The peanut farmer, again...

[alexpgp]

From the Associated Press:

Former President Carter says he won't visit Brandeis

BOSTON (AP) — Former President Carter has decided not to visit Brandeis University to talk about his new book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" because he does not want to debate Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as the university had requested.

"I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz," Carter told The Boston Globe. "There is no need ... for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

Now, presumably, Brandeis is not run by a bunch of utter nincompoops, so it just doesn't seem likely that the university would choose someone to engage in dialog with Carter who is as utterly unqualified as Carter believes him to be. Then again, Carter may simply be miffed that he's not being afforded an opportunity to spout unopposed, the way many university speakers are.

Continuing:

The debate request is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, Carter said.

Well, the only way this could be true would be if Brandeis University knew in advance that Carter would refuse to appear if asked to debate Dershowitz. Also, the jump between "the university" and "many in the United States" escapes me, except as the kind of bluster you come to expect from a big-name has-been.

The way I see it, if someone wants to debate a certain viewpoint, it betrays a certain unmistakable willingness to hear an alternative view (though it assuredly indicates an a priori opposition to that view). To be debated, both viewpoints must be heard and questioned. In short, a dialogue is established.

Or am I nuts?


Next in the report:

Carter, who brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt and who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, has said the goal of his book is to provoke dialogue and action.

"There is no debate in America about anything that would be critical of Israel," he said.

Could it be that Carter's idea of "dialogue" is for you to listen and nod your head while he talks? I'm not sure.

The quote might be arguable if Carter wasn't able to find a publisher for his book or anyone willing to debate its contents, but in fact the exact opposite is true: the book was published and someone wants to debate. (Or, I wonder, must the debater actually agree with Carter in the first place?)

Is there a reason nobody in the media seems to want to point out Carter's obvious dementia on this point (among others), or is it simply a distaste for shooting fish in a barrel?

Cheers...

Comments

[rfmcdpei.livejournal.com]

I'd be reluctant to debate Alan Dershowitz on the subject of Israel/Palestine because he strikes me as a classic sort of ethnic nationalist. I'd be as willing to debate, say, a Balt who favours the immediate repatriation of all post-1945 immigrants ("What, there's plenty of trains"). What's the point?

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Well, in my experience, the point of a debate - especially one involving politics - is not to sway your opponent, but to make points with the audience (in which case, going to Brandeis would not be a good idea at all, as it would be akin to arguing evolution vs. creation with fundamentalist Christians).

If Carter had simply passed on the Brandeis proposal, I doubt the move would have attracted any attention, and if it had, I would have paid scant notice. But to argue that wanting to debate an issue in public exhibits an "unwillingness" to air an alternative view, that an offer to debate somehow proves that no debate is possible and that the subject at hand is taboo, and to express such idiocy in almost as many words strikes me as worthy of note, if only to note that the person uttering such claptrap may not simply be having a "senior moment."

Cheers...

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

Dershowitz has a reputation as a pitbull. Carter's go a reputation to uphold. Refusal makes perfect sense to me.

By the way, the best analysis of the Middle East situation I've ever run across appears in the blog (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2006/11/roads_good_intentions_etcetera.html#comments) of the science fiction writer Charlie Stross: One does not have to say anything about the rights or wrongs of the State of Israel to recognize that its existence is not perceived by the Arab world in the same way that it is perceived in the West. The existence of Israel as a factor in the rise of Islamicism cannot be under-stated

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Refusal might, indeed, have been the best policy. In my experience, speakers generally don't like to share the stage with anyone, and why share with someone who is going to be unremittingly hostile to your point of view? I have no problem with that.

I have a problem with his simpering, self-righteous tone that contradicts itself at a breathtaking pace.

But I'll get over it. :^)

Cheers...

[bandicoot.livejournal.com]

Carter is so far out of touch with reality he's just embarrassing.

[skipperja.livejournal.com]

The Chronicle had a cartoon condemning Carter.

To me, Dershowitz is an extremist with whom a real debate is impossible. It would be like debating the need for better race relations with the leader of the KKK.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

I am curious: what is a "real debate" and why is it impossible to have one with an extremist?

I ask, because in my experience, the point of a debate is not to convince your opponent (except in some theoretical sense), but to convince the audience listening to the debate.

I mean, back in 2004, it's not as if anybody expected one or the other Presidential candidate to say something during the televised debate that would cause his opponent to drop his jaw and say, "Hey, you know, you've got a point there! I'm going to vote for you in the election!"

(Just kidding.)

Cheers...

[skipperja.livejournal.com]

I agree that you are right about getting a point across in a debate and letting the audience decide.

I think that Carter's hesitation to debate may be similar to the concern some scientist have about debating evolution with creationists or intelligent design advocates. I always wondered why they didn't jump at the chance to debate, but have read some pretty good reasons not to. The same things may relate to Carter's concerns.

I think my views on Israel and Zionism were strongly influenced by Life magazine when I was a child and read about the bombing of the King David Hotel and various assasinations. So I tend to agree with Carter. I guess I'd better read his book to be sure! :)

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Well, ultimately, Carter was probably right to refuse to appear. It's just that, to me, his rationalization - obviously designed to win points in the arena of public opinion - is manifestly self-contradictory (and, in my opinion, has something of a self-pitying tone).

Cheers...