Having just returned from the Jimmy Carter visit to Brandeis University followed by the lecture and visit of Alan Dershowitz, I share my view on their comparative strengths and weaknesses and their relative speaking styles.
Brandeis university has been the focus of much controversy as President Jimmy Carter first refused to come and then agreed to come. Alan Dersowitz at first claimed that he would ask the first question after Carter's speech, and then agreed to come and debate after Carter's appearance. People waited out in the snow for three hours for tickets, and now the day finally arrived. I went to wait in line at about 1:15. The doors opened at two, and there was no real line to enter. I got a seat in the third row as close to the microphone as possible basically, so it was really exciting.
Throughout the week, the air had been particularly charged in regard to Carter and whether he should be allowed to speak. The minute Carter walked on stage, I think most doubts really stopped. He exuded that folksy charm that captured the attention of America in the first place. He was incredibly humble and down to earth. He was introduced by Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Hackett Fisher who delivered some unusual jokes about Matzah Balls and the dixie chicks that were strangely inappropriate. Then, as carter began to talk, he delivered a speech mixed with personal anecdotes, a defense of the use of the word apartheid ( including mentions that the word is commonly used in Israeli Media), and criticism of medias attempts to negatively portray him. This speech was brief ( 15 minutes) without a large focus on solutions, but filled with the same sense of naive hope that imbibes his book ( that if both sides just do what they promised the situation will quickly be resolved). He received moderate but respectable applause a couple of times throughout his speech, but received a sustain chuckle when he made a comment that Brandeis University did not need a Harvard Law professor to lecture to us ( as a top but not always recognized school I think there is a general inferiority complex we constantly attempt to shrug off).
The interesting portion of Carter's time was certainly the question and answer period. These were prescreened, but still very aggressive questions for the most part. (editors note: the questions were not screened by Carter or his staff, but by a committee of faculty- This is important to clarify) Yet carter seemed to defuse the tension extraordinarily well. There was a question about his comments on Hardball where he compared the situation in Palestine to that in Rwanda, and Carter said that this was not what he had said at all. He mentioned that Chris Mathews was not the studio that day, and that the sub had asked the absurd comparison. Carter had intended to say that Palestine is worse than Rwanda Today. This seemed like a particularly strange comment and question in the first place.
Carter also importantly apologized for his remark on page 213 of his book, where he seemed to be advocating terrorism. He is unequivocally, he stated, against the use of all violence in the conflict and does not believe that violence should only cease as progress is achieved.
Questions of Saudi Funding also were questions. Carter had with him financial records ( apparently ready for this question) of the Carter Center and read exactly what each bit of Saudi Money went to ( including such things as African aid) and made it clear that most of the money was spent on humanitarian purposes. He also clarified that he personally had NEVER profited from the activities of the Carter center.
Most poingantly, Carter seems truly hurt when he talked about the response the book had received. He talked about how painful it had been to be called an Anti-Semite and a plagiarist and a bunch of derogatory titles. This was probably the most important personal part of the day, and truly brought out a strong crowd response.
Also, Carter Attempted to refocus the debate by suggesting that the Israelis and Palestinians hold open discussion. He did not address which party or parties from among the Palestinians should be represented, but clearly seems to believe that at least some can be taken at face value. He also emphasized that the UN, Russia and the EU could also be brought in the help negotiate settlements ( this was later heavily criticized).
Overall, however, the greatest positive achievement of Carter's presence was to help shift debate away from the Apartheid word, and to what can legitimately be done to alleviate extreme human suffering in the region.
Dershowitz on the other hand had clearly come to debate the fine points of the situation. He quickly launched into several ad homenim attacks on Carter's Role in Arafat's final decision to not accept peace accords in late 2000. In essence Carter's loyalty to the peace process and his willingness to encourage leaders to make difficult decisions was brought into question.
Throughout his speech, he personified the typical intelligent right wing Israeli argument. A few things stood out in particular for me.
Whenever he mentioned Palestinian suffering it was immediately contrasted with suicide family victims and blamed on the Palestinian government.
He said that if a right of return was granted, that Israel would overnight become a Radical Islamic State!!! (baseless of course)
He mentioned the holocaust and Iran at least 4 or 5 times in 15-20 minutes including several explicit links during the q and a portion between Iran and Nazi Germany.
Confrontational seems to be the term best fit to describe Dershowitz. He was heavily critical in particular of Hamas and the voters in the territories. He made the claim that all in the area are responsible for their decision to vote for Hamas and in effect deserve to suffer repercussions.
The questions were at first quite pro Israel. A few people asked question that challenged the pro Israel stance.
One person in particular asked a question about voting for Hamas in the territories and asked if he basically acknowledged that people voted for them for other reasons than their anti- Israel plank (like say economic or social). Dershowitz was particularly vicious and said that she basically was like those who voted for/supported Hitler in Germany. This remark was WAY to strong. She apparently was crying later about this response and I find it particularly despicable. He also made a snide humorous remark about there being two kinds of Palestinians: extremists and maniacs which was quite offensive imo
I asked a question about Iran and mentioned the rejected 2003 attempt by Iran to broker a closer relationship with the US, and to sever ties with Hamas and Hezbolah. I asked how considering this and their vibrant youth culture that is often extremely critical that he could justify viewing them as a solely evil threat. His response was typically critical of nuclear ambitions, but at least acknowledged that he does not support preemptive nuclear strikes at moment due to the complexity of such a endeavor. As a follow up I asked if it was hypocritical for America (the only nation to have dropped an atomic bomb) and Israel to be telling another nation if they could or could not have a nuke. He made a metaphor about us as the police controlling the flow of weapons and that the police were able to have weapons but not the average citizen. This seems to me like a postulate for a totalitarian police state, and is obviously his basis for international relations.
A Palestinian girl also asked a question about what we could personally do to try to communicate our feelings about the suffering to the Israeli Government. He was dismissive and said she was speaking to the wrong crowd and should go tell the Palestinian leaders because they were Completely to blame. Once again this seemed really low handed for the most part. The inability to accept any blame stood out strongly.
Dershowitz was undoubtedly a strong speaker; however, he was rude and aggressive to the point where I was literally frustrated. I left seething in face. The contrast between the two speakers could not have been more pronounced. Carter was the model of Civility, Dershowitz a model of discord. In the end, however, it should not be about who won, but how the debate was furthered. For the community on the whole it was a monumental event.