I think Alan Dershowitz is still angry at Jimmy Carter for refusing to debate him in 2006, and for referring to him as an unnamed "Harvard professor" in his speech at Brandeis in Jan. 2007. How else to explain his continuing anger toward the former president in asserting his claim that he got Obama not to invite Carter to the Democratic convention?
"I pushed him very hard to make that decision," Dershowitz said in an
interview with Shalom TV. "Barack Obama had to make a choice between
his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter,
and he did not choose Jimmy Carter. And that was an embarrassment for
Jimmy Carter and a show of disrespect."
interview with Shalom TV. "Barack Obama had to make a choice between
his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter,
and he did not choose Jimmy Carter. And that was an embarrassment for
Jimmy Carter and a show of disrespect."
Even assuming Dersh is putting on airs–did you actually talk to Obama?–you'd think the media might have done more to expose the mechanism of the Carter dis. Who did Dershowitz call? What pull did they have on Obama?
I think Dr. Dershowitz's petulance is pretty funny. He certainly is a character. :)
Well, even if it is true, that was then and this is now.
Now, Senator Obama is the President, but Alan Dershowitz is still a barrow-pushing 'Harvard professor'.
If Obama invited Carter to something big tomorrow, and Dersh tried to badger him into a disinvitation, how do you think he'd go?
Love to see Obama appoint Carter to some high-level post – perhaps envoy to the ME with riding instructions to get the map back on the road pronto. The Dersh reaction shot would be priceless.
"…he got Obama not to invite Carter to the Democratic convention…"
That is really petty and small minded of Alan Dershowitz.
Jimmy Carter did Israel a big favor by putting the issue of Israel's nuclear weapons on the table.
This is in stark contrast to most of the media who choose to focus on the existential possibility that Iran may get some one day.
This one-sided coverage completly distorts the on-the-ground reality which is that Israel is the erratic, messianic entity that makes sinister threats to use the hundreds of nuclear weapons in their possession.
"…He (Olmert) said Germany "may have economic interests (with Iran),
but you have much deeper and more fundamental moral obligations to
yourselves, your past and your future".
"And no one will be able to avoid it, and get away with it. No-one.
Certainly not the German people."
link to spiegel.de
GC: Love to see Obama appoint Carter to some high-level post – perhaps envoy to the ME with riding instructions to get the map back on the road pronto
CM: Wow, THAT is an interesting notion Glenn. I wonder if former Pres. Carter would be willing to accept a plenipotentiary Middle East foreign policy gig, and if Pres.-elect Obama would think it wise. Irregardless of whatever message it might send foreign policy types here and abroad, I would like to see Pres. Carter at least offered SOMETHING of significance, if only to turn it down (mayhap by prior agreement), just to stick it to the rude individuals who have disrespected him. It would be a clear signal that petulant dissing of party elders who have served and sacrificed for our country is not acceptable, and will not go unchallenged. Too many have forgotten in the last 8 years that, as fundamentally vicious as American politics is, there ARE limits to misbehavior, and (hopefully) consequences. Maybe Senator Lieberman will be learning that soon.
"In the interview, Dershowitz also said he believes that Obama’s support in the pro-Palestinian community could make it easier to advance the peace process.
"The fact that there are some in the pro-Palestinian community who like him may be a positive thing—that he can reach out to both communities and be an honest broker who, without compromising Israel’s security, can facilitate a kind of peace that will be both in the best interests of Israel and the best interests of the Palestinian people," Dershowitz said. "I have a high level of confidence, not perfect confidence but a high level of confidence, that he will do the right thing.""
Why didn't you choose to post this part of the Dershowitz interview?
Isn't this more important information?
Your editing is your work. Why agitate for food fights?
In his article in Frontpage, Dersh says, " I played a role in seeking to persuade the Democrats to disinvite Carter. I made it clear that I could not support a party that honored a bigot like Carter."
So he wasn't puffed up quite as high as if he actually talked to Carter.
He says Carter didn't make his own decision not to speak at the
DNC. Carter said it was his own decision.
I am not aware of whom Dersh actually talked to or contacted when he played the key role he claims to keep a living president with many internationally recognized humanistic post-POTUS kudos under his belt from his own party's convention.
I do know the "bigot" Carter was a big key to the peace between
Egypt and Israel.
Even if only 10% of what Dershowitz, a professional liar, says about his role in censoring Jimmy Carter from a speaking role at the Convention is true, what does that say about the Democrat Party, and about Obama? That the Democrats actually pay heed to a blackguard like Dershowitz to any degree tells you MOST of what you need to know about the intellectual, ethical and moral corruption of the party; that they would blacklist their own former president because of his stance against Zionist murder and chicanery in the Levant tells you EVERYTHING you need to know. This is what happens to a country when low class, double dealing Zionists like Dershowitz, Emanuel and the Neocons take over and are allowed to start pulling strings.
Did Americans actually think they were in any way lessening the grip of Zionism on this country by voting in the Democrats? Things are only going to get worse from here now that the Zionist's original Democrat power base is back in control. Many of the Neocons are rushing back in as we speak (not that they ever really left).
this is my favorite quote Richard:
Dershowitz also said he was not interested in working in an Obama administration because "I want to keep my own independent views independent."
Watching a Machiavellian. I had the pleasure to meet some. It is always interesting to watch them when they are challenged. That's when the "balance" disappears and they make mistakes.
