2006-12-15 15:34:31 · 8 answers · asked by Dr.O 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Well, I wish he would debate Dershowitz as well, but he probably doesn't want to because he knows Dershowitz is a shill for the state of Israel and will defend Israel no matter what.
He stated in Friday's Boston Globe: "There is no need ... to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."
He means that Dershowitz has probably never been to Palestine and never intends to visit Palestine so that he might be able to observe the conditions they currently live under. Dershowitz would be a biased participant in any such debate. Carter is trying to bring attention to the plight of the Palestinian people. A debate would just give a bully pulpit to the "Israel's right to exist trumps everything, including human rights" people.
Let me put it this way: Suppose 20 years ago someone wrote a book which denounced the apartheid policies of the South African government. And suppose someone challenged the author to a "debate". I think a legitimate response from the author would be "No! There's nothing to debate here. The policies are unjust. Black people in South Africa are treated like second class citizens, and that needs to stop."
A better example might be if President Nutjob...I mean, President Ahmedinejad of Iran challenging someone to a debate on whether the Holocaust happened or not. To engage him would simply serve to give him a platform for his wacko views.
Anyway, I disagree with Carter's decision, but I totally respect it. He's a great humanitarian and kudos to him for discussing this "taboo" topic.
2006-12-15 15:54:04 · answer #1 · answered by Brownskin 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Former US President Jimmy Carter won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for decades of work seeking peaceful solutions. He has no need to debate Dershowitz. Read up on Dershowitz in Wikipedia, his motives are clearly spelled out.
2006-12-15 16:00:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Rock is in basic terms a lie in case you "have faith" in it. that's music. relish it, yet do no longer anticipate it to hold something somewhat significant. undergo in ideas, acquaintances, countless the main poetic and noble of our rock stars are nonetheless coddled millionaires whose realities come nowhere on the part of that of yours and mine. that's entertainment, so take it at face fee. once you're looking or somebody to idolize, your community record shop is probably a destructive place to start.
2016-12-11 10:04:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Former President James Earl Carter was not much of a debater in his hey day he would be less effective now. Unless he wants to made fool of "again" (remember Iran) then he was wise to pass.
2006-12-15 15:38:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
I asked this question in Politics.
I think it's that Carter doesn't want to be held accountable for his views.
By the way, Dershowitz also feels himself 'liberal', so it would be liberal versus liberal.
2006-12-15 15:50:42 · answer #5 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Carter is a fool and i'm sure most intelligant people have known that for a long time.
2006-12-15 15:44:08 · answer #6 · answered by HOVO 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I think he just plain isn't interested. He old, he's done a lot in his life, and he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to. Personally, I think he'd win, too.
2006-12-15 15:42:52 · answer #7 · answered by wildraft1 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Most of us feel it would be the opposite and Carter would be exposed as the fool he is.
2006-12-15 15:38:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