0
   

Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar

 
 
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 05:39 am
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25994

By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 14, 2006


Even as Islamic Hitlerites gather in Iran to deny the first Holocaust of the Jews and to plot the second, former president Jimmy Carter tours America with a new book that describes Jews as racists and oppressors, and suggests they are also a conspiratorial mafia that intimidates "critics," controls America's media and war policy, and are therefore also the source of Islamic terrorism and the Arabs' genocidal campaign to eliminate them from the map of the Middle East.


In other words, Americans beware of the Jew in your midst.



Here is Carter's description of the Middle East conflict in his own words, delivered during an interview he gave on National Public Radio during the second day of the Holocaust deniers' conference in Teheran:

"I have spent a lot of time in Palestine in recent years. … The Palestinians have had their own land, first of all, occupied and then confiscated and then colonized. They've been excluded from their own gardens and fields, and pastures and churches. They have been severely restrained in their movements. They have to have different kinds of passes to go through different checkpoints inside their own lands on their own roads. The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine.They connect these settlements with very nice roads for the Israeli settlers, and then superhighways and so forth going into Jerusalem. Quite often the Palestinians are prevented from even riding on those roads that have been built in their own territory. So this has been in many ways worse than it was in South Africa."

When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel this is more than a lie; it is a blood libel.

It is a lie that Palestinians "had their own land, first of all, occupied." This is like saying that Texans had their own land occupied by Hispanics, ignoring the fact that Hispanics were there first. The very word Palestine is a Roman appellation for the people called Philistines, who were not Arabs but red-haired sailors from the Aegean. The Jews were there as well.

In short, first of all the Jews were in the land before the Arabs.

Second of all, the Arabs who inhabited the Palestine Mandate in 1948, at the time of the creation the state of Israel, considered themselves Syrians.

Third, the Palestine Mandate was not created on land taken from the Syrians or the Arabs. It was taken from the Turks.

It was not taken from the Turks by the Jews, but by the British and the French. They took it because Turkey sided with Germany in the First World War and, of course, lost. The Turkish empire had ruled the entire region including Syrian, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan for four hundred years before Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan were artificially created by the English and the French. Jordan - a state whose majority is Palestinian - occupies 80% of the Palestine Mandate.

So it is a preposterous lie to say that the Palestinians had their own land and that it was occupied by the Jews.

Fourth, the individual plots of land that Jews now own were in the first instance bought from the Arabs who regarded themselves as Syrians and who lived in the area of Israel. The only property that was confiscated was confiscated as a spoil of the aggressive war that five Arab states waged against Israel from the day of its birth. Five Arab armies invaded Israel, a sovereign state, with the declared intent of "pushing the Jews into the sea." The cry today of the Muslim majority in the Middle East is to "liberate Palestine from the river to the sea." In other words push the Jews into the sea.

By the standards of occupation and legitimacy Jimmy Carter invokes, Israel has more legitimacy as a Jewish state than Texas does as an American state, rather than a Mexican province.

The fifth Jimmy Carter lie in this lone Jimmy Carter sentence is the claim that the Jews have colonized anything. "The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine."

Why is it wrong of the Jews to live in the West Bank? (The 7000 Jews of Gaza, of course, have already been expunged as result of the Arabs' genocidal hate.) Why can't Jews have settlements in the West Bank?

The answer is because the Palestinians Arabs are filled with a racist and theocratic hate towards the Jews. They can't tolerate a non-Muslim, non-Arab people --however small a minority -- living in their midst. (The 7000 Jews of Gaza - out of a population of 1.2 million - were law-abiding and peaceful and created a horticultural industry that produced ten percent of Gaza's gross national product. But they were Jews. And that was intolerable to Palestine's Nazis. So they had to be removed.)

Contrast Carter's attack on Jews living in the West bank as "colonizers" who must be expelled with the fact that more than a million Arabs live in Israel, where Israel provides them with more rights - including the right to vote and elect Arab members of Israel's government - than any Arab who lives in any Arab state in the Middle East.

There is indeed a wall now between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. But it is not a wall to keep Arabs out of Israel because they are Arab, as Carter maliciously maintains. There are more than a million Arabs living in Israel. There are indeed checkpoints in the West Bank and into Israel and obstacles to Palestinians crossing them. But this is not because the Israelis discriminate against Palestinians because they are Muslims or Arabs.

It is because too many Palestinians have shown themselves to be bloodthirsty, murderers who have been indoctrinated by their religious leaders and their government to believe in a sick Islamic fantasy that it is their Muslim duty to kill Jews by blowing themselves up; and that, if they do so, they will go to heaven along with 70 members of their family; and, that, if they are lucky enough to be male they will be rewarded by 72 virgins on the other side.

