Too many people online yesterday, I couldn’t get on to the Brandies feed to see the Carter speech live, but from the initial reports, it seems that Mr. Peanut continued to say he was being truthful despite the facts . The really weird thing was that he was relatively well received. After all that build-up.

Then I saw Dershowitz’s comment below and it all came together. Still the politician, The Bad Mr Peanut changed his tune just enough, and skipped many facts so he could become Nice Mr Peanut.

There are two different Jimmy Carters,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “You heard the Brandeis Jimmy Carter today, and he was terrific. I support almost everything he said. But if you listen to the Al Jazeera Jimmy Carter, you’ll hear a very different perspective.”

On top of that, there were 15 hand picked questions, specially chosen to make him look good. There was a bit of frustration from the audience because no follow ups were allowed. Below is the story and comments as I have been able to piece together.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?

  • Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

(Fox News)Carter gave a brief address to Brandeis students and faculty and later responded to 15 questions selected in advance. He responded to criticism of his book and discussed his efforts as president for peace in the Middle East. “With my use of apartheid, I realize this has caused great concern in the Jewish community. The title makes it clear,” Carter said. “I can certainly see now it would provoke some harsh feelings. I chose that title knowing that it would be provocative, but in the long run it has precipitated discussion and there has been a lot of positive discussion.” He said the book is about conditions in Palestinian territory, not Israel, and urged his audience to visit the occupied territory to see for themselves

According to Reuters, Carter said that his feelings were hurt by some of the criticism “I’ve been hurt and so has my family by some of the reaction,” Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, told about 1,700 students at Brandeis University, a secular school founded by the American-Jewish community, outside Boston. “I’ve been through political campaigns for state senator, governor and president, and I’ve been stigmatized and condemned by my political opponents. But this is the first time that I have ever been called a liar. And a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward, and a plagiarist. This is hurtful,” he said. Well, em, There you go again, sometimes Mister One Term President Cause You Sucked, sometimes the truth is Hurtful, but it is still the truth.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz had also hoped to debate Carter but was told he would not be allowed inside. Critics were particularly frustrated that Dershowitz was not allowed to debate Carter. “It’s puzzling because he said that he wants to have a discussion of his book and then refused to appear with professor Dershowitz,” said retired Brandeis history professor Morton Keller. Gordon Fellman, a sociology professor and a member of the committee that arranged the visit, said Dershowitz is neither a student nor faculty member at Brandeis and therefore “he can’t get in – and it’s not anti-Dershowitz.”

This is very true, Dershowitz is not a member of the Brandies community, but then again neither former President who is paid by Saudi Arabia to be their Anti-Israel PR front man. Dershowitz wasn’t allowed in because Carter didn’t want him in… a reflection of Carter’s cowardice.

So Far I have only found one report from a blogger who was actually at the event. Terriergirl. And one who heard Dewshowitz on the stream.Kentucky Democrat The Terriergirl said that “nice” Carter was Quite the Statesman:

There were more pro-peace protesters than pro-Israel protesters outside the building when I went in. There was a group, for example that had a sign that said “Killing Civilians is not a Jewish value.”

Inside the event, the front half of the room was heavy with pro-Israel folks (so they had arrived hours ahead to get these seats), and the back had more peacenicks. Each group applauded and stood for different things. Nobody on either side ever booed, shouted, or spoke. There were some high-tension moments, especially when a questioner had a particularly polarizing question. Some students tuned out when Carter said things that were critical of Israel. But folks were mostly polite. There were no protests or signs of any kind in the building.

Everyone in the audience stood when Carter entered, and when he stood up to the podium. Carter spoke about Louis Brandeis (who helped found Israel) and invoked what he called Jewish values of Righteousness and Justice, which he finds in the old testament of the Christian Bible. He pointed out that he has been involved in the Mid-East peace process for over 30 years, and that there are few people with more personal knowledge of the leaders and people involved than he. He pointed out that prior to the Camp David Accord that he brokered, Israel was under threat from Egypt (which was supplied with arms by Russia) and that “not a word” of the peace deal he negotiated between Egypt and Israel has ever been violated.

He said that the oppression of Palestinians was inconsistent with Jewish values, and inconsistent with a safe Israel. He said that the Jewish settlements were in violation of agreements Israel itself had made, and with the legal borders of Israel (?I got mixed up with all the treaties– I think this one was Oslo) and that Israelis had taken the choicest land, built over 200 settlements, and created highways connecting them which Palestinian cannot use or, in some cases, even cross over. This creates a discontinuous fragmented country that is not economically viable. He said that the wall extends very intrusively into the Palestinian territories. He thinks that peace process should be based on the fact that all Arab nations are willing to acknowledge Israel inside it’s “legal” (Oslo accord?) borders, and that Israel should completely withdraw to those borders, and that 60% of Israeli’s and 80% of Palestinians polled recently by the Harry Truman Institute in Israel would be willing to accept such a settlement, and that almost all people on both sides “overwhelmingly” want peace. He suggested that a small group of Brandeis students and professors should visit the occupied territories and see for themselves whether what he saying about the conditions there is true, and that they should bring a report back to the university and the country.

