Guardian

Notorious UK paper posts op-ed by failed US president defending racist extremists


 

Jimmy Carter embraces Khaled Mashal

Jimmy Carter embraces Khaled Mashal

Perhaps no phrase more accurately embodies the moral relativism which began capturing the zeitgeist during the 60s and 70s than ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter‘.

If Cyrus Vance, Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State, aptly echoed the political derivative of this principle when he asserted that U.S. and Soviet leaders “have similar dreams and aspirations about the most fundamental issues”, then his boss’s career after being rejected by the American electorate would come to embody the truism that dangerous ideas which begin on the intellectual margins can slowly become conventional wisdom among political leaders and the opinion elite. 

Indeed, Carter’s history of shilling for the terror group Hamas is perfectly consistent with his perverse empathy for dictators and tyrants around the globe in the name of ‘peace’ while, conversely, demonizing and smearing progressive democratic states like Israel.

Such an ideological persuasion of course makes him a perfect candidate to pen an op-ed at the home address in the UK for such moral inversions, The Guardian.

Gaza blockade must end“, by Carter and Mary Robinson (former UN high commissioner for human rights) begins with a premise which employs a tortured casuistry – suggesting that the blockade is the cause of the conflict between Israel and Hamas and not the consequence of Hamas violence –  that was, tellingly, endorsed recently by the Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black.

After citing erroneous casualty figures for the war, presumably from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, Carter and Robinson blame Israel for deliberately obstructing Hamas’s “promising move towards peace”, citing the reconciliation agreement among the Palestinian factions which, they claim, included the rejection of violence.

However, they fail to note that Hamas emphatically rejected this commitment to non-violence after the unity government was announced, and that that the group demonstrated this insistence upon retaining their ‘right of violent resistance’ by reportedly orchestrating the abduction and murder of three Israeli teens.

Carter and Robinson then insist that “there is no humane or legal justification” for how the IDF pulverized “large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools and hospitals”, which follows the dominant narrative among the far left of ignoring the undeniable, widespread evidence that such structures were targeted (in compliance with international law) because Hamas was illegally using them to house and fire weapons – consistent with the group’s human shield policy

Then they finally pivot to the issue they likely realized would galvanize fellow Hamas apologists, ‘recognition’:

US and EU should recognize that Hamas is not just a military force but also a political one“.

It cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise. Only by recognising its legitimacy as a political actor – one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people – can the west begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons. Ever since the internationally monitored 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power in Palestine, the west’s approach has manifestly contributed to the opposite result. 

Jimmy Carter believes that Hamas will lay down its arms with the right political concessions, demonstrating the capacity of self-styled humanitarians to blame the West for all Arab political failures, delude themselves into accepting the benign nature of even the most dangerous extremists, and whitewash the reactionary, racist principles which guide such movements.

In short:

Hamas will never lay down their weapons, because they are fundamentally committed to violent jihad as the only true path to ‘liberating Palestine’.

Hamas will never lay down their weapons, because they are fundamentally committed to the mass murder of Jews.

Hamas will never lay down their weapons, because they don’t share the same “dreams and aspirations” as we do.

And, the Guardian will never cease legitimizing voices which demonize the nation-state of the Jewish people and running interference for even the most loathsome and malevolent antisemitic movements.

94 replies »

  1. Carter is a pathetic jerk whose worldview is so clouded by his well-known antiSemitic bigotry that he should just be ignored.
    Pretty much the way U.S. public treats him anyway–other than Obama, Carter was the worst President in modern times.

    • Obama is your arms dealer, boss and chief protector how can you be so nasty about the man who controls your destiny in his hands, oh you are taking the pxxx out of the gullible aren’t you

      • But you told us we control Obama. Make up your mind.
        As for arms dealer, if it wasn’t for the US pushing us to sell the Lavi to the Chinese out of fear of competition…

        • No Obama controls you, all the US presidents have, you are their base in the Middle East, they subsidise you , arm you and veto any meaningful two state solution , and have done for years and years, now that makes more sense don’t it, it explains your so called influence, it’s Americas not you, organ grinder ,monkey, you see

          • George Orwell writes:

            “it explains your so called influence, it’s Americas not you, organ grinder ,monkey, you see”

            Even if you are right things might be far worse. After all the fate of the Jewish people might be in the hands of nations like Germany, Britain, Poland and France, and we know to our great cost that that way lie gas chambers and genocide. A plague on all your houses.

