Brandeis just says no, Emory professors miffed with Carter
Posted on February 17 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Educational Institutions , Jimmy Carter.On the heels of the announcement that some of its biggest donors are withdrawing funds “as revenge” for hosting Jimmy Carter, the Forward now reports that Brandeis appears to be just saying no to all Israel-Palestine speakers it considers controversial.
This includes denying permission to a student group to bring Holocaust Industry critic and Alan Dershowitz gadfly Norman Finkelstein, and, from the opposite end of the political spectrum, putting “on hold a visit from Daniel Pipes, a hawkish pro-Israel advocate who keeps tabs on Islamic fundamentalist groups.”
This represents a move in the opposite direction for Brandeis which recently made an admirable gesture towards open dialogue by launching this public blog about Carter’s visit.
Meanwhile, nine professors at Emory University have written a public letter protesting what they regard as Jimmy Carter’s refusal to debate his book on campus.
“We are happy that Jimmy Carter wants to come to Emory,” said Deborah E. Lipstadt, the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies, and a signer of the letter. “But we think it should be an exchange of ideas, not a one-sided presentation. We felt that this is not up to the standards of Emory in terms of creative inquiry.”
Earl Lewis, Emory’s provost, said Carter speaks on Emory campus at least once a month in someone’s class. Annually, he holds a town hall discussion on campus. Lewis said the Feb. 22 event will follow the town hall format that Emory has done for years.
He objected to claims that allowing Carter to speak and answer submitted questions was not academically challenging.
“I am not sure I agree with that,” Lewis said. “It is not unusual, in any context, for someone who may have written a book that is controversial, to come speak on that book. We all would love to engage President Carter. But this is an opportunity for him to talk about his book.”
Lewis said that Carter would speak for about 15 minutes, and then answer questions that have been submitted by students. Lewis said the university has not ruled out a possible debate in the future.
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
February 17th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Except it’s not open dialogue that Carter is seeking. He’s seeking a speaker’s tour where he can promote his views without being confronted by others.
He refused to go to Brandeis unless he could have the stage to himself and only answer pre-screened questions.
Why is Carter trying to stifle open debate on the middle east?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Joshua,
What you write is untrue. Carter didn’t refuse to go to Brandeis “unless” anything. He simply declined to debate Dershowitz, which was an idea of Eisenstadt and not an official invitation from the University. Dershowitz claimed multiple times to be invited, when he only polled by Eisenstadt.
When faculty did invite Carter, the only constraint from him was the day and time, which allowed for 1 hour total, with 45 minutes for questions. No classroom visits, no trustee dinners, and so forth. The constraint from the university staff and police first only allowed for 700 people. When a poll showed 50% of students (or 2500) would want to attend a new venue for 1700 was allowed, the event was made “Brandeis only” and elaborate procedures were put in place to fairly distribute limited numbered tickets to students, staff, and faculty.
The committee solicited and clustered questions to choose a broad variety, and keep them short. The questions were not known in advance by Carter or by Brandeis administrators. Questions were kept secret until after the event when all were published, and Carter answered 10 more by email.
All of this is public knowledge on http://carterquestion.com
February 17th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I don’t see where are positions are inconsistent Jordan. Again, rather than debate someone else who could point out possible flaws in his work, he chose to speak unopposed and answer pre-screened questions.
And apparently he is again turning down the opportunity to have an actual debate.
So again, why is Carter against open debate on the Middle East?
February 18th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Alan Dershowitz has written books about the I-P conflict & presumably gone on book tours to promote them. Presumably he has also spoken on college campuses about his books & his views on the I-P conflict. Has he debated someone holding opposite views during these presentations? Has anyone even thought to demand from him that he do this? Why would they? Who would care?
The issue here for the anti-Carter folk is that Carter’s book is on the best-seller list & one of the hottest politics books of the publishing season. That burns the hell out of ‘em. So they think up this nifty idea to try to put a wrench in the machine of Carter’s book’s popularity by insisting on debates whenever he speaks at school’s with large Jewish populations like Brandeis or Emory. They think that somehow this will temper the attractiveness of Carter’s ideas AND that it will present a pro-Israel alternative.
