Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

I think this may provide an interesting angle on the history of the Palestinian problem.

feel free to share if you find it educational.

cheers

Issa Nakleh certainly has a long list of accomplishments and is well covered on the internet.

I would have expected Nakleh's viewpoints more forthcoming from someone of of the Islamic faith than the Christian faith, but he certainly is well qualified.

U2 was flown under Republican Ike not Kennedy.

To blame the Ashkanazis for Likud's radicalism is wrong as they mostly vote Labor while the Sephardis mostly vote Likud. The Sephardis are the ones uprooted from Islamic countries after the creation of Israel and also more religious as they were the original Jewish Spaniards expelled from Spain. The Ashkanazis of European origin probably more liberal and guilty about creating Israel out Arab soil, were more interested in integrating the Palestinians. The Russian Jews could would be divided into Laborites and Likudniks. The less religious being Laborite while the likes of Nathan Sharansky being in the Likud camp.

Just as the Muslim Brotherhood were banned in Egyptian politics so should the Jewish religious parties in Israeli politics..

Zip, there is nothing like having a nonbiased source.

"One participant of the 1982 conference was Issa Nakhleh, head of the
Palestine Arab Delegation, an extremist pro-PLO group originally
formed by the notorious Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who broadcast from
Nazi Germany to the Arabs in the Middle East. In the US, Nakhleh has
associated in recent years with Western Front, an antisemitic
organisation."
--Nizkor.org

Has this been posted?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243082,00.html

I thought Carter was just incompetent, but my opinion is shifting a bit. I think he is close to being a little short of a full deck, and with some very out of the mainstream ideas. I always knew his brother, Billy, was not completely balanced, but Jimmy Boy is really digging himself a hole now. He is so desperate to be involved and have some kind of a legacy, I think he is only making it worse.

Out of the mainstream ideas like a right to life, liberty, and property? Or a right to self determination? Justice and the rule of law? How very out of the mainstream.

The Israel Palestinian problem is simple. Either you believe Israel has a right to exist or you don't. That is why I don't generally debate these threads because the discussions basically dance around the root of the conflict, which is the existence of Israel.

You either agree that the Palestinian people have a right to their property and to self determination or you don't. It's that simple.

Do you believe Palestinians should have a right to property that is used to launch bombings and killings?

Free Duck, I really don't care to debate this ridiculous argument. I have observed this problem since the 60's, and the Israelis have basically just reacted to the violence against them, first in the form of nations, and now in the form of terrorists, suicide bombers, etc. I don't have a good answer to the problem except there needs to be a clear winner in any war. The Palestinians need to get their act together and do something productive instead of supporting terrorist groups bent on exterminating Israel. In the meantime, they should be grateful they haven't all been either killed or shipped off to some other country for their efforts.

If you think Israel should be wiped off the map, then propose that, and support the efforts to do that, but if not, then quit criticizing what they do in the interest of self preservation.

Do you honestly think you can prove that all of the land that was taken (coincidentally highly valuable land and water sources) was taken because of terrorist attacks? The facts don't support that, which is why you don't want to debate it.



Which ridiculous argument -- that the Palestinians have a right to their property and to self determination?



They should be grateful? Grateful to who?



Are those really the only two choices you can come up with? I see now why you don't like to debate this topic. What I think is that Israel should live within its 1967 borders and make peace with its neighbors. Why is that such a ridiculous idea?

Israel has given back some of what they've gained, but you only need to see what happened with terrorists launching attacks from Lebanon most recently to figure out that Israel would be more vulnerable within its 1967 borders. If there was a 100% ironclad guarantee that they would be left alone, they would probably grant more concessions, but has any terrorist enemy of Israel ever lived up to their promises? No. It is common knowledge that Yassar Arafat used to tell the world one thing, then go tell his people the opposite. Palestinian and terrorist leaders all operate in the same mode to this day. Their handbook says to negotiate as a ploy to buy time and re-arm. The ultimate goal stands, and that is to eradicate Israel. Until you face up to that simple fact, you will never understand the Palestinian / Israel problem.

okie, what is so special about Israel that its existence is so paramount? Judaism is a local variant of Zoroastrianism which is homeless. Its adherents, the Parsees live in India and not Iran their homeland. Judiasm will probably become homeless like its parent religion as it isolates itself with "cleanliness" rules of Zoroastrianism.