On this side they will be regarded as martyrs and saints and honored by their government. Sixty-percent of Palestinians support suicide bombing and this sick, genocidal agenda - which is shared by all members of the Palestinians' democratically elected government - to kill the Jews.

To ignore these facts and to invert them, as Jimmy Carter does, is to mark yourself as a moral defective.

To take on as a mission the spreading of lies that enable Islamic Nazis to carry out their final solution is the epitome of the evil that America's fifth column left and its reprehensible ex-President represent in our time.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 637 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 05:49 am
you're slipping you forgot to mention he was a demoKKKrat
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 06:03 am
At some point, American Jews are going to figure out that the last rational reason they ever had for voting for de-moKKKer-rats evaporated several decades ago.

At this point of course, voting for demokkkrats is essentially the same thing as voting to abolish Israel. All the dems ever claim to actually be good at is representing victims, and it was inevitable that they would come to view slammites as another victim voting block.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 06:22 am
I am willing to bet that if all the demokkkrats had called for the genocide of Muslims. Gungasnake would have personally volunteered to give, each and ever one of them "demokkkrats", a superb out of this world BJ.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 06:44 am
gungasnake wrote:
At this point of course, voting for demokkkrats is essentially the same thing as voting to abolish Israel.
Lots of Jews believe this to be an excellent idea.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:08 am
Jimmy Carter's name and photo will be on the page with the definition of "Loser" in future dictionaries. His most major accomplishments in life are the regimes in Iran and Zimbabwe, and having given away the Panama Canal, created with so much American treasure and blood.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:36 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
At this point of course, voting for demokkkrats is essentially the same thing as voting to abolish Israel.
Lots of Jews believe this to be an excellent idea.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm


The basic idea both amongst the tiny minority of Jews who are seriously into self-hatred and the de-moKKKer-rats, is that somehow or other, people are supposed to look at this map

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/images/places/map-Muslim_World-med.JPG

which shows the collosal slammite world and the tiny sliver of land called Israel which you have to know precisely where to look for on the map to even find, and picture the Israelis as "oppressors".

Most normal people fail that test. Either their imaginations or their sense of geometry and proportion are not defective enough.
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:38 am
gungasnake wrote:
Jimmy Carter's name and photo will be on the page with the definition of "Loser" in future dictionaries. His most major accomplishments in life are the regimes in Iran and Zimbabwe, and having given away the Panama Canal, created with so much American treasure and blood.


Tell us. What's it like being retarded?

Now don't take offense. I'm being completely serious.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:47 am
look for the posts with the cobra avatar gargamel grasshopper, and enlightenment shall be yours. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:47 am
gung wrote
Quote:
which shows the collosal slammite world and the tiny sliver of land called Israel


What you forget is that tiny silver land has enough nukes to wipe out most Arab countries. Arabs also have the right to defend themselves.

Hence the Nuclear Arms race in the ME : http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10613933.htm

Thanks to Bush & Israel.

I mean who wants to be 'Iraqed' ?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:51 am
So, is this the pond in which all the loons are paddling today?
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:54 am
Setanta wrote:
So, is this the pond in which all the loons are paddling today?


Is that why you decided to join us ?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 09:18 am
No, i'm just standing on the bank, listening to the maniacal call of the loons of left and right.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 12:14 pm
I love drawing the rabid zionists attention to the Jews against zionism movement. They are not self haters. They are proud interpreters of Jewish law. And they are in Tehran right now, discussing the Holocaust.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 12:14 pm
What holocaust?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 12:44 pm
McGentrix wrote:
What holocaust?
Be careful McG, you can get several years in gaol for denying the Holocaust. Ask David Irving who would have attended the conference in Tehran had he not been in an Austrian prison.

Oh did you mean which? Were you referring to the genocide of Armenian Christians by the Turks?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:10 pm
Quote:

Jimmy Carter's Legacy of Failure
Cinnamon Stillwell

Wednesday, December 12, 2006


It seems that everywhere one looks lately, former President Jimmy Carter is hawking his new book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid." The inflammatory title has not won Carter any new fans from the pro-Israel side of the equation. But for those who buy into the history of the Middle East conflict that's been promulgated through years of anti-Israel propaganda, Carter's use of the term "apartheid" is a confirmation of all they hold dear.