If they wish to promote their views they’re free to write their books & promote them on book tours & at college campuses. But they’re not free to ride on the Carter gravy train to do so.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Carter’s failure to debate Dershowitz suggests that Carter realizes that the criticisms of his book are accurate (not a “smear campaign”). This one act speaks volumes, far more than any of his speeches where Carter simply goes unchallenged.
My opinion is that Brandeis should not have subsequently caved in. Refusal to debate is all you need to know. I would surely reconsider my contributions were I an alumni.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:36 am
Carter was invited to Brandeis, then groups tried to create conditions to his visit. A condition that this former President and individual who helped negotiate the only peace agreement between Isreal and its neighbor that continues to this day, debate a criminal lawyer and discredited legal writer — who also knows very little about the ME.
As many faculty there stated, Brandeis was behaving like a Zionist summer camp and not a University. Those who were at the dialogue at Brandeis came away positively. Even those predisposed to reject Carter’s presence.
Brandeis set an excellent example and should be proud.
Why would a former President, Nobel peace prize recipient, maker of history, debate a Dershowitz?
Since when do Universities create “conditions” before a former President may visit and speak?
February 18th, 2007 at 6:57 am
I agree the the comments above about the inappropriateness of Carter debating Dershowitz.
To me, more important that agreeing or disagreeing on every word or detail of Carter’s book, or the specific context of his presentations, is that as Jews (and non-Jews) we are finally entering a time when there can be open debate and discussion in our society about Israeli policies.
It is not anti-semitic or self-loathing to question Israel; it is our obligation and it is our right.
It is the blind supporters of Israel who have forced us into this situation by insisting that we must accept 100% of what Israel does; they are the ones who feed the anti-semitic notion that all Jews put the interest of Israel about all else; they are the ones equating Jews with Israel.
Now they — and we — reap the results: the world agrees and holds all of us who are Jewish responsible for what happens in Israel. We have no choice now. We must show the world that, as Jews and as Americans, we do not support repression no matter who undertakes it.
It must be said over and over again: believing that the Palestinians have rights should in no way be equated with supporting all their actions just as believing in Israel should in no way be equated with supporting all its actions.
Both sides have been wronged; both sides have done wrong. I’ve read the history. There is no one starting point or place to put the blame. We must break the cycle of revenge and move towards justice for all.
I mourn for my people who have become hateful, fearful, vengeful, small-minded and close-minded; I rejoice that my people are speaking out for the values that underly our heritage: justice for all — not justice only for Jews.
Thank you Carter. Thank you Brandeis. Thank you Muzzlewatch.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:28 am
JIMMY CARTER - CAMP DAVID 1978 & INDUSTRIALIST DR. REUVEN HECHT
Sir,-
Menachem Begin’s ascent to the premiership in 1977, led to Dr. Reuven Hecht’s appointment as personal adviser to Prime Minister Begin.
In August 1978, ‘Maariv’ headlined - that Carter’s Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, had delivered an invitation to Begin to participate in a Tri-State Summit (with Anwar Sadat) at ‘Camp David’ - “Scheduled to last at least Ten Days” (commencing September 4)!
Dr. Hecht was immediately appraised of the fact that during World War Two (before jet age travel) Winston Churchill never ventured away from England (to Summits of the Allies or Troop visits) for such ‘a suspiciously long period’.
On Friday September 1, eve of departure of the Israeli entourage, Mr. Begin received a small delegation of academics, led by Political Science Professor Paul Eidelberg, in order to personally receive a draft report containing “an alternative analysis regarding the goal of Anwar Sadat’s Peace Initiative”: additionally, the prime minister’s attention was drawn to the latest edition of New York’s ‘Jewish Press’, which featured elements of the transmitted text. The ‘Jewish Press’ reported the academics’ 1978 encounter with Begin (see “A Volcanic Revelation” March 14, 1986, page 7).
The Summit was to last 13 days! Emerging, to meet the press, Mr. Begin referred to his fortnight’s isolation as - “a sojourn in a concentration camp de-luxe”
The term ‘isolation’, as was later learned, also referred to the fact that the Carter Administration had declined to accommodate Dr. Hecht’s diplomatic credentials; by denying him recognition as a bona fide member of the prime minister’s entourage (apparently they had ‘learned that Dr. Hecht’s ‘civil service contract stipulated a salary of only one shekel per annum’)!