            • The fate of Jews if determined by Britain (or indeed France, Germany and Poland) = “gas chambers and genocide”?

              I’m pretty sure that 99% of British Jews would disagree with that deranged nonsense.

              Please step forward, those of you who recommended this nonsense …

              • pretzelberg writes:

                “I’m pretty sure that 99% of British Jews would disagree with that deranged nonsense.”

                Do you imagine Jews are unaware about Britain’s central role in locking the gates of the world against the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust? Britain may have been fighting against the Nazis but that was in spite of the Jewish people and not because of them. Had the Nazis invaded Britain, the British would have behaved exactly as they did in occupied Jersey and handed over the Jews to the SS and Gestapo. Britain was a viciously anti-Semitic nation at that time, no different to nations such as Poland, Hungary and Austria. Your defense of the indefensible is despicable.

                And little has changed in the interim. Are you really unaware about the fear Jews are not displaying. Are you unaware that many are now talking of emigrating? Are you unaware of the torrent of anti-Semitism that is pouring forth from Britain?

                Is this the tipping point?

                http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/121191/is-tipping-point

                Tweeted by Miriam Shaviv (Jewish Chronicle columnist, former Times of Israel London correspondent, JC foreign editor, JPost features writer & literary editor):

                “When I started this discussion, I honestly didn’t believe I’d hear from so many UK Jews scared to id as such in public + thinking of leaving”

              • Pretz, I think the point is that George’s irrational hostility to Israel feeds off a deeper thread of hostility to Jews and the Jewish national project which is latent within European culture, and is largely absent in the USA.

          • Gaorge Galloway Orwell:

            “now that makes more sense don’t it”.
            Does it?
            Not according to your favourate station Press TV.
            In any case answer but one question.
            What has Israel to offer to the USA?
            Oil? – No, The Saudis which are well under the Washington thumb have that.
            Gas? – Hardly enough for its own citizens, but the Caspian sea has much of this.
            Large areas for US militery bases? Nope – not one.
            Jerusalem? Could be, but Jerusalem is split and the US backing Arab control of old city.
            Weapon caches? The one US gives us?
            Nobel Peace medals? Most of these have already left to the US..

            Common man, help me out here. Why would the US need little Israel which is not even a militery viable area due to its narrow centre.

            Is it because it can provide the states plenty of… HEADACHE?

            The US might just support Israel because it sees what will become to Israelis if it collapses?
            I mean, would like 6 million refugees on your door step tomorrow?
            The US didn’t want them in 1942 and they don’t want them now.

            • You got nuclear weapons dumb ass, and are a perfectly placed military base to control the region, you can fight for the US and if it all goes wrong the US can blame you

              • In a way you are right. Israel is certainly the only stable country in the area, and the only democracy. The Arabs have nothing that compares. No wonder they hate it.

              • G.O.

                “and if it all goes wrong the US can blame you”

                I’ll give you that one.
                As for the nukes, just like with Iraq’s nuclear programme, it’s all down to the French who likes to upset the Americans every now and again.
                Are you French or Iranian by chance?

  2. As has been remarked elsewhere, this is for very obvious reasons quite possibly the beginning of the end for the Jews of Britain. Certainly many Jews are wondering for the first time in their lives whether they should remain in Britain.

    Here’s the editor of the Jewish Chronicle making an associated point:

    Is this the tipping point?

    [extract]

    “Malcolm Gladwell defines a tipping point as “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point”.

    On Tuesday, Baroness Warsi resigned because the government refused to attack Israel sufficiently.

    Later that day, the Tricycle Theatre told a Jewish charity it was not welcome unless it denounced Israel.

    On Sunday, Ed Miliband decided to cast Israel to the wind and use its citizens’ security as a domestic political pawn.

    Also at the weekend, anti-Israel mobs attempted to strong-arm supermarkets into dropping all Israeli produce. Some forced stores to close.

    The previous week, an Israeli theatre troupe was banned by its venue from performing in Edinburgh. The list goes on but you get the picture. And that’s without even mentioning the huge rise in antisemitic incidents since the start of Operation Protective Edge.