The students asked questions and here are some of them, with his answers, much paraphrased and abbreviated.

Q:Why did you compare the situation in the Palestinian territories with the genocide in Rwanda on ?some talk show?

A: I didn’t. The Rwandan genocide in (?1993?) was second only to the Holocaust in human rights scale. I compared the Palestinian situation to the situation in (? other African nation– forgot which and when).

Q: Isn’t it irresponsible and counterproductive of you to use such an inflammatory word as “apartheid”
A: I thought about it; I take full responsibility for the word choice; lots of people have called me a bigot and a jew-hater and it’s hurt me; We haven’t had any attempt at peace negotiations for 5 years– so it was time to say something and I’m hoping that by starting the debate up we can move towards peace.

Q: Is there really a “partner” for Israel to negotiate with?
A: Dodge, duck– remember about the 25 Arab nations that are willing to recognize Israel and the vast majority on both sides that want peace and will accept a sovereign Israel within it’s legal borders. [Carter obviously doesn’t read a paper]

Q: Before the wall: >200 deaths a year from suicide bombings, after the wall 2/yr– how can you tell Israel not to keep itself safe?
A: Wall would be okay if it were on Israel’s actual border, but wall intrudes into Palestinian territory. Also multiple factors contribute to decrease in mortality including Hamas’ decision to forbid suicide bombings.

Q: The Carter Center takes money from the Saudis and you talk to them. Have you ever confronted them about their human rights abuses particularly towards homosexuals?
A: Carter center takes only 2.5% from Arab nations. We are well audited. The money went to African farm aid and Palestinian elections. There is no corruption. (But he never mentions gay people or their human rights nor does he say that he has confronted the Saudis about it.)

Some Reactions From the audience (from the Boston Globe)

I think he showed how to go about creating a dialogue,” Sebrow said.Sara Hammershleg, 19, a freshman wearing a “Pro Israel, Pro Peace” button, was upset that there hadn’t been a debate, that the questions were screened, and students couldn’t ask follow-ups.”I wish he could have been challenged more,” she said.But Nadhava Palikapitiya, 30, a graduate student from Sri Lanka, said Carter’s message was on the mark.”I agree with him 150 percent, that people have to try to look at this debate objectively,” he said.Carter’s talk was open only to the Brandeis community and the press.An overflow crowd of several hundred students and faculty members watched the speech shown on two large screens in the student center.Across the street from the gym where Carter spoke, a mix of Carter critics and supporters, mostly nonstudents, stood in a designated area holding signs with opposing views.Erik Miller, 26, held a sign that said, “Carter lied, thousands died.” A few feet away, Karen Klein, held a sign expressing support for Carter.Miller, 26, who said he had just returned from a 20-day trip to Israel, is a campus coordinator of the David Project Center for Jewish Leadership, a Boston-area group that supports Israel. He said he objected to the title of Carter’s book.”Israel is the most free, the most open country,” Miller said. “I saw black Jews. I saw brown Jews. I saw white Jews and also non-Jews. The true apartheid is in the Arab world, where if you’re not Muslim and if you’re not male, you can be victimized very easily.”Klein, a member of the Workmen’s Circle, a national Jewish organization, said she believed Carter’s view supported peace in Israel.
“He did some great work in the past,” said David Kuperstein, a junior, but “it has made me a little bit angry, the unfounded skew and bias that he specifically shows in his book toward Israel.Several hours before his speech, Carter signed books at the Harvard Coop in Cambridge for several hundred people, who were mainly supporters.One woman said, “I wish you were running in 2008.”

OH PLEASE G-D NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Dershowitz’ Response explains a lot:

