Mr. Weiss' article is not nearly as certain as you are that Carter's views found wide acceptance among more than 3000 Brandeis students. Have you or IPF polled them?

Also, your snide prediction that the best and brightest will apply elsewhere next year is a bit premature. If Brandeis does suffer a loss of highly qualified applicants, which I hope and believe will not happen, it is likely that more of the students applying elsewhere will be coming from modern orthodox Jewish families who detest Carter than from the ranks who agree with him.

I do not share your view that modern Ortho kids do not believe in academic freedom or the first amendment.
The ones I know do.
No, it's the smart seculars who will look elsewhere.

Poor dumb kids. They want a better world. What is wrong with them?
As for Korean kids, I doubt you know any. South Koreans and Korean-Americans as well feel deep kinship with their relatives in the north.
The 38th parallel separates two parts of one nation.
This may be hard for some to grasp but Koreans distinguish between a regime in the north that they despise and the people of the north who they view as family.
Damn Koreans. Having suffered so much throughout their history, they just can't get into this hate thing that some of us enjoy so much.

MJR- You got it right.Brandeis establishment diminished itself yet the students did not. Generational differences probably explain the phenom?

Needless to say I personally believe Carter made a few mistakes in his book (which he has openly admitted) but generally he did our nation and our fragile world a great service by writing it.He thus stimulated much needed extensive dialogue on what seems to be one of the most unsolvable issues of our times.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
(non-self loathing half jew)

Un-fucking-believable. 

Here's MJ Rosenberg, holier-than-thou progressive hero, making common cause with The American Conservative, a magazine started by noted Israel-hater and all-around anti-Semite Pat Buchanan.  And why?  Well I wonder if it could have something to do with the fact that Rosenberg is quoted in the piece!

And what's the point of this piece?  Simply that the students of Brandeis University didn't go apeshit over Jimmy Carter's speech.  Might that have something to do with the fact that Carter, as an ex-President, is more likely to get a respectful hearing than your average Israel-critic/hater?  Or maybe it had something to do with the fact that Carter, as Alan Dershowitz mentioned in his speech, simply toned down his rhetoric for this audience.  It's hard to get angry at someone who simply apologizes for the hurtful things he says.  Of course his insincere apologies do nothing to counter his contribution to the demonization of Israel in the world at large.  It doesn't stop him from defending his use of the word "apartheid" in other forums, as profoundly offensive to Jews as that term is. 

It says absolutely nothing about agreement with Carter or his vile book that he was treated to a respectful hearing at Brandeis.

Finally there's this gem:

But they also understand the occupation for what it is and will not be browbeaten to support loathsome policies through scare tactics.

I love that term, "browbeaten".  Like there are goons going around intimidating students into supporting the occupation of the West Bank under pain of harrassment.

How characterisitically dishonest.  How Rosenberg.

Speaking of browbeating, I refer once again to the article "Mob Rule on College Campuses"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/29/cstillwell.DTL

BTW,
everybody can view the event:
http://www.brandeis.edu/offices/communications/events/200701carter.html

Right-Winger, Zionists from Brandeis who are trying to hide truth, somehow put Carter's lecture for whole world to see.
I wonder why ?

Your doubt would be wrong, MJ. Without going into detail about my personal life, I will just say I interact with Korean Americans everyday and I live near one of the most populous Korean communities outside of Korea. Mostly they are not so crazy about the government of the south, they despise the government of the north, they are dumbfounded by the naivety of some of the teenagers that call for unilateral disarmament of the south, and they love America.

I get a kick out of your sarcasm. Portraying them as "just wanting a better world" or just not "into the hate thing" props them up as some kind of admirable idealists that we should all look up to. Churchill wanted a better world. FDR wanted a better world. The kids that claim by dismantling their military, sending the US troops home and laying down their arms, would impress Kim Jung Il to the point that he would give up power and reunify the country, are drama queens too young and spoiled to know what kind of suffering they are inviting. The old folks know.

Those students at Brandeis are still going to be going on spring break next year and the year after. I know you don't agree with current Israeli policies, but if they advocated what these Korean kids preach and laid down the arms of the Israeli military in hopes of a big group hug, the suffering that the old folks know too well, would raise its head again. Is that a better world? I don't think most of the kids at Brandeis could tell you much about Carter's history, the youth of Sadat, or the prologue to Camp David, and even if they could recite it from a history book, they will forget it after finals and spring break. The old folks you mock will never forget.

Defending yourself is not enjoying a hate thing. People lock their doors at night, not because they hate, its because they have a right to live.