    I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by wondering if this is a tipping point.
    Take John Prescott. Hasbeen he might be but when a former deputy prime minister thinks it’s ok to compare Israel with the Third Reich by calling Gaza a concentration camp, and when there is not even a hint from his party that his comments might be worth even mild condemnation, then something has changed in the political ether.”

    Follow the link for the remainder of the article:

    http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/121191/is-tipping-point

    • Please separate hating Israel and it’s murderous regime, see recent evidence, from hating of Jews they are separate things, I know for your prop purposes you put the two together but it fools no one

      • I certainly cannot separate you from the culture that spawned you for you are both profoundly evil.

        In a moral universe, it is Europe that would have been wiped off the face of the map after the Holocaust.

        And who could be more murderous than the British even in the last century from Dresden to collaboration in the Holocaust and Hiroshima to post-war Palestine, Malaya, Kenya and in more recent years in illegal wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan? That’s leaving aside the days of Empire when they jackbooted their way around the world and murdered and enslaved many millions of innocent souls.

          • “I agree but two wrongs bagel”

            The only wrong here on Israel’s side is the kind of bigotry that you represent that would suggest that Israel has no right to defend herself or at least a right that is so circumscribed as to be meaningless. Such a comparison as you have made is not just wrong it is wicked. On one side we have the virtual genocide inflicted by the British on countless nations and on the other we have the tiny nation of Israel having to defend herself against the myriad forces of Islamofascism and their many anti-Semitic allies, Jew-baiting allies just like yourself. It is you and they who are the true face of evil.

            But I’m glad you agree that Europe has no moral right to exist.

      • The only fool is racists like you. Murderous – compared to whom? Not any Western country, certainly not a Muslim regime, not even an Asian or South American country. So to whom are you comparing us?

        Why are you so obsessed with us? Has you life so little meaning that you have to obsess and obsess and then obsess yourself so more over us?

        Without your racism your life must have no meaning. Well guess what we survive very nicely without your Eurotrash racists. Our religion does not depend upon your’s but I bet the converse is not true.

      • “Please separate hating Israel and it’s murderous regime, see recent evidence, from hating of Jews they are separate things”
        You’re projecting. It’s you and George Orwell that are completely separate things. You are fooling yourself.

    • Ed Miliband decided to cast Israel to the wind and use its citizens’ security as a domestic political pawn.

      Except … he did no such thing.

      • Isn’t it strange though that he’s always been awfully quiet about any of the world’s other, and much much bloodier conflicts?

      • pretzelberg writes:

        “Except … he did no such thing”

        Tweeted by Stephen Pollard, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle:

        “Inundated this am with texts and emails from Lab supporters despairing at Ed M playing politics over Gaza”

        Laughable also given how many thousands of civilians were killed as a result of Britain’s recent involvement in illegal wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. And that nation took no care regarding protection of civilians. Compare and contrast that atrocious conduct with the infinite pains taken by Israel during the recent conflict in Gaza. At very best, Miliband is an outrageous hypocrite. The reality is that that odious wretch would sell out his own grandmother to score a political point. After all, look what he did to his own brother.

  3. Lol, you have nerve calling others terrorists as Israel the terrorist state commits genocide in Gaza, deliberately targeting over 400 children to murder. Go find your lost souls, Zionists, you disgust humanity.

          • Pretz.
            I do not see this as being initiated by BagelBoy.
            Let me try and explain my taking on this short exchange.

            Sherrimunnerlyn suggested that the Israeli nation’s recent militery actions disgust humanity.
            It is therefor safe to asume that this nation is not a part of the “humane” world (whatever that means).

            BagelBoy suggested that in light of Every Arab nation’s recent human rights records they should really be treated in the same light and as a result be left out of that “humane” circle that the Israeli nation seemed to have “shamed”.

            This does not mean to say I agree, but simply to say the original statement is obviously incorrect morally and is utter nonesense because you will have to remove most if not all nations out of this humane circle.

            Do you believe Arab nations behave in a better light then Israel does / did since its creation in aspects relating to morality?
            Do take into account the condition and elements that Israel has been living under before answering this question.
            And yes, you should most certainly take into account the Palestinians when examining how several Arab nations have behaved and abused them when they were helplessly under its protection and still are.

