1
   

Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:11 am
That's true as far as it goes, McG, but dubious in the broader context. Look no further than AU1929's post:

au1929 wrote:
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). ..........

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...........


AU1929 - thank you so much for bringing Jacob Laksin to the attention of the thread! For once I read what he has to say about Republicans as well as Democrats like Carter >

Quote:
......... while discussing Israel, Baker reportedly told a friend, "**** the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."


Now it's a fact that an estimated 87% of Jewish voters voted for the Democratic party candidates in the last midterm elections - why, if Carter and Democratic administrations were so hostile to their interests? Do you, McG, or AU1929 know?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24861
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:43 am
High Seas wrote

Quote:
Now it's a fact that an estimated 87% of Jewish voters voted for the Democratic party candidates in the last midterm elections - why, if Carter and Democratic administrations were so hostile to their interests? Do you, McG, or AU1929 know?


Why because they and hopefully every other voter in the US are not single issue voters. Isreal is important to many of the Jewish voters it is not however, a determining factor. They are American citizens first and foremost and the party that they support IMO is the party or candidate that voices support to their principles.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:57 am
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/title.gif
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

Is this an authoritative source, in your judgement, AU? Presidential election results back to 1916 seem to have little overlap with the consistently Democratic leanings of Jewish voters. If your theory were correct you'd expect them to vote broadly like the rest of the nation.

Nor can the existence of a state of Israel account for this phenomenon, since the numbers go back to 1916.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:11 am
High Seas
Not being an authority on the subject I can only give you my opinion. I would expect that it has a lot to do where we come from and the history and treatment of Jews over the centuries. Basically they are more in line with the principles of Judaism.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:24 am
Other than stealing as much palistianan land as they can, what are the principals of Judaism?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:19 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Other than stealing as much palistianan land as they can, what are the principals of Judaism?


On the principles of Judaism I know nothing, but the principles of Israeli policy are clear:

Quote:

Oded Tira, the chairman of Israel's Association of Industrial Manufacturers, and former chief artillery office in the IDF, said, "Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party, which is conducting itself foolishly, and U.S. newspaper editors."

Writing in Ynet News (online Yedioth Ahronoth), Tira said, "We need to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party (must) publicly support immediate action by Bush again Iran."


http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 02:54 pm
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
okie wrote:
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.


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.


One, nowhere and at no time has it ever been held that choosing bad leaders subjects a people to a loss of human rights. Two, there was no PA (meaning no elections) until the mid 1990's, so what is the reason to have witheld and violated their rights up until then?

Terrorism is a red herring.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 03:50 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
One, nowhere and at no time has it ever been held that choosing bad leaders subjects a people to a loss of human rights. Two, there was no PA (meaning no elections) until the mid 1990's, so what is the reason to have witheld and violated their rights up until then?

Terrorism is a red herring.


Exactly.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 03:57 pm
High Seas wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
Other than stealing as much palistianan land as they can, what are the principals of Judaism?


On the principles of Judaism I know nothing, but the principles of Israeli policy are clear:

Quote:

Oded Tira, the chairman of Israel's Association of Industrial Manufacturers, and former chief artillery office in the IDF, said, "Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party, which is conducting itself foolishly, and U.S. newspaper editors."

Writing in Ynet News (online Yedioth Ahronoth), Tira said, "We need to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party (must) publicly support immediate action by Bush again Iran."


http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r


As far as I know freedom of speech still exists in Israel. People can say and editoralize on any subject the have a mind to. As in the US what they say or write is their opinion and not binding or even reflect the poicy of the government. No more so than what is written in our media necessarily reflects the policy of the US government.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 04:06 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Other than stealing as much palistianan land as they can, what are the principals of Judaism?


Congratulation, spoken like a true Anti-Semite. You forgot we control the media, the US government and all the banks.

The question was why do US Jews generally vote democratic.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 05:04 pm
As Okie indicated, I would love to have those on this thread who are anti-Israel tell us whether they agree with Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map. I can then better understand them.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 05:14 pm
Advocate wrote:
As Okie indicated, I would love to have those on this thread who are anti-Israel tell us whether they agree with Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map. I can then better understand them.