Halevi to Walzer is not a "broad range of commentators." A broad range of commentators would be, say, Halevi to Finkelstein. A real broad range of commentators would include some Palestinians.

But you TJ King are a hater. Big time.

Let me just add that I think you wrote a fine and pithy post. I just do not understand, and perhaps you could explain, why you felt obliged, or why you decided for any reason under the sun, to sign off on your well-written post by announcing to all that you are not a self-loathing Jew.

Although I do not think that TJ appreciates the beauty and the hope expressed in the idealism of the young, and although TJ often writes things that I have substantial disagreement with and which ofen make me uncomfortable to read, I do not see him as a hater MJ.

You write that your commentary is not intended to insult anybody, yet you choose to speak of Jewish control of media and entertainment in order to encourage discussion? Great logic. . .say anything about anyone or any group so long is it provokes discussion. Oh, and in this case, insult me, beat me, and make me feel better by recognizing Israel's right to exist and a role for the U.S. in defending Israel.

[For what it's worth, your stated position on what America's role should be in defending Israel appears to be more Likudnik-like than my position; it's the price you ask for in exchange for your apparent willingness to sacrifice the lives of American boys and girls to defend Israel that I take exception to.]

I will read today what the responses are to your post, and I retain the right to judge for myself the kind of discussion you provoke by your assessment of Jewish control.

I see you already have a "5". Mazal Tov.

And, no, I am not calling you an anti-semite, but I will say that you have written things in your post that are anti-semitic.

Any thoughts MJ on the merits of this type of post? I ask as a dedicated reader of what you write, and as a poster who has tried to understand the views of those with whom I am not in agreement. Are we just selling shmatas here? Is that what TPM is all about?

Who is Finkelstein? Does he fit into "dialectical scam" description ?

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/

I hate the word anti-semitic. It is used to suppress all kinds of legitimate debate.

But posts which state that Jews control the world, that people like me and you are part of some vast conspiracy are, in my opinion, racist.

Broad categorization based on race ("Jews control the media," "Palestinians are a violent people," "I'm tired of African-Americans and their complaining") do not belong here. IMHO.

Egypt wanted to come to the table before Carter rolled out of bed. They were already in secret talks. Any supposed miracles he performed there, were eclipsed by his other foreign policy nightmares, including the Iran crisis which formally ushered in the long struggle we are in now. His efforts as a pawn in third world elections do more damage than good. The last elections in Venezuela were rigged, but Carter's cozy relationship with communist dictator Hugo Chavez call into question if Carter is ignorant, incompetent, or a pawn. Either way, by giving the impression of legitimacy to corruption, he is continuing his legacy as the one man wrecking ball in international affairs.

They American people rightful turned him out in a landslide when they realized what a huge mistake he was. Expressing an opinion that he was a bad president does not make that huge majority of american voters haters. Pit all you want, but his nuts were his finest acheivment.

I see, he fits into "dialectical scam" description perfectly, including Jenin part.

Now that is a legacy that Brandeis should be proud of MJ. Of course, the students at my alma mater, Cornell, weren't exactly sitting around ignoring the war either at the time! :-)

Why in God's name would anyone care about your challenges? I sure don't. Nor do I care what you think about Buchanan because.....I share none of his views (except on Iraq). You are so defensive about racist Pipes because you share pretty much all his views (as evidenced by your posts). For the rest of you, read Pipes's recent testimony before a House Committee for insight into the mind of Mr. Pipes.

I'm not sure what you are basing this on, MJ.

I appreciate hope and idealism as long as it is based in some kind of reality. If a person is not able to admit that there is a reasonable limit to the logic behind total unilateral disarmament and/or civil disobedience guaranteeing peace and liberty, then all that is left is a plea to admire piety to a political dogma. Worship of good intentions and ignoring the potential suffering brought on by unintended consequences, is a dangerous exercise in self righteousness.

I am not sure if MJ believes in any limits based on what he has stated here, but his response leads one to believe that any opposition ever to any plea for unilateral disarmament is itself an act of evil.

I had hoped for a response from him based on the contents of the debate.

So you are saying that Carter, all by himself, covered up a vast conspiracy to fraudulently (re)elect Chavez, who has won election after election that have been overseen by international monitors?

You are also claiming that because you are old and live near a Korean neighborhood, you have a more intimate and realistic understanding of the facts on the ground in Korea than young Korean political activists who live in Korea. (Have you considered the possibilty that expatriate Koreans who live in the US might have a slightly skewed opinion of Korean politics?)