            I am not one of those who believe Arabs as a group, or Palestinians as a group, behave in a certain pattern and should be excused from moral outrage like children do.
            I believe they are equal to us in every way and precisely because of this should rise up and vent their outrage at their shallow options of representatives.
            Why do we see many Saudi bloggers and Egyptian bloggers naming and shaming what the PIJ, Hamas and the PA do, or don’t do for that matter, yet we fail to hear the actual Palestinians? Many in the Guardian are wishing for a revolution but the revolution they focusing on is the wrong one.
            Rising against Israel will not end the Palestinian suffering even if they destroy it entirely.

            As some one who has Israeli Jews from Arab countries in his family, and as friends, I can tell you that the mob role, supression of other voices, corruption and mafia mentality currently flourishing in most if not all Arab nation states is not doing anyone any favours, least of all the Arabs living in these states.
            Not speaking out against this by calling a spade a spade is nothing more than aiding such terrible regimes and governments and prolonging these scenarios where the internal population reside in shameful social conditions.

            • “BagelBoy suggested that in light of Every Arab nation’s recent human rights records they should really be treated in the same light and as a result be left out of that “humane” circle”

              My point pretty much exactly. However, because of the track record of Europe on the Jews, I also doubt the humanity of the European nations. Certainly, if I had been hiding from the Nazis, I would have asked for help from an Arab long before I would have approached say a Pole or an Englishman.

              Given how ready he is to defend the indefensible in terms of the Jewish people (see for example various posts on this thread), there must be serious questions raised about pretzelberg’s goodwill towards our people.

    • sherrimunnerlyn:
      “deliberately targeting ”

      Proof please.
      Or are you another non British twat that brings these ISIS elements of guilty until proven innocent to our shores.

      • No the truth is Israel do not care, it’s state terrorism it needs the killing of men women children , to try to kill the spirit of resistance in Palestine, but you have to admire the resilience of the people, and despise the cowardly attacks by Israel

        • g.o.

          I pity the Palestinians who are stuck between crappy thugish leaderships and have been for years.
          What you don’t hear is the thugish attitude and crime Arabs commit against Jewish Israelis on daily basis.
          Just look all around the ME and see who’s the true brutal states are.
          Start in Iran and Pakistan and go West.

        • “George Orwell” writes:

          “No the truth is Israel do not care……”

          Much more Julius Streicher than George Orwell.

        • but you have to admire the resilience of the people, and despise the cowardly attacks by Israel

          No you don’t. You have to admire the reticence of Israel and sympathise with the foolish, immature and lethal nature of the Gazans.

          • Just for comparison:

            Dresden bombing:
            Duration: 3 days and further 3 days of smaller raids
            Amount of munitions dropped: 3900 tonnes.
            Death toll: Estimated at 25000.

            Gaza bombing:
            Duration: 29 days
            Amount of munition dropped: Just air bombing is estimated by some to be over 10000 tonnes (4762 targets) Need to add the tank, boats and cannon shells to get a more accurate picture.
            Death toll: Approx 1800+

            What you don’t know and they’ll never tell is how many died from gun shots during fighting, how many died from natural deaths and how many were executed by Hamas themselves as happened yesterday.

            Whether one agrees with the IDF response and decision to enter Gaza or even begin by bombing it, one should not make up allegations that Israel didn’t care and came out to flatten Gaza.
            I’d like to point out that the death toll really started to rise sharply on Day 10 – 11 when the ground operation began. This hints at death from air strikes to be lower and death through combat an close encounter to be a higher possibility.

    • Genocide? Really? Killing over 1,000 terrorists is genocide? Since when?

      There are more people killed in Syria per day than in a month of combat.

      Over 60% of the casualties are combatants – NATO at best manages between 10-25%.

    • @ sherrimunnerlyn
      You seem to have a hatred of Zionists. What exactly is your definition of that term?

    • I am not sure you have any idea what humanity is unless you mean humanity is Hamas killing 160 children digging tunnels. Or Hamas shooting and killing their own poeple with misfried rockets shot from hospital and populated areas.

    • “Lol, you have nerve calling others terrorists as Israel” @#%$^$%()*#(*@(*@(……
      sherrinazilyn,
      It doesn’t take nerve, only a sober and dispassionate assessment of facts. These are clearly attributes you lack. In the real and factual world it is your terror buddies who target innocents for murder, and unlike your accusations, it really is murder. We all know it, because they brag about it publicly and act on it, i.e., a rather simple test. What’s really troubling is that you know it, and come here to slash and slander anyway, which is far worse than someone who is just merely confused.

