Dhimmi Jimmy Chickens Out Again
February 16, 2007 by Lance
Jimmy Carter will be speaking at Emory and former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross challenged to debate Carter on the accuracy of his current book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. But, as was the case with Alan Dershowitz, the debate will not take place. Again, Carter will have the forum to himself.
Today’s Emory Wheel prints the letter of a group of distinguished Emory professors reporting that Dhimmi Jimmy has ducked again and asked: “What’s Jimmy Carter afraid of?” And today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution carries the related story: “Emory professors protest Carter visit.”
What’s Jimmy Carter Afraid Of?
By: 11 Emory Professors
Issue date: 2/16/07 Section: EditorialsOnce again, Jimmy Carter has shrunk from debate. Despite having written a book whose purpose he claims was to promote dialogue and discussion, he has consistently dodged appearing with anyone who could challenge him on the numerous factual errors that fill the pages of his slim book.
First it was at Brandeis University, where he was invited to appear with professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, who has written two books and numerous articles on the topic (not to mention being a respected First Amendment scholar and one of America’s most distinguished attorneys), was not even allowed into the building until Carter had left.
When it became known that Carter was anxious to speak at Emory, the administration consulted a group of faculty and was advised that the most fair and academically valuable format would be to have Carter appear with someone who could engage in a productive interchange and discussion on the topic. This clearly would be the only way for the event to meet the educational standard of a leading university.
Everyone agreed that the best person for this interchange was Ambassador Dennis Ross, who was the main negotiator on the Arab-Israeli situation in both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration. He was responsible for organizing Camp David II, Clinton’s last-ditch effort to find a resolution to the situation. Ross agreed to appear, but Carter pointedly refused to appear with him or with any other expert. No explanation was given.
Is this the behavior of a man who wants to promote dialogue? What precisely is Carter afraid of? Could it be that Dennis Ross - who, like President Clinton, places the blame for the failure of the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis at Camp David II squarely on the shoulders of Yasir Arafat - would tell the former president, who blames Israel for everything, that he is simply wrong? Remember Ross and Clinton were there; Carter was not.
The Brandeis event had sanitized pre-screened questions, no follow-up, and an audience of students clearly mesmerized by being in the presence of a former president. At least at Brandeis, Dershowitz appeared after Carter to point out that Carter’s remarks (carefully scripted to appeal to the largely Jewish audience at Brandeis) were very different from what he said in the book and in numerous media events, including Al Jazeera television, where he falsely claimed that most of the critics of his book have been representatives of Jewish organizations. He has also stated on Al Jazeera that rocket barrages against Israeli homes and families are not terrorist acts. These flirtations with anti-Semitism - however unconscious - have frightened Jewish -Americans.
The Wheel says that it’s best to let Carter have “the last word” because to do otherwise will “only prolong the debate indefinitely into the future.” As if the debate will go away if Jimmy Carter is allowed a platform all by himself. Would the Wheel recommend that George W. Bush “be given the last word” on Iraq because to do otherwise would “prolong the debate”? The Wheel has joined Carter in his attempt to stifle debate even while he claims to be seeking it. A prolonged debate with a free exchange of ideas is what an academic institution is all about.
In fact, Bush, who is not known for his responsiveness to the press, has the courage to face seasoned reporters who ask tough, unscripted questions with even tougher follow-up questions. These reporters are trained to recognize when a president is dissembling, being evasive or deliberately misleading the public, and they respond accordingly.
Remember, this is a book which has been described as “moronic” (Slate), “strange,” a “distortion” (The New York Times) and “cynical” with a “bait-and-switch” title (Washington Post). The Emory administration has thus far failed to create an event with a semblance of balance. The talk of having “someone” or a “panel on the topic” next semester is an embarrassment for an institution which proclaims that it is dedicated to “creative inquiry.”
We shall absent ourselves from this staged event, which will be more a political opportunity for Carter to air his biases than an open exchange of ideas. It is unworthy of an institution with Emory’s aspirations, and we have to say sadly that at this moment we are not proud of Emory.