Finally I'll address your central point, which seems to me to be the most misguided: That the students at Brandeis, to the extent that they listened respectfully or enthusiastically to Carter's call for an end to the occupation, are naively supporting unilateral disarmament? What? Or the destruction of Israel through... what mechanism? What negative effect would following Carter's advice have? You are throwing in all these bad analogies, and your only clear argument (I am old, so I know best) is a blatant logical fallacy.

which of SeeDee's comments were "anti-semitic"? just wondering where you set the bar.

MJ, Here is a typical description of different schools in S. Korea and the types of protesters they are known for, from a Korean citizens point of view.

"...She then told us a bit about her stereotypes of the university student protesters based on ideology. Seoul National University: These students, the elitist cream of the crop in Korea she called “opportunistic socialists” who would all happily protest during their student years and then take government or corporate jobs when they emerged from university life. Yonsei: Non-committed “liberalists” Koryeo: Apparently is known for having many students from outside of Seoul and their protesters were apparently stereotyped as the most ideologically hard-line “Communists”..."

Here is a description from American gonzo travelog writer Rolf Potts.

http://www.salon.com/wlust/pm/1998/05/19post.html

The bottom line is much of the Protests are groupthink in search of a reason for a springtime walk in the park.

The point of your article appears to be the purity of an unspoiled college kids brain. I was giving an example of what you apparently consider a poor parrallel.

If you think so, I would expect you to address it on points. You keep calling me a hater, etc., but I don't think I am the one here expressing anger at your comments.

Here was my central point if you didn't get it.

"...regarding the upper middle class teenagers at Brandeis, sometimes kids are naive..."

I didn't say that I was old and when I was in college, I believed that "...sometimes kids are naive..".

Yes, I have considered your assertion that Korean Americans may have differing opinions from Korean nationals or students. Last week I was at a hundred day celebration of a friend and discussed the Nuclear talks with several Koreans and Korean Americans as well as several college students. They did have somewhat differing views. I still don't think that takes away from the fact that some of these kids don't know what they are talking about.

My central point was not that the Brandeis students support unilateral disarmament, in fact in a previous post I pointed out how it would be hard to imagine many people in Israel would. I was only saying "some kids are naive..." and just saying that these kids should be applauded for not agreeing with their elders, many who have fought in wars to defend Israel or seen brutality against Jews up close, is meaningless unless you explain their context on the issues Carter was discussing.

The Elders have seen consequences of appeasement, so we know their context. MJ, calls them paranoid. These kids are kids. Some might understand the issues and think through the consequences and some may not. I was showing examples in Korea of a situation where most of the kids in a protest were clueless.

Your remark about a "blatant logical fallacy" is interesting. I didn't claim to be old, nor did I make a blanket statement that all old people know best. I do think people with extensive life experience in certain areas should have that fact taken into consideration when compared to teenagers.

Regarding your request for information on Carter's irresponsible behavior regarding election monitoring, here are some examples including a response from Carter himself to be fair.

Here is an article from WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110005509

Here is Carter defending his poll watching credibility:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005518

Here is another article describing Carter's election watching in Venezuela:
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1143959964.shtml

Another:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14806

MJ,

The last thing I would ask from you is for an apology. I sense you like what you're doing but I do not envy your role as moderator of people with strong and steadfast views in this area. In any event, your gracious gesture is appreciated (hopefully by TJ too), and is a fine example to set for your readers.

Bruce

In general, they should try. We all as human being should try to live up to higher standards. But we fail, and when we fail
we should be judged fair, we don't want to be called Nazi every time when we late with credit card payment

Thanks, Bruce

You are so defensive about racist Pipes because you share pretty much all his views (as evidenced by your posts).

I do not agree with much of what Pipes said in his testimony to the House but you would have a hard time characterizing it as racist. 

But I do agree with his basic attitude towards the conflict.  That attitude is that the source of the conflict is not Israel's occupation of the West Bank, but the "foul irredentist dream" of the Palestinians, as Pipes puts it.  Fundamentally, Pipes and I share the view that giving up the West Bank to the Palestinians will not bring peace.  For that, a change in attitudes is needed.  There may be other reasons to withdraw from the territory, but no one should have any illusions about peace. 

Where I differ is how to respond to this.  Pipes talks of "victory" in a "war" but he does not define the tactics that would be needed to achieve that victory, as if merely calling it a war would be enough.  Israel has been following a policy of basically no negotiation for the last few years and I don't see any change in the attitudes of Palestinians with respect to feeling "defeated".  So it is unclear what Pipes is suggesting Israel do differently.  And until that is defined, his talk of war and victory is kind of hollow.  Furthermore, his history is more than a little bit skewed.  To argue that Israel had the correct "war" attitude up until 1993 is simply ridiculous.  Israel was ready to negotiate at any time with Palestinians through its first few decades.  It was Palestinian and Arab stubbornness that prevented it.