  4. “It cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise”

    Wow, Carter finally recognized that Israel cannot be expected to cooperate in its own demise!

    Oh wait, he’s not talking about Israel? So in Carter-world, the existence of a terrorist group must be respected, but a functioning, sovereign nation CAN be expected to “cooperate in its own demise”?

    He’s even more venal than I previously thought.

    • cba – Carter loves ALL terrorist groups and regimes and despises all democracies. It was the same when he was the President. He has always been a racist moron

      • It’s almost funny. No one really liked him when he was running for President (one of those hold your nose and vote kind of elections – he’s not Nixon). No one thought too much of him as President. He was always seen as sanctimonious and inept, projecting that “our best days are behind us” aura. Even a B movie actor could kick his ass after four years as POTUS.

  5. Reblogged this on danmillerinpanama and commented:
    Dear old Jimmy Carter, the patron saint of terrorist organizations and dictators, who so loves the poor, disenfranchised and oppressed that he needs increasing numbers of them. But enough about him.

    An article by Andrew C. McCarthy at PJ Media titled Carter and Robinson: The Hamas Jihad’s Useful Idiots observes that

    Mrs. Robinson is the former president of Ireland and UN high commissioner for human rights, whose pro-terrorist sympathies and anti-Israel animus were ably chronicled several years back by Michael Rubin. (See “Mary Robinson, War Criminal?”.) In 2001, she led the notorious Durban conference (the “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Zenophobia and Related Intolerance”) that was so rabidly anti-Semitic the American delegation stormed out. Yet, eight years later under a new, hard-Left administration, there stood Robinson in the White House being honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. [Emphasis added.]

    . . . .

    The operating assumption of their op-ed is that Israel must cooperate in its own demise by ceasing to defend itself and abandoning the blockades absent which Hamas would quickly acquire even more deadly mass-destruction weapons. Furthermore, Hamas’ raison d’être is the annihilation of Israel by terrorist jihad; so by the authors’ reasoning, it could never be expected to agree to non-violent coexistence with a Jewish state since that would amount to the demise of Hamas.

    Carter and Robinson are quite a team.

  6. I find it difficult to understand why people like ex president Jimmy Carter and other critics of Israel don’t give Egypt even a mention regarding its blockade of Israel. Couldn’t be bigotry could it? And Jordan threw them out (something like 10,000 Palestinians 20/30 years ago) because they were so difficult. I don’t put the blame on these two countries but things a not so simple as the haters want to think in order to justify their hate speech! The problem is really with terrorists whose only interest is power and control and the Palestinians seem to eat this up! People want to forget there was a time when Palestinians went back and forth into Israel to work and shop, but then the terrorists showed up! What do you think?

  7. If you dislike Carter’s criticism of Israel, fair enough.
    But if you want your own criticism to be taken seriously, it would help not to dishonestly headline him as “failed president” (which you obviously would not have done had his attitude towards Israel been more positive) nor distort his generally reasonable words into “demonizing the nation-state of the Jewish people” (nice: why not just say “Israel?) and “shilling for Hamas”.

    Carter’s criticism of Israel has been polite. You could at least address him and his points in a similarly reasonable manner.

    This is a lowpoint for CiFWatch.

    • pretzelberg,
      If you had lived here in the US during his time in office you would know that he was a failed president. His first and only term was seen as such a failure by Democrats that Senator Ted Kennedy launched a major challenge to his renomination. Many of us supported Kennedy in that challenge for reasons that had zip to do with the Mideast Conflict.
      “demonizing the nation-state of the Jewish people”
      People suspect Carter of being a little bit, well, you know.
      “Carter’s criticism of Israel has been polite.”
      Yes, his demeanor is very polite. So what? “Peace not Apartheid?” He was advised by friends and supporters that the title of his book would be both off the mark, unnecessarily inflammatory and extremely unhelpful. He went ahead with the title anyway, and those who had warned him were right. Now he’s hanging out with Mrs. Durbin.
      I suppose Adam could have said he’s very sweet but dangerously mistaken.
      Adam’s headline was blunt and to the point. I think he got it right.