Alan Abramowitz is the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science. David R. Blumenthal is the Jay and Leslie Cohen Professor of Judaic Studies. Sander Gilman is a Distinguished Professor of the Arts and Sciences. Herbert R. Karp is an Emeritus Professor of Neurology and Medicine. Harvey Klehr is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Politics and History. Melvin Konner is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology. Howard I. Kushner is the Nat C. Robertson Distinguished Professor of Science and Society. Deborah E. Lipstadt is the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies. Andre J. Nahmias is the Richard W. Blumberg Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics. Raymond F. Schinazi is a Professor of Pediatrics and Chemistry, and the Director of the Laboratory of Biochemical Pharmacology. Donald G. Stein is the Asa G. Candler Professor of psychology, emergency medicine and neurology.
************************************
Emory professors protest Carter visit
Letter asks: ‘What’s Jimmy afraid of?’By ERNIE SUGGS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/15/07The controversy over Jimmy Carter’s “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” will not go away, especially in the halls of academia.
Nine distinguished Emory professors, each holding named chairs, wrote a letter titled, “What’s Jimmy Afraid Of?” The letter is scheduled to appear in the campus newspaper Friday to protest the fact that Carter is scheduled to speak at the campus, but has refused to debate.
“Despite having written a book whose purpose he claims was to promote dialogue and discussion, he has consistently dodged appearing with anyone who could challenge him on the numerous factual errors which fill the pages of his slim book,” the letter states.
“We are happy that Jimmy Carter wants to come to Emory,” said Deborah E. Lipstadt, the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies, and a signer of the letter. “But we think it should be an exchange of ideas, not a one-sided presentation. We felt that this is not up to the standards of Emory in terms of creative inquiry.”
Earl Lewis, Emory’s provost, said Carter speaks on Emory campus at least once a month in someone’s class. Annually, he holds a town hall discussion on campus. Lewis said the Feb. 22 event will follow the town hall format that Emory has done for years.
He objected to claims that allowing Carter to speak and answer submitted questions was not academically challenging.
“I am not sure I agree with that,” Lewis said. “It is not unusual, in any context, for someone who may have written a book that is controversial, to come speak on that book. We all would love to engage President Carter. But this is an opportunity for him to talk about his book.”
Lewis said that Carter would speak for about 15 minutes, and then answer questions that have been submitted by students. Lewis said the university has not ruled out a possible debate in the future.
When Carter’s book was published in November, the former president said he wrote it to spark debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. In the book, Carter paints the Israelis as the aggressors in the conflict, even going so far as to liken their occupation of the West Bank to apartheid.
Although the book remains a best seller, critics have pilloried it.
Former allies have abandoned Carter and the Carter Center and more than a dozen Jewish members of an advisory panel quit the center.
But scholars have been most frustrated with Carter’s refusal to debate his own book, although he has talked about the book at length in print and on television.
Last month, Carter spoke at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass. Carter initially turned down an invitation to speak at the Jewish-sponsored school, when it was suggested he debate Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz.
Carter later appeared without Dershowitz, who was given a chance to rebut the former president after he had left the building.
The Emory faculty members said they approached and got an agreement from Dennis Ross, envoy to the Middle East in the Clinton administration, to debate Carter. Ross has accused Carter of misusing maps that originally appeared in his book, “The Missing Peace.”
“I have watched the entire speech Carter delivered at Brandeis. It was disturbing and totally staged,” said Melvin Konner, the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology at Emory. “I just thought, what can we do to prevent the Emory event from being the same thing.”
This week, the Jewish Times reported that several key Jewish donors have pulled their support from Brandeis in response to Carter’s visit.
Along with Lipstadt and Konner, the letter, which will run in “The Emory Wheel,” was signed by Alan Abramowitz, Alben W. Barkley professor of political science; David R. Blumenthal, Jay and Leslie Cohen professor of Judaic studies; Sander Gilman, distinguished professor of the arts and sciences; Harvey Klehr, Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history; Andre J. Nahmias, Richard W. Blumberg emeritus professor of pediatrics; Raymond F. Schinazi, professor of pediatrics and chemistry, director of the laboratory of biochemical pharmacology; and Donald G. Stein, Asa G. Candler professor of psychology, emergency medicine and neurology.
Also see The Jimmy Carter Un-Presidential Library.
Where's Pat Paulsen when you finally need him?