The Hebrew edition of ‘Sadat’s Conspiracy’ was published in December 1978 and reviewed by Moshe Shamir in ‘Maariv’, March 2, 1979. Unfortunately, the first of the two English printings (‘Sadat’s Strategy’, Dawn Publishing, Canada 1979) didn’t reach the public prior to signing of the ‘Peace Treaty’ on March 26, 1979.
A cursory search of Dr. Hecht’s archives, revealed a document confirming the unrelenting pressure wrought by Carter against Begin (to accept Sadat’s terms) at Camp David 1978 which antedates Carter’s current anti-Israel bash by three decades! The following will suffice.
“Thank you for your letter of July 29, 1979 and the new book order for ‘Sadat’s Strategy’. Yehiel Kadishai (Menachem Begin’s constant attendant) told my courier that he “is glad the book was published overseas in English because the government cannot say that”…!
(extract from a letter written by the publisher, Dan Nimrod to Jose Mirelman, August 9,1979)
Karl Huttenbauer
Berlin 10704
February 18th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Elinor says “It is the blind supporters of Israel who have forced us into this situation by insisting that we must accept 100% of what Israel does;” etc.
Elinor, with all due respect, you are not paying attention, just lashing out. Also, you have adopted the nonsense that the Israel-haters want you to believe; that is,
1. Israel supporters are “blind”.
2. Israel supporters insist that we must accept 100% of what Israel does.
Both of these statements are just flat our wrong, and I think you would realize this if you would pay more attention to the public communications on this matter.
Criticism of Israel is widespread! Check newspapers on the left, here, in Israel, in Europe, etc. The new problem, the “new anti-semitism”, is not merely that people criticize Israel. The problem - the HUGE problem - is criticism that is blatantly dishonest, containing lies, half-truths, and un-even application of human rights principles. Enter Jimmy Carter, stage left.
Now, why should we hold Carter to a standard of debate rather than just giving talks?
Because the criticisms of Carters work are specific, indeed now notoriously so. Carter brushes this off in his talks. Israel-haters try to say that it’s a “smear campaign”. It’s funny how easily they get away with this. The criticisms are specific, not “smear”. Once again, by coalescing on the same wording, in this case “smear campaign”, even that it’s a blatant lie, the Israel-haters get traction.
(Remember how the Israel-haters achieved widespread use of the term “wall” for a barrier that is 96% fence! They have found that they can lie willy-nilly, no one holds them to account!)
Certainly criticizing Israel does NOT make you what I am calling an “Israel-hater”. Far from it. But relentless DISHONEST criticism does.
And so, it is far overdue for Carter to DEFEND his work in a public forum. A debate with someone who is widely accepted as representing the alternative position is not a bad place to start, in my opinion. Dershowitz might not be my personal first choice but it’s not a bad place to start.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Art,
Wow….there will always be distortions of facts and realities mixed with honest critical, and yes, well intended criticism.
ALL institutions, political movemenets, organized groups….whatever dererve crticism. There is, for example lots of public wacko Catholic bashing, but that does not mean the institution of the Catholic Church is not above criticsm, or that those doing the critique are Catholic Haters. (Yet some are and it comes with the territory.) So, let us not throw the baby (well deserved criticism) out with the bathwater (all that wacko stuff that is always around.) A good mind will do that.
I think that is what Elinor was saying.
Oh, and about the wall in Israel. Have you seen it, visited it since 2004? If so, you would not honestly make such a statement anymore. The construction continues and when finished will be over 400 miles long and 25 feet high and much of it built on into the West Bank and into Palistinian land. It blocks many Palistinians from work and family and even their fields. This is fact and not propaganda. I’ve seen it, experiened it. It is shameful, illegal and many Israelis are terribly ashamed about it. It is a sign of failure and not might or protection.
The Berlin wall (also a horrible disgusting sight) was 96 miles long and and at the highest point about 12 feet high. Think about it.
Please do not call me an Israel hater as I am everything but.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Ellen, read your note carefully. You are claiming that Israel is building 400 miles of “wall”. Is this really true? Did they rip out the many miles of fence and replace it with a wall?