Need you ask??? In their opinion if Israel did not exist the Moslems would become loving neighbors.
As they have through the ages Jews have been designated as the scapegoat for all the problems in the Middle East.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 05:45 pm
Well, I'm not 'anti-Israel', though I suspect Advocate would include me in such a group.

The answer is, no. I would not like to see Israel wiped off the map. Moreover, I don't favor Islamist theocracy or favoritism in government any more than the Jewish or Christian varieties either.

I would like to see peace, freedom and security in the region for all the peioples of the Middle East and what was once called Palestine (and in ancient times Judea and Samara).

I don't see any realistic possibility of achieving that in a two state format. Indeed, given the evident limits of what Israel is inclined to give, I don't even see a possibility of the establishment of two viable states (even assuming Palestinian agreement, which isn't particularly likely either). In short I don't see any possibility of peace and justice for both peoples in the establishment or coexistence of two similarly intolerant tribal or religious societies. That , of course, is only my opinion. However the weight of evidence against the alternative proposition is rather overwhelming -- sufficiently so as to call into question the understanding and/or motives of those who advocate it.

The people of Israel, the West bank, and Gaza must recognize that they have already chosen to live in the same place and are therefore committed to the development of social, economic, and political struuctures together. It seems to me that there is no alternative apart from wiping out one group or the other. As you noted, Iranian zealots propose wiping out the Israelis. Shall I infer that you propose wiping out the Palestinians? If not, then what do you propose for them? Continued political and economic servitude? You certainly don't have a realistic option of washing your hands of the matter - the solutions for the two peoples are already intertwined.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:59 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Well, I'm not 'anti-Israel', though I suspect Advocate would include me in such a group.

The answer is, no. I would not like to see Israel wiped off the map. Moreover, I don't favor Islamist theocracy or favoritism in government any more than the Jewish or Christian varieties either.

I would like to see peace, freedom and security in the region for all the peioples of the Middle East and what was once called Palestine (and in ancient times Judea and Samara).


This is also how I feel. I believe there should be a Jewish homeland based on the events of the last century (and probably before). But the occupation has to end. Israeli leaders know this too.

There will always be fringe groups calling for the destruction of Israel. Terrorism will continue sporadically. But most people and governments in the middle east recognize that Israel is a reality and just want to get on with their lives. Unfortunately, the Palestinian problem must be solved before this can happen.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:46 pm
I also agree with Free Duck and georgeob. I do not see any peace agreemtn any time soon based on what we have seen from both sides. It's unfortunate, because violence ond aparthied only brings more of the same. Walls never work to bring peace.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 12:25 am
I do not agree that "Israel should be wiped of the map."

I would like to see the dismantling of the of the Zionist regime. A regime whose existence is necessarily predicated on the discrimination and oppression of the Palestinian people. I would like to see that regime replaced by a more egalitarian and pluralistic one, secular and truly democratic, one that doesn't pander to ethnocentric ideologies or religionist theologies, one that is inclusive and enfranchising of all of the peoples in Israel and Palestine.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 12:39 am
After all they are brothers and where is the brotherhood?

The Israelis should treat the Palestinians as 'bear cubs' with 'mother baer' just next door.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 08:41 am
FreeDuck Wrote
Quote:
There will always be fringe groups calling for the destruction of Israel. Terrorism will continue sporadically. But most people and governments in the middle east recognize that Israel is a reality and just want to get on with their lives. Unfortunately, the Palestinian problem must be solved before this can happen.


Fringe groups? How can you call almost all the nations and entities surrounding Israel fringe groups? Yes, they recognize Israel as an entity but not a legal one. And they are still bent on it's destruction.

