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

[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...