If this is true that I certainly stand corrected.
If this is NOT true, we must ask: why do you make such an assertion?
Please stop and think about this. If you honestly believe that the West Bank barrier is, on balance, a poor idea, then you ought to be able to characterize it accurately and make your point, no?
February 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Joshua, once again you’ve been called on your liberal play with the facts. Jordan has clearly rehearsed what happened at Brandeis and Richard has cogently pointed out - again - how silly it is for a disingenuous group to demand that an author debate someone during his or her speaking tour.
Next time Olmert or Bibi or the like goes on speaking tour, will you demand that he debate someone of opposing view, and if he doesn’t (which of course he won’t) will you then scream that he is opposing open debate on the Middle East by not doing so?
Again, I’ve read the book. It is excellent. It is opening thousands of pairs of eyes in the US and abroad. I’m passing my copy around as fast as people can read it.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Interesting. So Jimmy Carter is not interested in actually having a debate on Israel-Palestine. But, to quote Richard Silverstein, taking advantage of the “gravy train” to promote book sales.
Ok, that’s fine. But then don’t pretend that he actually wants open debate. Just say “Hey it’s great that a book lambasting Israel, facts be damned, can sell so many copies!” We’ve known that for quite some time. The idea that Carter, by blaming Israel for everything, has started something new is just wierd.
I also find it humorous that Richard thinks he can ascribe motives to anyone who disagrees with the anti-Israel orthodoxy. Then again, this is someone who has alternately alleged that I lived in D.C., then in New Jersey, and alternately alleged that I worked for AIPAC or the government, then a new york law firm.
Which is funny, because I don’t try to hide who I am, what I do, where I live, etc. Although it is quite Bush league to make threats of contacting others with personal details.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Art, I do not make claims or assertions. And yes, fencing is being replaced at a rapid rate with an enormous wall, which cannot be characterized as a barrier. Go take a look yourself. Measure it. You will see.
I think my point was made. The massive wall is a disgraceful shande and will not and does not serve Israel’s long term interests, but undermines Israel and all of its citizens.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
So Ellen, if I read you correctly, any portion of this barrier that is not a wall is just fine with you. You only object to the portion that is a wall. Is that correct? And so, if we changed the portion that is a wall to a tall fence, it would not be a “disgraceful shande” any more, right?
Seriously, if it’s not all a wall, why do you feel the need to call it a wall? All you do is open yourself up to criticism.
My point is that the people who complain about being “muzzled” seem, upon examination, to offer complaints about Israel that fall apart upon close examination. Certainly yours does, unless of course, the entire barrier is now a wall.
And you seem to working very very hard at making my point for me.
If you feel that this barrier is so much of a problem for the Palestinians that it’s worth Israel opening itself up again to suicide bombing, well, say that. Be honest about it. That’s a fair minded opinion, as far as I can tell. This is a very tough trade-off and people will have different opinions about it, fairly and honestly.
Why not describe it accurately?
Why do you feel so strongly that you have to mis-characterize it?
February 18th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
“The idea that Carter, by blaming Israel for everything, has started something new is just wierd.”
Joshua, remember you haven’t read the book. If you had you would know that Carter doesn’t blame Israel “for everything.” It’s a very even-handed book. There is plenty of blame to go around and Carter doesn’t spare either the Palestinians or the Israelis.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Why all the fuss about whether it’s a “Wall”
or “Frence”?
In a nutshell, the argument against the Separation Barrier is that (1) the route of Barrier was based on political considerations rather than secruity ones (2) the Barrier results in severe hardships to Palestinians, in all aspects of their life (3) the Barrier could be just as effective in keeping out suicide bombers if it was placed inside Israeli territory or on the Green Line.
How is describing the Barier as a “fence” or a “wall” relevant to this argument?
If anything, both a “Wall” or “Fence” is misleading, since they both suggest some suggest some kind of contiguous line with the Palestinians on one side and the Israelis on the other, when the Barrier is nothing of the sort.
February 20th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Why all the fuss about whether it’s a “Wall”
or “Frence”?
It is significant because one must deliberately chose words that evoke images of the poor victimized Palestinians, or one is not politically correct.