Dershowitz: ‘It’s not so simple’ By Matt Perkins/Daily News staff Wednesday, January 24, 2007 – Updated: 01:28 AM EST Dershowitz said Carter clarified a lot of ambiguities that he said are present within the book. “Had he written a book similar to what he said on the stage, I don’t believe there would have been much controversy,” Dershowitz said. Dershowitz spoke to an audience at Brandeis University’s Gosman Center after Carter’s appearance. Dershowitz said he and Carter aren’t that different. “I wish President Carter and I could work together to bring about peace,” he said. “We’re not that far apart. We are both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine.” Dershowitz said anyone critical of Israel’s policies should not be called an anti-Semite, and agreed with Carter’s idea to have Brandeis students visit the West Bank and even Gaza. And, like Carter, Dershowitz said he would also like to see a resumption of peace talks, which have been dormant for several years. He criticized Carter for leading the audience to believe that a solution to the conditions in the Middle East is as simple as Israel handing back land. “President Carter makes it seem so simple,” he said. “It’s not so simple. And experience shows how complicated it is. These are complicated issues that require difficult solutions, and we did not hear about those complications tonight.” Dershowitz spoke of a missed opportunity to enlighten people. “I think a debate would have been better,” Dershowitz said. “I think a debate would have been more informative for students.” Sophomore Tzipora Hait agreed, and said after Dershowitz’s speech that she would have liked to see the two debate. “He’s (Dershowitz) not that apologetic,” Hait said. “I think the university missed out on him not debating Carter.” “I understand that Carter maybe isn’t so keen on debating Dershowitz,” said Michael Harris, a Brandeis graduate who watched Carter’s speech live before attending Dershowitz’s. Freshman Evan Green-Lowe said that Dershowitz is aiming for the same goal as Carter, just from another side. “It’s a triangle,” he said. “Everyone’s going to the same point. It was a good contrast to that of what President Carter provided.” Still, Dershowitz said that the Carter Brandeis saw last night is only one side of two-sided man. “There are two different Jimmy Carters,” he said. “You heard the Brandeis Jimmy Carter today, and he was terrific.”

The Kentucky Democrat blogger heard the Dershowitz response live on the stream and below are his comments:

Dershowitz Debate :You can listen to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz at Brandeis right here. It’s a live stream. Some will be paraphrased summaries, others might be direct verbatim. Dershowitz thanks Brandeis for letting him speak. He thinks a debate would have been better and more informative (audience applause). Carter used it to make clear and clarify matter’s related to the book. The book and TV interviews were quite different then what Carter said today on stage. He said he wished he could work with Carter to bring about peace in Israel. Both favor a two-state solution, end of settlements, etc. Dershowitz is not a defender of every single policy. Says to read the Israeli newspapers. Visit Israel. Talks of how he first met President Carter. Gives him credit for accomplishments. Both are pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. Would like both states living side by side in peace. A safe and secure Israel that does not have to worry about terrorism. Some things absent from Carter’s speech that were absent: Dershowitz agrees with the Clinton-Barak offer from either 1997 or 2000. Dershowitz supports the Camp David Accord but Carter rejects it. If Palestinians had accepted it, we wouldn’t have had the second intifada. Dershowitz believes it is a self-inflicted wound. The Palestinians had a state in 1948 but rejected it. They could have had a state, they said no. They could have had one in 1967 (excluded from the book). Israel accepted 242 but the Arab states denied it. They could have had one in 2000 and 2001. They said no. It would have been a contiguous states (see Dennis Ross’ book). Clinton and Ross are telling the truth and that Arafat’s refusal to accept was a crime–this was excluded from Carter’s book. Dershowitz was in the audience during Carter’s speech. Quote’s Brinkley on Carter working with Arafat in the 1990s. Answer the question: Were you ever asked to give your advice on Camp David…did you advise Arafat to turn down the offer? If the answer is yes, to what extent is Carter responsible? Wonders if he influenced them on turning down Olmert’s offer. Thinks he is pressuring Palestinians to not compromise for peace. Dershowitz believes Israel should give some territory to the Palestinians. Dershowitz helped Goldberg draft 242. Purposely left out the before territories. Insists on reciprocity only on condition that they are recognized by the Arab states. The Arab plan called for a return of all the Palestinian refugees which would turn it into a radical Islamic state. Israel will not, could not, and should not accept this offer from 2002. Nothing was mentioned today. Israel tried land for peace. This never worked. They gave back Gaza West Bank because of rocket attacks. Carter thinks it is simple. It’s not. and eliminated check points. Many Israelis are reluctant to give up the West Bank because of rocket attacks. Carter thinks it is simple. It’s not. Carter left out Iran today. Not a mention of a nuclear power threatening to annihilate Israel. Palestinians cheered the SCUD’s during the first gulf war. Carter didn’t talk much about Hezbollah. They hide behind civillians and fire rockets on civillians. Heard simplicity, not complexity. They had to put a wall due to snipers. The wall is justified by the need to prevent terror. The wall was the idea of the peaceniks. Would like to see the wall and fence come down. Carter thinks Israel’s future should be left in the hands of Russia, UN, and EU. The UN is the same one that won’t let Israel serve on the Security Council. They said Zionism was racism. Nothing against Libya Syria. UN was so one-sided. Russia has their own problems and doing everything to not sanction Iran. He joins with Carter to try and start negotiations again. Palestinian legislature is dominated by Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Dershowitz believes in democracy. The electoral success of Hamas have consequences in that other countries don’t give money to groups that buy rockets. Carter is wrong that Hamas doesn’t fire rockets any more. Dershowitz then reads off a list. or notes
Carter says rockets should not be equated with terrorism. Today, he corrected it. There are two different Jimmy Carter’s: the one on Al-Jazeera and the one at Brandeis. Ends with Peace, Shalom, Salaam. Large applause

I will try to add more as I learn more…Look for the update notice in the title