Skip to comments.Ex-President For Sale (Dershowitz on Carter)
Posted on 01/10/2007 7:35:04 AM PST by Dark Skies
It now turns out that Jimmy Carter--who is accusing the Jews of buying the silence of the media and politicians regarding criticism of Israel--has been bought and paid for by Arab money. In his recent book tour to promote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter has been peddling a particularly nasty bit of bigotry. The canard is that Jews own and control the media, and prevent newspapers and the broadcast media from presenting an objective assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Jews have bought and paid for every single member of Congress so as to prevent any of them from espousing a balanced position. How else can anyone understand Carters claims that it is impossible for the media and politicians to speak freely about Israel and the Middle East? The only explanation and one that Carter tap dances around, but wont come out and say directly is that Jews control the media and buy politicians. Carter then presents himself as the sole heroic figure in American public life who is free of financial constraints to discuss Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israelis.
Listen carefully to what Carter says about the media: the plight of the Palestinians is not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country... You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis. He claims to have personally witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. He implies that the Jews impose these severe restraints. He then goes on to say that the only reason his book--which has been universally savaged by reviewers--is receiving such negative reviews is because they are all being written by representatives of Jewish organizations (demonstrably false!). So much for the media.
Now here is what he says about politicians:
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.
Each of these claims is demonstrably false, as I have shown in detail elsewhere. The plight of the Palestinians has been covered more extensively, per capita, than the plight of any other group in the world, certainly more than the Tibetans and the victims of genocides in Darfur and Rwanda. Moreover, Carter totally ignores the impact of Arab oil money and the influence of the Saudi lobby. In numerous instances where the Arab lobbies have been pitted against the Israeli lobby, the former has prevailed.
Even beyond these nasty canards, the big story that the media and political figures in America have missed is how grievously they, themselves have been insulted and disrespected by our self-righteous former president. Carter is lecturing The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and the major networks about how they are incapable of reporting the news objectively because they are beholden to some Jewish cabal. He is telling Pulitzer Prize winning writers such as Tom Friedman and Samatha Power that they did not deserve their prizes. He is telling George Will that his reporting is controlled by his Jewish bosses (sound a little bit like Judith Regan?). And he is denying that Anderson Cooper is capable of filing an honest report from the West Bank.
As far as our legislators are concerned, he is accusing Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Patrick Leahy of being bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby. On Planet Carter, even congressmen with no Jewish constituents would be committing political suicide by taking a balanced position on the Middle East. What an outrageous insult to some of the best journalists and most independent political figures in the world.
At the bottom, Carter is saying that no objective journalist or politician could actually believe that Americas support for Israel is based on moral and strategic considerations and not on their own financial self-interest. Such a charge is so insulting to every honest legislator and journalist in this country that I am amazed that Carter has been let off the hook so easily. Only the self-righteous Jimmy Carter is capable of telling the truth, because only he is free of financial pressures that might influence his positions.
It now turns out that the shoe is precisely on the other foot. Recent disclosures prove that it is Carter who has been bought and paid for by anti-Israel Arab and Islamic money.
Journalist Jacob Laksin has documented the tens of millions of dollars that the Carter Center has accepted from Saudi Arabian royalty and assorted other Middle Eastern sultans, who, in return, Carter dutifully praised as peaceful and tolerant (no matter how despotic the regime). And these are only the confirmed, public donations.
Carter has also accepted half a million dollars and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who were the people who killed the Jews in Europe during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11.
Another journalist, Rachel Ehrenfeld, in a thorough and devastating article on "Carters Arab Financiers," meticulously catalogues Carters ties to Arab moneymen, from a Saudi bailout of his peanut farm in 1976, to funding for Carters presidential library, to continued support for all manner of Carters post-presidential activities. For instance, it was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), founded in Pakistan and fronted by a Saudi billionaire, Gaith Pharaon, that helped Carter start up his beloved Carter Center. According to Ehrenfeld:
BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. [Agha Hasan] Abedi wanted the bank to reflect the supra-national Muslim credo and the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists.
As Ehrenfeld concluded:
[I]t seems that AIPAC's real fault was its failure to outdo the Saudi's purchases of the former president's loyalty. There has not been any nation in the world that has been more cooperative than Saudi Arabia," The New York Times quoted Mr. Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a major factor in U. S. foreign policy.
Evidently, the millions in Arab petrodollars feeding Mr. Carter's global endeavors, often in conflict with U.S. government policies, also ensure his loyalty.
It is particularly disturbing that a former president who has accepted dirty blood-money from dictators, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and supporters of terrorism should try to deflect attention from his own conflicts of interest by raising the oldest canard in the sordid history of anti-Semitism: namely, that Jews have dual loyalty and use their money improperly to influence the country they live in, in favor of the country to which they owe their real allegiance. Abraham Foxman responded to Carters canard as follows:
As disturbing as Carters simplistic approach is, however, even more disturbing is his picking up on the Mearsheimer -Walt theme of Jewish control of American policy, though in much more abbreviated form and not being the focus of his work. Referring to U.S. policy and the condoning of Israels actions, Carter says: There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories. In other words, the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government is rearing its ugly head in the person of a former President.
As noted above, the most perverse aspect of Carters foray into bigotry is that as he pours this old wine into new bottles he is himself awash in Arab money. When a politician levels these kinds of cynical accusations against others, it would seem incumbent on him to show that his own hands are clean and his own pockets empty.
Accordingly I now call upon Carter to make full public disclosure of all of his and the Carter Centers ties to Arab money. If he fails to do so, I challenge the media to probe deeply into his, his familys, and his Centers Arab ties so that the public can see precisely the sources and amounts of money he has received and judge whether it has corrupted the process of objective reportage and politics by Carter and others who have received such funds. Finally, I ask the appropriate government agencies to conduct an investigation into whether Carter should be required to register as a lobbyist for foreign interests.