Ask the U.N., not me. They are the ones that set it up to solve a big problem. After all, don't they have considerable claim to an area in that region? And the country is pretty small, don't you think? It isn't as if they were given much.

While we're at it, why do we exist? Why does Germany exist? Why does any country exist?

Israel was bornout of violence by outsiders namelybritain, the u.S. and British and American Jews with no say for Arab on Arab soil. How about an Arab Caliphate is set up in Oklahoma?

Something tells me that I shouldn't be looking to you to find out how to understand the Israel/Palestinian conflict. But the fact remains that you seem to think that Carter is off his rocker to think that the Palestinian people are entitled to basic human and politicaql rights. I don't see why that idea is so ridiculous.

Because they are foolish enough to elect a terrorist organization to govern them.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Jimmy Carter's Hatred: Funded by Arab Money
Often the Peanut President tells us that among the reasons for writing his new book of anti semitic lies is that a true debate about the middle east is impossible because of the " Jewish Lobby," as if the Jews in America were some sort of secret society that controlled foreign policy (guys if its true will someone teach me the secret handshake). Apparently Carter is not interested in a debate as he turned down the opportunity to discuss Israel with Alan Dershowitz in a public forum at Brandies University. To pile it on, something I love to do with anti-semitic SOB's, I present to you highlights of this Front Page article, which says in part that CARTER IS BEING FUNDED BY THE ARAB COUNTIES, to go on this Israel hatred rampage. Hats of to Bruce at the New York Coalition Against Terrorism for pointing the article out to me.




Jimmy Carter and the Arab Lobby


By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 18, 2006

.......In particular, Carter claims that critics are compromised by their support for Israel, their ties to pro-Israel lobbying organizations, and -- a more pernicious charge -- their Jewish background. In interviews about his book, Carter has seldom missed an opportunity to invoke what he calls the "powerful influence of AIPAC," with the subtext that it is the lobbying group, and not his slanderous charges about Israel, that is mainly responsible for mobilizing popular outrage over Palestine. In a related line of defense, Carter has singled out "representatives of Jewish organizations" in the media as the prime culprits behind his poor reviews and "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment" as the main obstacle to forthright debate about his book on American universities. (Ironically, when challenged last week by Alan Dershowitz to a debate about his book at Brandeis University, which has a large Jewish student body, Carter rejected the invitation.)
Bluster aside, Carter's chief complaint seems to be that anyone who identifies with Israel, whether in the form of individual support or in a more organized capacity, is incapable of grappling honestly with the issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Carter is poorly placed to make this claim. If such connections alone are sufficient to discredit his critics, then by his own logic Carter is undeserving of a hearing. After all, the Carter Center, the combination research and activist project he founded at Emory University in 1982, has for years prospered from the largesse of assorted Arab financiers.

Especially lucrative have been Carter's ties to Saudi Arabia. Before his death in 2005, King Fahd was a longtime contributor to the Carter Center and on more than one occasion contributed million-dollar donations. In 1993 alone, the king presented Carter with a gift of $7.6 million. And the king was not the only Saudi royal to commit funds to Carter's cause. As of 2005, the king's high-living nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, has donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center.

Meanwhile the Saudi Fund for Development, the kingdom's leading loan organization, turns up repeatedly on the center's list of supporters. Carter has also found moneyed allies in the Bin Laden family, and in 2000 he secured a promise from ten of Osama bin Laden's brothers for a $1 million contribution to his center. To be sure, there is no evidence that the Bin Ladens maintain any contact with their terrorist relation. But applying Carter's own standard, his extensive contacts with the Saudi elite must make his views on the Middle East suspect.


High praise for Carter's work -- and not inconsiderable financial support -- also comes from the United Arab Emirates. In 2001, Carter even traveled to the country to accept the Zayed International Prize for the Environment, named for Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the late UAE potentate and former president-for-life. Having claimed his $500,000 purse, Carter enthused that the "award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan al-Nahyan." Carter also hailed the UAE as an "almost completely open and free society" -- a surreal depiction of a rigidly authoritarian country where the government handpicks a select group of citizens to vote and strictly controls the editorial content of the newspapers and where Islamic Shari'a courts judge "sodomy" punishable by death. (To appreciate the depth of Carter's cynicism, one need only compare his gushing encomia to the emirates with his likening of Israel, the most modern and democratic country in the entire Middle East, with the racist "apartheid" of South Africa.)