      • Carter has hardly been the vicious or indeed bigoted critic of Israel that Adam wishes to portray him as. And his “apartheid” reference was to the West Bank, not Israel.

        Thanks nonetheless for the polite response. 😉

        BTW: Nixon would by all accounts deserve the label “failed president.” But Adam would not dream of calling him that, given his admirable record when it came to Jews. Oh shit, hang on …

        • The failure of Nixon’s presidency rests on the fact that he broke the law. He had many successes, and, no, I was not a fan.
          I have no idea how you know what Adam would or would not dream of doing.
          You’re being prickly.

          • BTW Nixon did support Israel to his credit. Many people say he was anti-Semitic, and no one in any of the liberal circles I’ve travelled in ever took offense to that notion.

    • Polite, but stupid, That’s old Jimmy for ya. Notice he has not at any point demanded Hamas to stop firing rockets. A good test to find a bigot is to see if he at all mentions Hamas or only demands things of Israel.

    • Pretzelberg writes:

      “Carter’s criticism of Israel has been polite.”

      God save us from polite anti-Semites.

  8. “Hamas will never lay down their weapons, because they are fundamentally committed to violent jihad as the only true path to ‘liberating Palestine’.

    Hamas have already offered terms for a ten year truce and have agreed to accept any two state solution democratically approved by a majority of Palestinians. It’s not long since the PLO was demonised and denied negotiations just as Hamas is treated now. Negotiating with ‘terrorists’ is often successful; witness the IRA, ANC and, from Israel’s point of view, the PLO.

    “Hamas will never lay down their weapons, because they are fundamentally committed to engaging in the mass murder of Jews.”

    Hamas opposes an occupying force. Its charter talks about Jews but its leaders have for many years been clear that it is Israeli occupation and colonialism that they are committed to resist – as they are entitled to under international law.

    “Hamas will never lay down their weapons, because they don’t share the same “dreams and aspirations” as we do.”

    Well that much is certainly true. Israeli ‘dreams and aspirations’ are to colonise as much Palestinian territory as possible and ideally to drive Palestinians out of their lands. Unsurprisingly Hamas doesn’t share those aspirations.

    • Do you even know what the word “colonise” you so commonly and mindlessly use mean? How can a country “colonise” the same territory it exists in? Have you ever gave even a moment of thought about the nonsense you copy-paste? Read about colonialism before you spout your idiocy.

      • Definition of ‘colonise’ from Dictionary.com:
        ” verb (used with object), colonized, colonizing.
        1. to establish a colony in; settle:
        England colonized Australia.”

        That is just what Jewish settlers did in what is now Israel and what Israeli settlers are now doing in the West Bank. The fact that there were small numbers of Jews in Palestine before zionist immigration doesn’t make that immigration any less of a colonisation. There were Christians in India as early as the 1st century AD but that didn’t make the British takeover of that country any less of a colonisation either.

        Incidentally, Epidermoid, the term ‘colonise’ includes no reference to the status of the territory settled. There was no ‘nation state’ in Australia when European settlers colonised it and displaced most of its native peoples.

        Colonisation was not seen in a negative light in the Europe of the early zionists and the term was freely used in their discourse. The ‘Basel Program’ adopted by the first Zionist congress in 1897 stated as the first means of attaining its ends:
        “1. The promotion, on suitable lines, of the colonizationof Palestine by
        Jewish agricultural and industrial workers.”.

        • Brian the writing of which Fascist will you be promoting today?

          Please don’t ask again which Fascist you have promoted, you have been shown twice and on both occasions scurried away with your tail between your legs.

          It used to be anathema to give a platform to Fascists but you have descended below that and promoted the writing of one in a futile attempt to find someone who will support your ‘point of view’.

          That says all I need to know about you.

          • Gerald, I promote ideas not people. If you have anything to say about the facts I claim or the arguments I make,please say so. Your ad hominem slurs leave me distinctly unimpressed.

            • “I promote ideas not people”
              Yes Brian and the ‘ideas’ you were promoting in your link were those of a Fascist.
              Your refusal to repudiate those ‘ideas’ demonstrates your acceptance of them.