Yossi Beilin, a former minister and current member of Israel’s parliament, in the Jewish Weekly “The Forward” has reviewed President Carter’s book on the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Here is what he has to say. I doubt that he thinks that Carter is a coward.
“In other words, what Carter says in his book about the Israeli occupation and our treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories — and perhaps no less important, how he says it — is entirely harmonious with the kind of criticism that Israelis themselves voice about their own country. There is nothing in the criticism that Carter has for Israel that has not been said by Israelis themselves.”
In the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict, moreover, Carter has secured his place in history as the man who brokered the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab nation. The Camp David summit he convened in September 1978, which resulted in the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, was a historical watershed for the entire region. It inaugurated the Arab-Israeli peace process, without which the Oslo peace process would not have been possible, nor the 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan.
In light of the failure of the second Camp David summit of July 2000, Carter’s successful mediation between such starkly different leaders as Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat is all the more impressive, and his achievement — which was a truly personal achievement — all the more remarkable.
Every Israeli, and every Jew to whom the destiny of Israel is important, is indebted to Carter for breaking the ring of hostility that had choked Israel for more than 30 years. No American president before him had dedicated himself so fully to the cause of Israel’s peace and security, and, with the exception of Bill Clinton, no American president has done so since.
This is why the publication of Carter’s recent book, and perhaps more than anything else, the title it bears, has pained so many people. And I must admit that, on some deeply felt level, the title of the book has strained my heart, too. Harsh and awful as the conditions are in the West Bank, the suggestion that Israel is conducting a policy of apartheid in the occupied territories is simply unacceptable to me.
But is this what Carter is saying? I have read his book, and I could not help but agree — however agonizingly so — with most if its contents. Where I disagreed was mostly with the choice of language, including his choice of the word “apartheid.”
But if we are to be fair, and as any reading of the book makes clear, Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” is first and foremost metaphorical. Underlying Israel’s policy in the West Bank, he argues, is not a racist ideology but rather a nationalist drive for the acquisition of land. The resulting violence, and the segregationist policies that shape life in the West Bank, are the ill-intended consequences of that drive.
Of course, there is no appropriate term in the political lexicon for what we in Israel are doing in the occupied territories. “Occupation” is too antiseptic a term, and does not capture the social, cultural and humanitarian dimensions of our actions. Given the Palestinians’ role in the impasse at which we have arrived, to say nothing of Arab states and, historically speaking, of the superpowers themselves, I would describe the reality of occupation as a march of folly — an Israeli one, certainly, but not exclusively so.
But if we are to read Carter’s book for what it is, I think we would find in it an impassioned personal narrative of an American former president who is reflecting on the direction in which Israel and Palestine may be going if they fail to reach agreement soon. Somewhere down the line — and symbolically speaking, that line may be crossed the day that a minority of Jews will rule a majority of Palestinians west of the Jordan River — the destructive nature of occupation will turn Israel into a pariah state, not unlike South Africa under apartheid.”
———————–
Additional reading:
http://www.btselem.org/
Download/200512_
Under_the_Guise_of_Security_eng.pdf
It’s often said that Carter “brokered” the peace agreement. What Carter doesn’t like to say is that the peace agreement was all worked out between Sadat and Begin before Carter even knew jack about it. Sadat decided to bring Carter in and give him credit as a means of putting a gun to Carter’s vanity. He knew Carter craved the credit and would pay dearly for it. Or more accurately, we have paid dearly for it. That is, if you calculate the number of billions of dollars Sadat extorted from America in exchange for giving Carter credit for being the world-famous peace broker, the lie upon which he has based the rest of his life, you will see that Carter pick-pocketed America for his unearned glory.
Hey, Robert Hume,
Get your lips off Carter’s ass already. You liberal idiot. Somebody needs to slap the shit out of you. Since this IP address traces to Atlanta, I’d bet this was posted by old Dhimmi Carter himself. You know, the worst president that ever lived?
Reading suggestion: The Dhimmi Carter Un-Presidential Library
Carter IS a coward, a fool, a seditious enemy to his own country, a wanna-be commie, an Arab apologist and Muslim appeaser, a liar, and worst of all, he’s a Southern Baptist hypocrite!