For those of you who have much to say about Israel maintaining it's Jewish character I would question why there has been not word one about the surrounding nations maintaining their Islamic character. In addition why when the plight of the almost a million Jews who have lived in the surrounding Moslem nations and had to flee or were expelled with no more than the shirts on their backs not one word was heard. All I hear about is the plight of the Palestinians. I should note that most of the Middle Eastern Jews are now Israeli's


In closing one only needs look at the History of the Jews for at least the last thousand years and they should be able to understand why the maintenance and survival of Israel is so important to Jews worldwide.

I would also note that despite the event of the Holocaust anti-Semitism and all it's horrors is alive and well. In fact it is thriving.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 01:18 pm
au1929 wrote:
Fringe groups? How can you call almost all the nations and entities surrounding Israel fringe groups? Yes, they recognize Israel as an entity but not a legal one. And they are still bent on it's destruction.
Odd isn't it that both Jordan and Egypt have concluded peace treaties with Israel and have observed their terms rather scrupulously. That leaves only Syria - a large piece of whose territory Israel still occupies. Your assertion above is simply not true.

au1929 wrote:
For those of you who have much to say about Israel maintaining it's Jewish character I would question why there has been not word one about the surrounding nations maintaining their Islamic character. In addition why when the plight of the almost a million Jews who have lived in the surrounding Moslem nations and had to flee or were expelled with no more than the shirts on their backs not one word was heard. All I hear about is the plight of the Palestinians. I should note that most of the Middle Eastern Jews are now Israeli's.

There has in fact been a good deal of reference to Islamist intolerance - though you choose to ignore it. It is simply an obvious fact that the cure for Islamist intolerance and theocracy is not Jewish intolerance and favoritism. The solution for injustice to European Jews cannot be built on a foundation of similar injustice inflicted on Palestinians who did not commit the horrors from which the European Jews were escaping. [/quote]

au1929 wrote:
In closing one only needs look at the History of the Jews for at least the last thousand years and they should be able to understand why the maintenance and survival of Israel is so important to Jews worldwide.
While I can understand the concern of Jews worldwide, I also recognize that others have similar feelings about their own situations. The Palestinians who were driven out of or fled from their homes in fear in 1948 - and others of their culture - have similar concerns. One has only the experience of his own life, whether he is Jewish or Palestinian.

Further, I am not opposed to the survival of Israel with special provisions for the immigration of Jews. What I oppose is the oppression and exploitation of the prior inhabitants of Palestine by Israelis, often with the financial help of Jews worldwide. I oppose it both because it is unjust and because it quite obviously will not be effective in giving the people of Israel, Jew, Moslem or Christian the peace and security they seek. Indeed Israeli actions since 1967 have had the opposite effect.

Finally I recognize that the United States is being asked to unconditionally support the permanent protection of Israel from the consequences of the injuries it has inflicted on its neighbors. This is a foolish and dangerous policy -- foolish because it insulates the Israelis from the consequences of their own folly and injustice; and dangerous because it threatens our own vital interests.

au1929 wrote:
I would also note that despite the event of the Holocaust anti-Semitism and all it's horrors is alive and well. In fact it is thriving.
I suppose this is yet another application of the general purpose escape device of many Zionists, who, absent any effective argument, blandly accuse anyone who takes exception with any part of their plans & policies of 'anti Semitism. This contemptible canard is drug out with depressing frequency by those who have no other defense.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 01:27 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I suppose this is yet another application of the general purpose escape device of many Zionists, who, absent any effective argument, blandly accuse anyone who takes exception with any part of their plans & policies of 'anti Semitism. This contemptible canard is drug out with depressing frequency by those who have no other defense.


Precisely--this is essentially the position of Advocate, who can wax quite hysterical on this subject, although he has learned to tone down his rhetoric. Notice that above he refers to those who are "anti-Israeli." Just as a reasonable and considered objection to and opposition to the policies of successive Israeli governments does not constitute anti-semitism, so it does not even constitute being "anti-Israeli." I find it especially ironic as Advocate is a loud critic of the current American administration's military adventurism in Iraq, but it is also my experience that he bridles at the charge that such a position is "un-" or "anti-American."

However, sauce for the goose does make sauce for the gander.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 03:32:37