              As for “ad hominem slurs”, no Brian all I have posted are facts.
              That you regard facts as slurs, that you are prepared to link to and promote the ‘ideas’ of a Fascist clearly demonstrates how desperate you are to not only to scrape a barrel but scrape a sewer to find ‘ideas’ that support your viewpoint.

              I don’t seek to impress you Brian, why would I want to impress someone who promotes the ‘ideas’ of a Fascist?
              I have no need to ‘slur’ you Brian you condemn yourself with your own posts and links.

    • as much Palestinian territory as possible

      But the territory is not Palestinian. Where are the articles that set Palestine as a nation state with sovereignty over anything?

      • Some say that denying the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and their own state constitutes anti-Semitism.
        What’s the term for the bigotry that denies that same right to Palestinians?

        • Pretz, who’s denying what?
          In any case the territory is contested and has been disputed since 1947.
          Hell, even many of the Palestinians and shiite Lebanese agree with that.

    • “Hamas opposes an occupying force. Its charter talks about Jews but its leaders have for many years been clear that it is Israeli occupation and colonialism that they are committed to resist – as they are entitled to under international law.”

      Hamas TV teaches children: Shoot all the Jews

    • Hamas have already offered terms for a ten year truce
      How nice of him 10 year truce so he can rebuild himslef in Gaza. With more develope weapons. You either thinks we are stupid or else you belive Hamas want peace which says a lot about you.

      and have agreed to accept any two state solution democratically approved by a majority of Palestinians.
      A source please,.

    • sencar:

      “…and ideally to drive Palestinians out of their lands.”

      We’re so good at it we allow them to have a well paid job in our parliament, our TV netwrok, papers, schools and even to run our hospitals.

  9. Has Arab Oil Money Bought Jimmy Carter?
    http://www.factsandlogic.org/outstanding_dershowitz2.html
    Ex-President for Sale: Carter’s Arab Oil Money
    Alan Dershowitz
    January 15, 2007

    I have known Jimmy Carter for more than thirty years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice. I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign. Shortly thereafter, my former student

    Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election. When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East. Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that he was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.

    Recent disclosures of Carter’s extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source? And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School—Rachael Lea Fish—showed me the facts. They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up—a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son- hosted speakers who called Jews “the enemies of all nations,” attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States’ own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a “fable.” (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

    Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard’s decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: “This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al- Nahyan.” Carter’s personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot.

    In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.

    The extent of Carter’s financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter’s friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter “$500,000 to help the former president establish his center…[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter’s different projects.” Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank—ostensibly the source of his funding—”the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists.” BCCI isn’t the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center—”in 1993 alone . . . $7.6 million” as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.

    It’s worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government’s myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center’s Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price. The bought quality of the Center’s activities becomes even more clear, however, when reviewing the Center’s human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan, or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center’s website The Carter Center’s mission statement claims that “The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities.” How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel’s far less
    serious ones?

    No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money?

    Ask Carter. The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks. It is Carter—not me—who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves. It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter’s own standards, it would be almost economically “suicidal” for Carter “to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine.”

    By Carter’s own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position. It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.

    I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke.

    These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is fooling himself).

    If money determines political and public views—as Carter insists “Jewish money” does—then Carter’s views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter’s off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter’s sad legacy.

  10. Carter is an Assad apologist.
    Just like in the 80s after Assad Sr killed 20,000 of his own people in 82, Carter was an apologist of Assad Sr. Now we find out, he’s also an apologist of Assad Jr

    http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/12048
    Assad’s Emails Hacked: Jimmy Carter Embraced Syria Regime before Obama [incl. David Lesch]
    Gianluca Mezzofiore
    February 9, 2012

    Former US president Jimmy Carter sought to boost diplomatic links with Syria and improve image of President Bashar al-Assad after Bush administration.

    In a heated email exchange between a Carter representative and Assad’s spin-doctor, Bouthaina al-Jaafara, details of the plan have emerged.

    David Lesch wrote to Jaafara in November 2008 to organise a visit by Carter. His email reveals US plans to boost ties with Syria before Barack Obama, who had just been elected president, entered office.

    “I also wish you the best of luck in finding some funding for the PR/communication firm we spoke about so that we can have the adequate mechanism to prepare coverage for the event in December, but also to improve US-Syrian relationship at a crucial time before the next administration comes into office, to improve the image of Syria and President Bahsar in the United States, and help with other form of cooperation,” he wrote.

