Posted on 09/11/2008 5:23:11 AM PDT by SJackson
It is long been traditional for living ex-presidents to be invited to address their party’s quadrennial convention during presidential election years. The fact that Jimmy Carter was not invited to give the traditional address was no accident. Nor is it true, as Jimmy Carter has falsely claimed, that it was he who made the decision not to speak to the convention. The Democratic Party, and its leaders, made a deliberate decision not to invite Jimmy Carter precisely because they so fundamentally disagree with the bigotry toward Israel and its Jewish supporters that he displayed both in his mendacious book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and in his subsequent television appearances. They decided that they, as a party, did not want to be associated with Jimmy Carter’s despicable views. This took courage, more courage than the Republican Party showed in 1992 when they invited the notorious anti-Semite and anti-Zionist, Pat Buchanan, to deliver a prime time speech at their convention.
Perhaps the Democrats learned a lesson from the Republican’s mistake. Buchanan’s speech, which declared cultural war against non-Christian fundamentalists, may well have contributed to their electoral defeat. Had Jimmy Carter been allowed to speak, and had he chosen to repeat his bigoted views, the impact on voters might have been considerable.
I must admit that I am not an unbiased observer. 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. Many others—on Jews and non-Jews—took the same position.
Nor has Carter been denied his free speech rights, as some anti-Israel zealots have claimed. Carter says that he wrote his screed in order to stimulate a debate. But he has adamantly refused to debate the contents of his book, with me or anyone else. I have written extensively and critically about Carter’s book.
In my soon to be published book, The Case Against Israel’s Enemies—Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand In the Way of Peace, I take apart his arguments point by point. His only response was, “I don’t read Dershowitz.” Well maybe he should read Dershowitz and the other critics who have demolished his arguments, disproved his facts and questioned his motives. His answer to his critics bordered on anti-Semitism. He claimed that “book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations.” He must know this to be a lie, unless he believes that all Jews are somehow “representatives” of Jewish organizations. The most critical reviews were written by Michael Kinsley, Ethan Bronner, Jeffrey Goldberg, and me. None of us are representatives of Jewish organizations—unless he believes that all Jews belong to some uniform and organized conspiracy. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Carter claimed that the “Jewish lobby” was part of the problem, never defining what he meant but leaving a clear implication of dual loyalty against “Jewish” Americans.
It is Jimmy Carter who has tried to skew the marketplace of ideas by refusing to debate. So let Jimmy Carter speak, wherever he chooses to—on college campuses, on television, at political events. But let others who disagree with him be invited to speak at the same time. That is debate, not the kind of one-sided propaganda that Carter insists on. So I renew my challenge to President Carter: Join the marketplace of ideas. Debate me—anywhere, anytime. On your turf or mine. How about a debate at the Carter center in Emory University? I will come at my own expense. Do you accept or will you continue to refuse to read your critics or to debate them?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
What Dershowitz is, what separates him from liberals in general, is that he is intellectually honest, at least when it comes to Israel and terrorism. The dearth of intellectual honesty on the left is staggering, and Joe Sixpack is starting to see the disconnect very clearly on display.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Well, guess he did good in behalf of the Dem's. However, as a conservative, I can't get enough of Carter. I thoroughly enjoy watching him make a fool out of himself. His elitist,socialist, anti-American, idiotic words are a tonic for the Conservative soul...
Right on target.
Who’s Jimmy Carter?
Billy's brother.
Mr D: Time to make sure you are registered as a Republican before November?
My guess is that there was some other reason for Carter's not speaking, maybe something related to general mental deterioration. Dershowitz could well be taking false credit for Carter's absense as a Dem campaign tactic with Jewish voters.
“the notorious anti-semite...Pat Buchanan.”
Really, Doucheawitz?
How so, is it because he believes an American citizen has the right to due process before being shipped overseas to his death?
That’s a lot of moral indignation for a mercenary who will defend any murderous psychopath as long as they have money.
“The Democratic Party, and its leaders, made a deliberate decision not to invite Jimmy Carter precisely because they so fundamentally disagree with the bigotry toward Israel and its Jewish supporters”
I don’t for a minute believe this to be true, at all.
The Dims simply didn’t want to publicly display Jimmy, whom they love, because they want to protect the fiction that they really do support Israel.
Yeah, just because he’s punching Carter, doesn’t make Dershowitz a good guy. In fact, I think Carter is a better person than Dershowitz, but your mileage may vary. :o)
Carter may be naive, foolish, wimpy, irritating, blustery...well you get the point.
But, I do think he is a moral man.
Alan, I have my doubts...
True. But I doubt that he's being intellectually honest when he tells us that the Democrats didn't have Carter speak at their convention because of Carter's views on the Middle East. My guess is that there is some other reason why that happened, and Dershowitz is trying to create a false impression that he and other pro-Israel Dems successfully obtained Carter's withdrawal from an active role at the convention. Dershowitz's story makes the Democrats look better to pro-Israel voters than reality would suggest - in other words, a nice spin from his point of view.
It’s curious why the left never turn their noses down at Carter for his religious beliefs but are going full steam ahead to disparage Palin for hers.
I don’t for a minute believe this to be true, at all.
The Dims simply didn’t want to publicly display Jimmy, whom they love, because they want to protect the fiction that they really do support Israel.
You hit the nail on the head. Exactly the quote I had copyied to make the same point, but for once I read ahead to see if anyone else already had.
It would seem that Jimmy Carter is official the Democrat version of Pat Buchanan.
let’s be real frank
what separates Dershowitz is that he is an ardent defender of Israel
other than that he is still a Red Diaper Baby and uses the race, sexist, anti-semite cards with abandon seldom seen
he deserves credit only for Israel, other than that is an asshat
which means to me to be frank again, that he has his priorities messed up.
Preserve Israel ...great.
Destroy America with vile leftism...bad.
He gets no kudos from me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.