`
The barrier, according to most, has stopped 90 % of attacks on Israeli civilians- it is temporary, it is moveable and it saves lives until there is a lasting peace. And shouldn’t saving lives be our priority?
The Green Line, btw, is not an internationally recognized border. It is simply the cease fire line. Permanent borders are yet to be established.
How is describing the Barier as a “fence” or a “wall” relevant to this argument?
Its a simple matter of truth over propaganda. Its important to those who value the truth.
Incidently, border fences are going up all over the world. They are an inexpensive, non violent way of protecting a country.
Thailand is building a “security fence” to stop terrorists from crossing into Thailand’s Muslim southern provinces from northern Malaysia.
India’s 3,000-km. barrier along its border with Pakistan is largely complete.
India is now building a 3,300 km. barrier to halt illegal immigration from Bangladesh.
China is now building a fence along its frontier with North Korea .
Pakistan is building a 1,500-mile fence with Afghanistan.
Uzbekistan has built a fence along its border with Tajikistan.
United Arab Emirates is erecting a barrier along its frontier with Oman, and Kuwait is upgrading its existing 215-km. wall along the Iraqi frontier.
Saudi Arabia has been quietly pursuing an $8.5 billion project to fence off its porous border with Yemen, but the highest priority now is to get a high-tech barrier built along the 900-km. border with Iraq.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Nick Kristof’s recent columns praising Carter for his work against Guinea Worm and River Blindness are quite important. There has been a serious attempt by Martin Peretz (”Carter will go down in history as a Jew hater”) to make Carter unacceptable — to marginalize and ostracize him such as many have been in the past. The attacks on Walt, Mearsheimer, Judt, Kushner, Yglesias and Carter are not working as well as in the past (evidence of some diminishing in power, I think) and Kristof’s columns can be seen as evidence of this.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“Peter H Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Why all the fuss about whether it’s a “Wall”
or “Fence”? ”
Peter, I find that there is relentlessly dishonestly and manipulation in the language among those who want us to hate Israel.
The degree of dishonestly of the Israel-haters does not suggest that Israel’s behavior is good or bad. Rather, it is just one more obstacle to understanding any potential for a solution.
I focus in on the issue of “wall” vs. “barrier” as a very simple, obvious and understandable illustration at the extent to which the Israel-haters have taken over the language. They have discovered that they can get “progressives” to say anything, no matter how dishonest, simply by emotional repetition…
The notion that anyone would call the entire barrier a “wall” is laughable, a non-starter. It is overwhelmingly NOT a wall. This is physical fact.
But as you can see, even in this blog conversation, such a simple obvious correction of a physical fact falls on deaf ears. Calling a barrier that is overwhelmingly NOT a wall a “wall” is an outright lie. But not only do many of the readers of this blog NOT see the logic of that, they argue vehemently against it.
My point is that the Israel-haters find it so easy to preempt the progressive conversation about Israel that they can introduce blatant lies, and get people who consider themselves progressive to repeat them. I envision them giggling every time they hear the term “wall”, wondering: “Can we get them to believe ANYTHING just by repeating it?”
If you think that I’m being too harsh, consider how astoundingly incorrect the term “wall” is, and how widespread it is used, particularly among “progressives”. This is, sadly, an amazingly simple illustration of the corruption of the conversation on the “progressive” side.
And I hasten to repeat: it does NOT suggest that Israel should have the barrier there or not. This is not about the correctness of Israel’s behavior. This is about stripping away the lies, half-truths, and uneven application of human rights standards that permeate the conversation on the progressive side.
Thankfully, we have a forum like Muzzlewatch where we can bring these issues to light!
February 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Art M., Your labeling of anyone you disagree with as an “Israel Hater” is not helpful. A person can have a different opinion from yours and care about Israel just as much as you do. Why not use logic and reason to explain your position instead of name-calling? Incidently, the Israeli GOVERNMENT is not Israel itself. It is simply a group of imperfect human beings-as all humans are imperfect-who are temporarily in a decision-making position. Governments often make decisions that are not in the best interest of the people they are representing or the future of a country. When this happens, people who care about the country have a responsibility to point it out. Disagreeing with a GOVERNMENT POLICY is not the same thing as hating the country that government is currently representing.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Jill, you raise a good point. I have not clarified whom I would call “Israel-hater”. However, you seem to assume that I call anyone I disagree with an Israel-hater. I don’t see where you would get that notion.