    Under the Bush administration the relationship between the US and Syria was dire. Washington described Damascus as a pariah, imposed economic sanctions and recalled its ambassador. But in 2008, an email hacked by the Anonymous group show how Professor Lesch urged Assad’s representatives to carefully plan Carter’s visit.

    Abstracts of the emails show Lesch extremely concerned about the lack of support by Syria’s Ministry of Tourism. “As we discussed in our last meeting together on October 20th, we have been less than satisfied with the assistance of the Ministry of Tourism, although we consider it to be a friendly and necessary partner in all of this,” he wrote. “As I told you, the Ministry has not even replied to our e-mails or helped us arrange our past visits to begin to establish the SCWT [ [Syrian Cultural Walking Trail] . If this lack of help continues in this way, I do not think the December event will be a success for anyone.”

    In another extract, he wrote in capital letters: “We really need a note from you to the ministry of tourism strongly urging their cooperation and having authorization to plan this event accordingly. We really need our team on the ground led by Mr. Daniel Adamson and Osama al-Nouri to have the freedom to plan this event and make decisions and not wait for permission for every little thing from the ministry of tourism.”

    At a private meeting on October 19, 2008 between Lesch and Assad, the Syrian President confirmed that he and Carter would inaugurate the Syrian Cultural Walking Trail by walking together into the historic town of Maalula.

    As recently as March 2011, Lesch wrote in the New York Times:

    “The crackdown on protesters doesn’t necessarily indicate that he [Assad] is tightening his grip on power; it may be that the secret police, long given too much leeway, have been taking matters into their own hands.”

    In his 2008 visit to Middle East, Carter also met with the political leaders of Hamas in Syria.

  11. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/04/jimmy-carter-called-hafez-assad-close.html
    Jimmy Carter called Hafez Assad “a close personal friend” soon after 1982 Hama massacre
    April 9, 2013
    In February, 1982, Syria’s president Hafez al-Assad murdered between 30-40,000 people in the city of Hama.

    A year later, in March 1983, Jimmy Carter referred to the mass murderer as “a close personal friend” who he has a “special relationship” with. He expressed the hope that if Assad would come to the negotiating table, he could be on the same side as the Egyptians, Palestinians, Jordanians, and Americans in pressuring – Israel.

    All of this was recorded in New York Magazine, June 6, 1983, and verified by Carter’s friend and advisor, Kenneth Stein, who would later famously break with Carter over the lies he wrote in his 2006 book.

  12. Jimmy Carter and Pallywood.

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2007/03/jimmy-carter-quotes-fake-mandela-latter.html
    March 09, 2007
    Jimmy Carter quotes fake Mandela latter to prove Israeli “apartheid”

    From South Africa’s Business Today:
    IS ISRAEL an apartheid state? Apparently Nelson Mandela thinks so. In a recent letter to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Mandela lays out the case against Israel with unusual candour. Mandela’s words are now being quoted all over the world. Last month, former US president Jimmy Carter cited the letter in a speech at Brandeis University. And who’s going to argue with Madiba?

    Unfortunately for Israel’s critics, the letter is a hoax. It is the creation of a man named Arjan El Fassed, who runs an anti-Israel website called The Electronic Intifada. El-Fassad has admitted that he made the whole thing up, but the Mandela letter has now entered the anti-Israel canon alongside countless other fictions. Yet, much like the Israel-apartheid comparison itself, it is completely spurious.
    Read the whole thing.

    While it appears that Fassed did not push this hoax, it shows volumes about Jimmy Carter’s devotion to truth that he quotes a fake letter that would only exist on anti-Israel websites.

  13. The Guardian is worrying about the unprecedented increase of antisemitism in Europe. The only question is whether they are cynically playing the laughable dumb or they really don’t know their own very relevant role in the phenomenon.

  14. The Left is becoming irrelevant. There view of the world does not take into account its at times sad reality. We are approaching 21st century fascism at warp speed. The Arabs are killing their minorities faster than Amnesty can issue reports and Obama can send in the relief supplies. And Jon Snow talks about dead babies. This dynamic may flip fast as the Arabs murder their way across various deserts. People in the West will see…