Vervel's legal assessment of Alan Dershowitz On Whether To Prosecute Executive Branch Criminals.
same as podcast
Thank to Phil for alerting us to Vervel's analysis.
One of Dershowitz' arguments for torture is that it worked for the Nazis (he mentions the French resistance, were people under torture sold out their parents, sisters, brothers, friends. And later he mentions that the Nazis did not suffer from having to be torturers but lived well ever after. In fact grew old, without any apparent psychological problems.
There was an eerie similarity between the campaign to discredit Jimmy Carter after his book on Palestine, and the whisper campaign against Barack Obama as a secret Muslim intent on destroying Israel through friends like Power, Malley, Brezinski, and so on.
It may be that Dershowitz and CAMERA's misrepresentations of Carter as a tool of saudi anti-semites etc were much more media-friendly than the assortment of cranks attacking Obama, or Carter didn't matter, while Obama does, but given how jewish grassroots groups were able to block the slurs on Obama so he won with 78% of the J-vote, maybe its time to start up a "Jews For Jimmy" to fight to rehabilitate his reputation after that 2006 smear campaign.
"Jews for Jimmy"
Sign me up!
I've discontinued paying any attention to Dershowitz's views on the Middle East, but he is excellent on the separation of church/religion and state! Go figure!
Dershowitz has some great insights on Israel/Mideast and some great idiocies, not unlike Mearsheimer, Chomsky, Finkelstein.
An intelligent person would be able to derive information from each, and from MANY more, and form their own interpretations.
They are each DISSERVED by the extent and ways that they lose their tempers, and by the ways that their "supporters" express.
I have never seen Mearsheimer, Chomsky or Finkelstein loose their temper, this is what makes them so deadly effective.
Why would you attempt to give impression that they do? Could you give examples?
After the ADL, Dershowitz etc launched their "Peace not Apartheid" blitzkrieg against President Carter, he opined (speaking at Brandeis U./3 standing ovations) that it was a good thing that he had Secret Service protection!!!
PS. Russ Feingold for Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (replacing Biden)
"Ways" they lose their temper.
Publicly accusing Dershowitz of plagiarism. Traveling to Lebanon and berating a journalist for questioning the "honor" of Hezbollah.
Thats Finkelstein.
They each choose to criticize the other ONLY, rather than appreciate and criticize.
For example, Dershowitz' point about double standards by dissenters ("damned if you, damned if you don't) about Israel are accurate, even if the substantiating arguments that he made aren't perfectly.
I take the point to heart, and don't exagerate it.
Mearsheimer's, Finkelstein's, Chomsky's good points have all been exagerated by their proponents, and thereby transformed into bad ones.
I appreciate the elements of truth in the original.
The reality of Palestinian tragedy is undeniable. The conclusion that hatred towards Israel is the only possible or best response is deniable.
Dershowitz is a filthy stinking clown.
Witty: "'Ways' they lose their temper. Publicly accusing Dershowitz of plagiarism… "
I don't know why accusing a dishonest plagiarist like Dershowitz of plagiarism means you lost your temper. I would say Finkelstein called it as he saw it (and, for that matter, as I see it too).
I wasn't in the room when Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of plagiarism.
If he thought it out and planned it, then his documentation and follow-up was negligent, and he deserved the academic censure for his carelessness.
If he didn't think it out, and it was just a low blood sugar moment, then he needs help, and particularly in learning to voluntarily hold his tongue when his mood is more important to him than the reality he creates.
There are other ways to criticize.
The useful term is "picking one's fights", prioritizing what one CAN do, and focusing on them.
I just read the chapter by Avram Burg on his take of some of the corruption in relating to the holocaust among modern Israelis. I'm sure that much of that was suggested by Finkelstein's work. So, in that regard, Finkelstein succeeded in communicating his thesis.
Its NOT true that Zionists are cut from one cloth.
link to haaretz.com
Ami Ayalon quits Labor, claiming party has lost its will to live
By Roni Singer-Heruti, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Israel News, Ehud Barak
Minister without portfolio Ami Ayalon announced his resignation from Labor Sunday morning, claiming that the center-left party has lost its will to live.
"The Labor Party is a body that does not seek political life, and does not fight for its life," said Ayalon, speaking at a press conference.
Ayalon, a former head of the Shin Bet security service, is reportedly considering taking over as head of Michael Melchior's left-wing religious Meimad party.
Two things are important about this, as communication to dissenters. One is that Ayalon was the leader of the Shin Bet, and has concluded that decency to Palestinians is a better strategy than harm. The second is that there is a religious left in Israel and elsewhere.
seriously Phil, who really gives a shit what an american jewish zionist thinks or says about an american president, zionist jews are a wart on the ass of america….one day all americans will know it.
oppression and gangsterism is the way of the zionist….it always was and ever shall be.
president jimmy carter is a world leader and a man who employs his christinaity to help humanity as best he can.
Richard Witty wrote: "I wasn't in the room when Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of plagiarism."
He made the argument in a book, Richard. You can read it in the second part of "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History." (This was the book Dershowitz tried to keep from being published.) You won't find any temper tantrums, just documented argument that you can agree with or not.
If you want to see someone losing his temper, watch that video that Phil posted of the debate between Dersh and Philippe Sands on torture.
Yeah, and check out the discussion and correspondence on Finklestein's web site of
From Time Immemorial.