Lets stop invoking discredited ethnic stereotypes, look at the hard facts, and actually see whos being bought and sold.
I need to go get some popcorn to read this one
this is such an important issue and one of the most important remaining rhetorical wedges for winning the WOT.
Journalist Jacob Laksin has documented the tens of millions of dollars that the Carter Center has accepted from Saudi Arabian royalty and assorted other Middle Eastern sultans, who, in return, Carter dutifully praised as peaceful and tolerant (no matter how despotic the regime). And these are only the confirmed, public donations.The fact that more Americans don't know about this is one of the top ten sad facts about America today.
What, you mean the left isn't in love with Jimma Catta anymore? What a pity.
Journalist Jacob Laksin has documented the tens of millions of dollars that the Carter Center has accepted from Saudi Arabian royalty and assorted other Middle Eastern sultans, who, in return, Carter dutifully praised as peaceful and tolerant (no matter how despotic the regime).
And these are only the confirmed, public donations.
Great article by Alan Dershowitz. Thanks for posting.
Actually, I'm betting that the Jewish left is the group that isn't in love with Jimmah any more.
Anything that helps to cut the legs out from under that lunatic is fine with me.
I bet that Alan voted for Carter for president at the time. I'm sure he still votes dem and we all know how supportive they are of Israel.
Dershowitz is one of those liberals, crazy though he is, that you cannot ignore out of hand. He's smart; he just chooses to be on the liberal side most of the time. But not always. And he can make excellent arguments that should be listened to.
Carter will find truth in the saying, "Never get in a urinating contest with a skunk."
That's what makes it interesting. Some of my liberal "friends" are sort of persona non grata with me, because they do not get the W.O.T. This issue should go beyond party lines, and with some libs, it actually does.
Old Left (included Jews) versus New Left (Daily Kos-DU-MoveOn.Org vicious anti-semites).
Most Jews overwhelmingly support the party that hates them. Carter, while despicable, has actually made the leap from Old Left to New Left. How stylish of him. It is the usually despicable Dershowitz who was left behind at the train station.
Good article. But you have to wonder where Dersh has been for the last five or so years that he's only recently getting wind of the fact Carter's been taking big-bucks bribes from bloodthirsty arab anti-semites. Carter's hands are so dirty now, even a real peanut farmer would be embarassed to show them in public.
If Carter has been a Republican, he would have been roasted daily by numerous lib scribblers about being anti-Semitic. Of course there is no criticism on the left of fellow leftists. This leads us to wonder that the left might now be too riddled with bigots like Carter to think anything is wrong about his dissemblings and anti-Semitism. Because it is.
I'm hardly a fan of his, but not only is he right about Israel, he is also on the correct side in the academia debate. He is against all the leftist totalitarianism exhibited by the leftist professors who dominate all the colleges. And he has severely criticized attacks by leftists on conservatives who try to speak or publish on college. Dersh might not be a conservative, but he is right on a few issues.
It's no good. Carter's as dense as a brick.
Here's the bottom line on the Dersh. Is he still a liberal democrat and does he still go to bat for murderers?
Our worst president ever, even worse than Billy Jeff.
When you read this, you understand why Dhimmi Carter doesn't want to debate Dershowitz... He would be outgunned and routed in 5 seconds!
BTW, what does
from a Saudi bailout of his peanut farm in 1976
Wasn't he president then?
Carter is in some ways much worse than Clinton.
Here's the bottom line on the Dersh. Is he still a liberal democrat and does he still go to bat for murderers?
Basically, this is immaterial to the argument at hand. You are going off on a tangent. On this issue Dersh is correct. Stick to the issue.
I know what you mean about the OJ thing, but it seems that most of those involved in an important way have found ways to redeem themselves: Barry Scheck seems to have devoted himself to LEGITIMATE DNA cases with the goal of freeing the innocent with scientific evidence, Robert Bernstein has made indirect and elliptical statements disavowing himself from the verdict, knowing it was NOT a good verdict, Johnny Cochran has (thankfully) gone to the great Courtroom in the Sky, Dershowitz has come up with this and other right-on statements, --though he was all wet with his animosity to the Clinton "Sexual McCarthyism" effort, and Howard Weitzman, had the good sense simply to LEAVE the trial, for undisclosed reasons. As the years go by, there are fewer and fewer people who even TRY to pretend they think OJ was "innocent"---the most they will claim, like his friend Leo Terrell, who Hannity has on regularly, is that he was found "not guilty" in a court of law. Everyone seems to have just been "caught up in the excitement of the moment", and jumped blindly into a case that at first seemed designed to be the highest of high profile media events. But you're right, no matter WHAT they do , they will ALWAYS be the ones who apparently could NOT RESIST exploiting all the career-building benefits that the OJ Trial offered. As such, unless they some day do PUBLIC penance, they will eventually have to make amends with the appropriate authorities.
Hmmmm...didn't know about the Karma effect, though, in these instances it serves usefully as a "primer" for what to expect by way of a coming to terms in one's later years for what one has done in this life. I suppose a more fitting Karmic Catharsis for all those who put their talents in the service of OJ, would be for them all, say, to get decapitated in some group skiing accident in Aspen.
The Islamic practice of throat-slitting has perhaps sobered some of them up in the last five years, as they come to acknowledge that their boy OJ was an adept secular practitioner of such "arts". In fact, come to think of it, how many throat slittings can you think of happening in the USA SINCE the OJ murder? Two? Four? But dozens and dozens left behind as bloody calling cards in the wake of the ongoing global Jihad.
And I don't know why I referred to Shapiro as Robert Bernstein, which is the name of an old dermatologist of mine.
$13 Million I've read with money going also to Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young.