What I’m stressing in this thread is that there are people who initiate or spread lies and mis-leading half-truths for the purpose of generating hatred of Israel. There are people who initiate or spread application of human rights standards selectively to Israel. These are the ones that I call “Israel-haters”.
That is, they consciously abandon honesty in their quest to generate hatred of Jews.
I think I know, for example, the folks that initiated the phrase “wall”, or at least were responsible for spreading it in the United States.
What would you recommend that we call people who intentionally spread lies for the purpose of generating hatred of Israel?
I am definitely NOT calling Israel-hater simply anyone who disagrees with my political opinion of what Israel should do. I have tried to go out of my way to express this but perhaps not clear enough.
Thanks for the question.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Jill, if you notice, it is the folks who post anonymously that are the name callers on Muzzlewatch. You, me, and most other constructive commenters have the courage of identifying ourselves for all to see. I’m finished with responding to the ‘Joshuas’ and ‘Rs’ and ‘Art Ms’.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I’m hoping someday that America will catch up with the rest of the world on seeing that Palestinians have their own point of view, their own collective memory, in short their own identity. It’s stiffling to see people in various guises try to turn speech with which they disagree into something actionable in some way, whether it is creating “conditions” after inviting someone to speak on campus or tarring and feathering someone for wanting to be treated like other authors of books and not have to end up debating the likes of someone like Dershowitz.
The students and many of the faculty at Brandeis are to be commended for their defense of academia. The faculty at Emory are well known for their immoderate views regarding Israel, and aren’t even subtle in their manipulation of claims about “scholarship.”
Maybe they need to go back to Poli. Sci. 101 and learn about that to believe in freedom of expression you cannot just defend the rights of those whose speech with which you agree but must defend the right of those whose speech you find abhorent.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Let me start by explaining why I prefer to post as “R.” I am a professional and have already had my professional activities impacted by those that feel the need to punish me for my views in support of Israel.
Then as to “Palestinian Identity”, we are all aware that prior to 1964, when the Arab League created both the “Palestinian Identity” and the PLO, these exact same individuals identified as Arabs and part of the greater Arab Nation. The creation of a sub-identity is just another device to attack Israel. Their real, and recent roots are in the countries that border Israel. Thats why UNRWA only required a two residency in Pre-State Israel in order to qualify as an Arab refugee in 1948.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“Alan Cheney Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Jill, if you notice, it is the folks who post anonymously that are the name callers on Muzzlewatch.”
Alan, whether you know me personally or not does not affect the validity of my assertions.
My point is that there are people that spread lies for the purpose of generating hatred of Israel, and that it is easy to see that. I need some way to refer to them, but the name is secondary issue. The point is that they exist and they are successful.
The fact that some people lie about Israel does not justify Israel’s behavior; rather, this merely clouds the issues, and quite substantially.
I choose this most simple of examples as an illustration: if you notice how tenaciously certain people insist on calling the West Bank barrier a “wall”, when, it is overwhelmingly not a wall, you can see how ferocious this problem is.
All I’m trying to do is reinforce honesty in criticism of Israel. Notice how hard this is to do!
February 26th, 2007 at 5:58 am
[…] It’s actually painful to watch Brandeis president Jehudah Reinharz’s desperate dissembling over the ongoing Carter debacle. As we reported earlier, major donors said they will withdraw as much as $5 million from Brandeis as punishment for giving Jimmy Carter a platform (and, one assumes, a respectful reception). Later Reinharz announced he’d be putting on hold campus speaking engagements with both the right-wing Daniel Pipes and left-wing Norman Finkelstein as the school set up a new vetting process for Middle East speakers. Surprise, surprise, The Jewish Week now reports that: A free speech dispute over campus speakers has continued to roil Brandeis University in the wake of controversy over its hosting of former president and Israel critic Jimmy Carter. […]
April 5th, 2007 at 2:58 am
Excuse, and what you think concerning forthcoming elections?
April 9th, 2007 at 4:47 am
cool blog!
April 18th, 2007 at 2:09 am
nice photos of this blog