15 miles you're talking about? In such a small area small 'strategic' and 'resourceful' areas become significant.

Israel agreeing to Clinton's plan BUT still continuing with the building of settlements in the West Bank... oh don't look at what the left hand is doing while the right is throwing the dice.

What I want Israel to do: Reap your consequences at this point, until you start to WAKE UP and compromise!

How about liquidating all settlements and negotiating conditions for ending the occupation?

With settlements in place and expanding, how Palestinians can believe in good will of Israel?

I do not support the "right of return", but I support Israel stopping a suicidal course of action. It is not like can be beastly to Palestinians forever with no consequences. "Likudniks" live in state of schisophrenia: Israel is so strong she does not need any peace, Israel so is endangered she must be vigilant, paranoid and lashing out.

Jews look most of the time like other Americans, and Palestinians much less so. Most Americans are very receptive to rationalizations of abuses of occupation. Even so, neocons stumbled upon a method of making Israel unpopular:

1. Step one -- start an unnecessary war

2. Fuck it up is such a way that the fallout can be unpleasant, if not outright dangerous, to Israel.

3. Prevent that fallout from happening, as long as possible, by extending an increasingly popular war.

4. It is still very much work in progress, but a war with Iran because it threatens Israel too much, and a fallout in the form of 6 dollar per gallon gas can can finally do the trick.

"In such a small area small 'strategic' and 'resourceful' areas become significant"
What small area are you talking about? Arab world ?
What 'resourceful' areas in Israel ?

"WAKE UP and compromise!"
How this ompromise should look like in your opinion?

You say Jews cannot own land in Jordan. This may be. I also read that Palestinians may not own land in Jordan, so perhaps, if you are right, this is not anti-semitism but something else. So, show me where this law appears, or otherwise prove the truth of the assertion, if you can, preferably with information from what is called a "primary source."

Also, you might read about the Israeli Supreme Court case of Qaadan v. Katzir. It outlines, and legally overturns, some features of the decades-long anti-Arab discriminatory policies of the State of Israel regarding the allocation of Israeli State Lands. Of course, this decision has not been enforced, and the land discrimination against Israeli Arabs continues.

http://lawatch.haifa.ac.il/eng/select/march_00.html

Israel is located at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bounded on the north by Lebanon, on the northeast by Syria, on the east and southeast by Jordan, on the southwest by Egypt, and on the west by the Mediterranean Sea. Before June 1967, the area composing Israel (resulting from the armistice lines of 1949 and 1950) was about 20,700 square kilometers, which included 445 square kilometers of inland water. Thus Israel was roughly the size of the state of New Jersey, stretching 424 kilometers from north to south. Its width ranged from 114 kilometers to, at its narrowest point, 10 kilometers.
The southern Negev region, which comprises almost half the total area, is largely a desert.

Could you please re-edit your post to just a blurb and a link, or to state that you have permission? All too many lawyers are out there eager to slap cease-and-desist claims on websites, and it would be a shame if we endangered the café with this.

Otherwise, good catch. Nice background info for the rest of us.

I would disagree.

While I disagree with much of what BradtheDad says, I would encourage him to speak freely. And I encourage the rest of the list to cut him some slack. If you think he is wrong, point out where and how.

I have been on the receiving end of what I regarded as deeply unfair ratings and it does not induce a pleasant frame of mind. I survived because of the help of some fellow posters and I very much appreciate their past support.

We are not running the UN here --we are fellow countrymen discussing an important subject. I can imagine few cases in which I would give out a 1 --mainly cases where I saw strong evidence that someone was intentionally trying to sabotage the discussion.

Probably the only one I would trollrate a 0 is Judith Miller.
Being too quick with negetive ratings terminates the discussion to no purpose. If all that are left are those with whom we agree then the discussion will become very boring.

Brad the Dad,

So if this makes me a right-winger, then I guess I'm a right-winger.

No it does not; and no you are not.

piotr,

Given racist tone of some BradtheDad's comments...

It is downright tragicomic the way casual accusations of "racism" are taken so seriously here, while it isn't even necessary for "antisemitism" to be charged before it's condemned for "squelching debate."

MJ, I've waded through these comments, and I have to say that I'm a bit confused. What was the point of your post?

I initially thought that you were pointing out, and rightfully so, that Brandeis acted in a manner that is contrary to the type of free speech we expect to see on an American college campus. But then, I see this subtext, this characterizing of Dershowitz by you as "OJ's Lawyer", and I ask: for what purpose did you do that? The free speech argument I thought you were making depends not on who Dershowitz is, but whether it was appropriate at the threshold to bow to the demands of those who felt entitled to "equal time" so to speak.

I'm no fan of Dershowitz for a number of reasons (including, for example, his failure to acknowledge the principle of proportionality in defending Israeli actions in Lebanon this summer), but just as I was mortified by the comments of that fellow Stimson last week, who criticized American law firms providing representation to Gitmo inmates, I am similarly troubled by the consequences of ganging up on an attorney because of who he or she represents. [Obviously, and please try and avoid capitalizing on a red herring I've just set up, I don't equate a wealthy OJ with a prisoner at Gitmo in terms of their relative needs for representation].

Is there not enough emotion expressed in the comments here? Are the issues not engaging enough?

In any event, this thread has digressed away from the point I thought you were making about Brandeis and free speech, and has delved into the myriad subarguments attendant to the typical American debate about the Middle East. So be it. But I do have an interesting observation about the content of the posts, and that is that, with few notable exceptions, the comments about Israel are generally and decisively hostile and negative (and I'm not talking about posters like you MJ who criticize the reflexive positions of groups like AIPAC). And I'm not judging the merits of such comments. But I do think that watching Zionista, for example, try and feign off several challenges at once, leads me to conclude that there is no stifling of debate in the United States about Israel. I'm a frequent visitor to this site and other left-leaning sites and, needless to say, there is no shortage of attacks that aim at the core of Israel's existence and security.

I have to say, when I see all of the ganging up on posters like Brad the Dad, when I see that he is coined a racist, his views, many of which I have not agreed with, do seem a lot less offensive.

Finally, one might ask, how come Congress is "so weak" on matters pertaining to Israel if so many people object to Israel at the core? Some have argued it's a matter of Jewish control, and some have refined their arguments to focus on the "Israel Lobby", and some have even further (and appropriately in my view) refined their arguments to focus on the role of AIPAC and similarly situated advocacy groups. But judging from the posts on here, there are an awful lot of folks whose voices are apparently not being heard in the halls of Congress. Just a thought, but maybe some of the commenters on here need to spend a little less time in their bedrooms or living rooms or college dorms sowing discord on the internet. Perhaps some commenters might consider getting off their duffs, and getting involved in the democratic process. Of course, for some I am sure it's a helluva lot easier to stay indoors and blame that all so powerful "Israel Lobby".