So arguing that I agree with Pipes on everything, that Pipes is a racist and that presumably I'm a racist too is just a typically brain-dead maneuver to shut down debate.  Is it too hard to understand that one can have views that are a bit more complex than just the black-and-white terms you see things in?

Read what you want to in that Mr. G.

Let me play the devil's advocate and serve up some really strong coffee here. This is a forum for debate and we should not deteriorate into a boring ditto club.
Naturalist will use such expressions as "the lion is a ferocious hunter" WITHOUT therefore implying that every single lion is a ferocious hunter. Within a species we say things like "Labradors are good watch dogs" and "poodles tend to be neurotic".

But when we speak of Homo Sapiens, such public observations are totally VERBOTEN.
One good reason why this is so is because we Homo Sapiens are part of a sophisticated system of overlapping communities comprised of races, religions, sexual preferences etc. It is NOT that we do not personally and privately make the kind of observations that taxonomic biologist make on a routine basis about lower species, it is just that we don't allow discussion of these impressions/observations in public. We don't want to offend people by making unflattering remarks about a particular grouping they might belong to. And that might speak well of human nature.

However, I defy anyone here at the TPM Cafe to tell me that they do not make rough judgements about different groups all the time in their daily lives. IT IS TOTALLY ABSURD TO MAINTAIN THIS FICTION. It is a charade. It is akin to being in a deep state of denial. So, what to do? Do we live this double life where we make private judgements but deny them in public? What does that do for our central duty to always be honest? It makes all of us hypocrites through and through. What is the alternative?
We can let the cat out of the bag and allow everyone to express freely what they really thinks about the various groupings without being called a racist, a sexist, an anti Semite a homophobe or, for that matter, an anglophile, Arabist, Sinophile, Judeocentric..or what not.
It's a tough call. No wonder so many people want to homogenize the species into one generic type. That would eliminate all the distinguishing characteristics and with it all the anxiety-causing double life we lead.
So I suppose we are really debating something truly troubling in our lives. We are all schizophrenic on this topic and there is no easy way out of the bind.
Sorry to bring you the bad news.
p.s. The good news is that once you make yourself aware of the situation, you will not fall into the trap of those who use this phenomena to advance--illegitimately--their own agenda.

He sounds a lot like Clinton. Support the Taba solution with the U.S. providing political cover to the Israeli government. However, recognizing that missiles continue to be fired at Israel from Gaza and Hamas still calls for Israeli destruction and the U.S. will not only not force Israel into a deal with Hamas but will help Israel protect itself from the like of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

So what would you think of a commenter that used the term "colored people" for Afro-Americans, in the way it is still used by many older less educated people in this country?

I am usually turned off by most methods of political correctness, especially as I learn something about people from the language people use. (Basically, from use of racist language, I learn that they are uneducated or uncouth. I tend to think less of them.) That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be pointed out to those people that other people find their language hurtful, as they might not have meant it that way. This gives the users a choice to educate themselves and improve their speech or to go on to purposefully use it to hurt.

For example, I myself (not a Jew) found SeeDee's statement:

The control of American media and the entertainment industry by Jewish-related owners

to be an offensive anti-Semitic generalization, especially within the whole context of comment in which it was used. First, it's just an untruth that American Jews control "the media," whatever that is. Second, that many media owners are Jewish, it does not follow that the are a cabal supporting Israel or even any unified agenda at all. It is an outrageous generalization suggesting conspiracy. It's like saying all the blacks in professional sports are out to remove the white man from all the games, they have an agenda because of their history of the oppression, and none will operate outside of those tribal bonds, you can't trust 'em.

SeeDee says he/she meant not to offend. SeeDee needs to know that it still will offend. If SeeDee did not intend to hurt, SeeDee needs to learn better communication skills in this area and people in discussion should not be afraid to point this out. Despite all the nice disclaimers, SeeDee's comment did most definitely have an anti-Semitic taint to it in some of its language, and I am not afraid to point that out in a discussion. I do the same for my own "greatest generation" father from time to time, saying "Dad, don't use that terminology, it makes you sound racist and crude and stupid, you have to figure out another way to make your point." He then has a choice of continuing to make statements that sound ignorant and crude to a majority "these days" if he meant them that way.

Once again I must invoke the sage Woody Allen:  "I'm Jewish -- with an explanation."

Seriously, is there any other segment of our society and civilization that must display its progressive credentials as much as it is becoming required of Jews?