On top of these official honors, Carter was offered a forum at the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up, the country's official "think-tank." For his part, Carter declared his intention to forge a "partnership" with the center; in a 2002 letter, Carter praised its efforts to "promote peace, health, and human rights around the world." Inconveniently for Carter, the center has since become famous for a different reason: It has repeatedly played host to anti-Semitic speakers who have denied the Holocaust, supported terrorism, and alleged an international conspiracy of Jews and Zionists to dominate the world. (Harvard University, in contrast to Carter's enthusiasm for Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, rejected a $2.5 million from the ruler in 2004 due to his ties to the Zayed Center.)

Nor does this exhaust the list of Carter's backers in the Arab world. Still other supporters include Sultan Qaboos bin Said, who sits atop Oman's absolute monarchy. An occasional host to Carter, the sultan has also made generous contributions to his center. Prior to inviting Carter for a "personal visit" in 1998, the sultan pledged $1 million to the Carter Center, promising additional support in the future. Similarly, Morocco's Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah, the second in line to the kingdom's throne, has in the past partnered with Carter on the center's initiatives.

On its face, there is nothing objectionable about these contacts. What has raised critics' eyebrows is Carter's immense chutzpah: In securing the financial support of assorted Arab leaders, Carter has gradually come to parrot their anti-Israel political agenda -- even as he styles himself as a dispassionate mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This was nowhere more evident than in Carter's credulous support for the late Yasir Arafat. Although Carter had championed Araft as a committed peacemaker since his presidency, in the face of ample evidence to the contrary, his apologies for the terrorist chieftain became particularly shameless in the 1990s. When Arafat and his PLO backed Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, thereby loosing the support and -- more important for the corrupt Arafat -- the funding of neighboring Sunni Arab powers, Carter embarked on a Middle East publicity tour to revive Arafat's diminishing fortunes. As recorded by Carter biographer Douglas Brinkley, "together [Carter and Arafat] strategized on how to recover the PLO's standing in the United States." In desperation, Carter turned up in Saudi Arabia on what Brinkley called "essentially a fund-raising mission for the PLO," pleading with King Fahd to restore Arafat to the Saudi dole.

Now that Arafat's Fatah has been replaced with Hamas, Carter has again proven himself a reliable ally of Palestinian extremism. Scarcely had the terrorist group ascended to power last January than Carter launched a media blitz urging the United States to circumvent its own laws against financing terrorism in order to fund Hamas. As the New York Times put with exquisite finesse, Carter called on Western nations to "redirect their relief aid to United Nations organizations and nongovernmental organizations to skirt legal restrictions" -- that is, to launder money to a terrorist group. When American policymakers declined to heed his advice, and Israel proved unwilling to bankroll the enemy seeking its destruction, Carter promptly denounced the both countries for their "common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas."

With its relentless disparagement of Israel and its reckless abuse of the historical record, Carter's latest book may fairly be seen as the logical culmination of his many years of anti-Israel incitement. There was of course no shortage of clues about Carter's sympathies in his earlier books. In his 2004 memoir Sharing Good Times, for instance, Carter recalled the trips he has taken over the years to Arab dictatorships in Syria and Saudi Arabia and noted with evident satisfaction that he was "always greeted with smiles and friendship."



Readers may be forgiven for finding nothing shocking in this admission. Carter may still harbor illusions of grandeur, seeing himself as an instrument of peace in the Middle East. But an altogether different element explains his enduring popularity in Arab capitals: Not for all the millions they have sunk into the Carter Center over the years could Arab elites have hoped to purchase such a prominent and willing propaganda tool.

McGentrix - what you say is best seen compared to our own situation, since we have clearly elected comedians:


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.iran/

Despite the claims by the left, the US government is not a terrorist organization. Iran has rightly been identified as part of the axis of evil and Syria has no room to squirm as they too fund and arm terrorists. We have no reason to have talks with them until they change their ways and stop supporting Islamic terrorism.

I support our governments stance on not speaking with those countries.