An Israeli Defense of Jimmy Carter

[Violet_Crumble]

There is an ugly cynicism to the attack on Jimmy Carter that has been launched by Americans who well recognize that the former president's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, says nothing that has not already been said about the Middle East conflict by Israeli politicians and commentators.

So why is Carter, a longtime friend of Israel and the Jewish people, being smeared as an anti-Semite for suggesting that the occupation by Israeli forces of Palestinian territory inspires troubling comparisons with the apartheid system that white South Africans once imposed on their country's black majority?

One of Israel's most prominent political figures suggests that it has a lot to do with the determination of Carter's critics to allow their emotions to trump the facts.

"The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them," argues Shulamit Aloni, a veteran of Israel's war of independence who went on to serve in the Knesset and as a minister in several Israeli cabinets. "Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us."

In a defense of Carter penned for the mass-circulation Israeli newspaper Yediot Acharonot, the woman who served as former Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin's education minister wrote that, "Indeed apartheid does exist here."


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=155513

[tsuki]

1. I read Carter's book, and I am waiting for a month to read it again.

It is a good read. It takes a look at all sides, the Israeli, Palestinian Muslim and Palestinian Christians.

[OleSkoolDemocrat68]

2. debate carter

Why doesn't Carter debate his book (on its supposed merits) against Dershowitz or anyone else? Isn't that one of the main reasons Carter wrote the book - to bring about debate? Why is Carter afraid of Dershowitz? If not Dershowitz, would he debate anyone else? If not, why not?

[Poll_Blind]

3. Dershowitz is a clown. A second-rate apologete borrowing (heavily)...

...against a name made as a lawyer. Anyone seriously questioning why Carter doesn't wish to debate Dershowitz should really read Dershowitz's book, The Case for Israel. As a scholarly work it is atrophied and formless and ultimately, amateurish. It is a bright student trying to blather his way through a homework assignment about a subject which he knows nothing. It is a lawyer playing at being an historian and all too often in the book a reader is aware of Dershowitz falling back on his training as a zealous advocate.

  The best of Alan Dershowitz is as a point-scorer before a jury, nothing more. His grasp of facts or (based on his book) his desire to enlist them in his argument shows this. Your own feelings aside, compare Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel" to Michael Neumann's "The Case against Israel". Regardless of what their points are, make a comparison between the level of scholarship between Dershowitz and Neumann. If examining "The Case for Israel" does not, alone, produce the sensation of amateurishness then that comparison is the only further thing required.

  For Carter to Debate Dershowitz would be akin to Benny Morris debating Finkelstein- though arguably Finkelstein exists as a much more tangible scholastic entity than Dershowitz, credit to Dershowitz by adding in this field. Finkelstein is not a lawyer and Dershowitz is not a social scientist or historian and when they meet the disparity becomes apparent.

  So why should Carter debate Dershowitz? Why should a marine zoologist debate PT Barnum on existence of the Fiji Mermaid?

  When Dershowitz speaks on Middle East peace issues, he does so with a visa and a phrasebook.

PB

[OleSkoolDemocrat68]

4. dershowitz

If Dershowitz's facts are wrong and he claimed he'd pay out $10,000 to anyone (to give to Hamas or Fatah) for proving each and every one of his errors (at $10K a shot), then why hasn't this happened yet? Can you find a factual error in his case for Israel? If so, there's $10,000 for you to give to Hamas. Why don't you find 1 factual error exposed in the case against Israel and contact Dershowitz so you can collect on your $10,000? I'm being serious.

[Poll_Blind]

5. As Finkelstein pointed out, it's very hard to collect on the wager when...

...there are so few facts in Dershowitz's book. Really, I thought it was a joke- until I actually read Dershowitz's book. Don't listen to me, pick up a copy of "The Case for Israel" yourself. Read it thoroughly. If you are not familiar with scholarly works, or what someone means when they criticize a book for not being a scholarly work, pick up a copy of (to use a relatively uncontroversial author) The Israelis: Founders and Sons. It's an interesting read, IIRC, but more germane to what we're talking about is that it's scholarly.

  A quick definition if you're unable or unwilling to perform that comparison is: "A scholarly work is something written for a specialized audience by an expert on the subject."

  Since you bring up the $10,000 prize, I have a feeling I'm already talking to one of Dershowitz's fans. If you want to discuss that, it won't be with me. You're welcome to read all about that and his plagiarization of Joan Peters online or elsewhere. Regardless of what you think of him,

  Finkelstein is a scholar when it comes to the subject of the Israeli/Palestinian issues we discuss here. He is a voracious reader with a frightening level of recall (see the debate with Dershowitz, himself on Democracy Now). Again, that's outside of whether you agree with him or not. He uses facts, but more-importantly facts from generally uncontroversial sources to back up his assertions. I'm sure Dershowitz arguably controls a similar level of retention and utilization of factual material in the field of law. Again, regardless of what you think of him. Each gentleman has his own bialiwick.

  But what it does not mean that Finkelstein is a lawyer or that Dershowitz is an historian or social scientist. When Finkelstein moves into those (legal) areas he sources the appropriate rulings, usually from the ICCJ or other relevant body. However, Dershowitz, when leaving the ream of law frequently chooses poor sources to cite and poor ways to cite them, out of ignorance or sloth, even arguably to the point of plagiarization.

  As to your last line "I'm being serious." I don't think you are. I really don't think that even a top-shelf, informed, Israel-Firster should allow themselves to associate with Dershowitz's book. If you were serious I think you'd the last person you'd be defending or feel you need to defend, would be Alan Dershowitz.

PB