We have to be careful to distingush between offensive buzz words like Colored people, the "N" word etc, which pack a negative connotation even though their referential meaning is clear, from actually making observations as to some generalization about the referred group. We do, in our private life make observations about these groups all the time. For example Germans have a tendency for authoritarianism, etc... The particular characterizations we make might not apply to everyone in the group, but they do point out some common characteristic of it which we decline to discuss in public forums because they cause too much tension. This is different from using words with negative connotations.

Brad the Dad,

I have yet to see anyone take up my challenge and come up with a statement that puts Pipes unequivocally in the category of "hater".

You must have missed my response here.

I can understand why you might not think that these conflicts have much of a parallel. I had not intended to elaborate on the Korean example and since I have several times it may appear that I feel strongly that there is a major correlation, when in fact I don't.

Where I do think there is a parallel is the ability to recognize and delineate the limits of violence on the one hand and the limits of non-violent mechanisms. I have mentioned to MJ, before, I do believe the territories should be returned and I also believe Israel has a right to exist. Egypt wanted land and peace. Israel decided if it was a good investment and they gave Egypt land and have had peace with Egypt. Both sides gave up something and got what the needed.

Just because we can't solve the issue today, this week, doesn't mean I am against it. I just don't think the Palestinians and their neighbors are ready to settle for what Israel needs. Israel needs to survive and it needs peace. I do not think their neighbors are ready for that and the process takes time. MJ, thinks I am a hater because I don't agree with his time table.

Many on the side of a rapid and generous offer to turn over land get angry with those in my position, but it is difficult for us when they will not give clear signals as to the limits of their generousity. When does giving away the store turn into being marked as a sucker by the very people that want to kill you. They worry when we do not deliniate the limits of violence and they make us nervous when they do not acknowledge the limits of non-violent solutions.

When Carter calls Israel an Apartheid state, he clearly wants a handover first and foremost and all other things second. He has chosen sides. Those that support his positions, are going on faith that after the hand over that will end the hostility to Israel. There would be new demands from Carter after that, we are all sure of that, assuming Israel would survive for much longer.

I want both sides to get what they need, maybe not 100% of what they want. The threat of violence is a necessary part of a secure solution. The Korean protesters that were making demands for peace but not willing to represent the limits of their proposed actions, assuming they even thought that far, were being irresponsible. The expression of piety to Dogma should not be the goal, when the actions can result in massive loss of life.

So, my use of the word appeasement is only used in the context of using poor judgement or in the case of the Koreans NO judgement, regarding the ruthlessness of those that you are offering concessions. Hezbollah and hamas have not changed their charter yet. They still want total destruction of Israel. A Senate hearing yesterday released information that Hezbollah is part of the training of bomb makers that are killing the most american soldiers. Code Pink, Global exchange, UFPJ, and ANSWER, all the main anti war groups that organize the Rallies, support Hezbollah. They are supporting Hezbollah and they are trying to make Hezbollah appear to be a newly legitimized social welfare system, when in fact they are killing Israelis and they are killing American GIs.

Again, offering concessions to groups that have every intention of slitting your throat before the ink on the peace treaty dries, is dangerous and wrong, regardless of how pious one might feel as they call for peace.

Regarding Chavez, I deal with many Latin Americans and many of them are nervous about the Castro style take over of nearly all of the region. When I travel the region, I see grafitti of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi minh, all new in the last few years. Regarding your link, I read it and I'm afraid I don't have a lot of confidence in the data and I have had limited confidence in FAIR in the past. Nonetheless, I will review the link, and see if I can look into the data further. Even if polls favored Chavez, I think the economic train wreck that is coming his way, will change that quickly.
This article gives you an idea how he has taken an oil rich nation and blown the economy up. Venezuelan economists sound like Castro era concerned cubans. The Venezuelans today tell stories of his hare brained schemes, store shelves with rabbit meat, but no beef and threats to jail grocers who sell at a price that would populate the store shelves. His oil rich Nation is heading for a cliff and he will take the region with him and then like Castro he will turn to executions to maintain power.

I would have wished that Carter had been more vigorous in his scepticism towards the Socialist dictator and friend of Ahmedinijahd, who is about to drag down the region.

I appreciate your response Matt. I will continue to review your links.

You n me baby we ain't nuthin' but mammals. . .

When you say "Jews" or "Germans" or "Women" or "gays" or any natural grouping, it is rare to make categorical "all" statements about any of them. Just as it is impossible to make many categorical statements about any natural kind. What is common, and unobjectionable when the kind is non-human, is to make satements about the type: imperfect generalizations as I call them. This becomes objectionable in public discourse about human groupings. This is a truth about public discourse in general and is not aimed at any particular group.