The attempt to associate Israel with apartheid era South Africa has indeed been a popular and effective tactic in the arsenal of anti-Israel talking points. It matters little that the charge is untrue. One simply has to insert the word "apartheid" into the discussion and the damage is done.

Carter himself admits toward the end of his book that his use of the term "apartheid" was not meant literally and that the situation in Israel "is unlike that in South Africa -- not racism, but the acquisition of land." In response to criticism of his choice of words, Carter told the Los Angeles Times that he was trying to call attention to what he sees as the "economic form" of apartheid afflicting the Palestinian territories. During an interview with Judy Woodruff of "The News Hour" on PBS, Carter reiterated that he only used "apartheid" in his title to "provoke discussion." When an author concedes that his chosen title is inaccurate, it calls into question the entire premise of his book.

There are those who have called Carter's entire book into question, including friend and colleague Dr. Kenneth W. Stein. A well-known Middle East scholar, and until recently a fellow of Emory University's Carter Center, Stein resigned his position because of strenuous objections to the content of Carter's book. In an e-mail message regarding his resignation, Stein described the book as "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."

The copied materials involve two maps from former U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross' book "The Missing Peace." In an appearance on Fox News, Ross confirmed that the maps originated with his book, and he objected not only to the lack of attribution but also to Carter's inaccurate presentation of the historical facts involved.

Similarly, attorney Alan Dershowitz, in a scathing review, writes that "Mr. Carter's book is so filled with simple mistakes of fact and deliberate omissions that were it a brief filed in a court of law, it would be struck and its author sanctioned for misleading the court."

Top-ranking Democrats have also disavowed Carter's work. Both Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi issued statements on Carter's book, distancing themselves and the Democratic Party from his divisive rhetoric. Meanwhile, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., an African American, condemned Carter's inappropriate use of the term "apartheid" in his title, labeling it "offensive."


Intimations of Anti-Semitism

Carter's contention in the book, and one that he recently discussed with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, is that a "minority of Israelis have refused to swap land for peace." This is laughable, considering the repeated examples of Israeli governments doing just that. Successive administrations, whether under Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon or now Ehud Olmert (who's practically falling all over himself to give away Israeli land), have offered or given up territory, only to be met with increased aggression. Recent examples include the ongoing violence in Gaza following Israel's disengagement plan and the war in Lebanon six long years after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon.

One has to wonder if Carter's single-minded obsession with Israel as the root of the problems in the world -- not to mention the stubbornly one-sided view of the Middle East conflict to which he has a history of subscribing -- has any anti-Semitic underpinnings. Such is the suspicion among many of Carter's harshest critics. In fact, during a recent appearance by Carter on C-SPAN's "Book TV," a caller accused him of being an "anti-Semite" and a "bigot," to which Carter reacted with denial.

But this was hardly the first time that intimations of anti-Semitism have tainted Carter's career. In an article titled "Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem," Jason Maoz, senior editor at Jewish Press, reveals that "during a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, Carter, discussing his fading reelection prospects and his sinking approval rating in the Jewish community, snapped, 'If I get back in, I'm going to [expletive] the Jews.'" Maoz also references the 1976 presidential campaign during which Carter, fearing that his opponent Senator Henry ("Scoop") Jackson had the Jewish vote in the Democratic primaries locked up, "instructed his staff not to issue any more statements on the Middle East. 'Jackson has all the Jews anyway … we get the Christians.'"


Strengthening Israel's Enemies

Carter's history of involvement with the Middle East conflict is no less troublesome. It was Carter who brokered the first in a series of largely ineffective and in the long run incredibly damaging Arab-Israeli peace treaties. Far from pushing peace, such agreements have only strengthened the disdain toward Israel from its Arab neighbors and led to further violence.

Carter's claim to fame in the peace process arena was the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty signed at Camp David by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. While the alleged peace between Egypt and Israel has held up to this day, increased hostility in Egypt toward Israel and Jews has been the true legacy. At some point, one has to come to the logical conclusion that a peace treaty that inspires hatred is not worth the paper it's printed on.

Instead, Carter received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his efforts in the Middle East, among other locales. Such efforts continue with Carter's apparent fondness for Hamas, the terrorist group turned government, which, he insists, will become a "non-violent organization" despite all indications to the contrary. Before that, it was his cozy relationship with Palestinian dictator Yasser Arafat.

Friend to Dictators

Indeed, it seems there are very few dictators in the world to whose defense Carter has not rallied -- Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, former Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito, former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, former Pakistani General Zia ul-Haq, former North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and now his son Kim Jong Il, to name a few.

Carter's eagerness to appease the former Soviet Union and his opposition to his successor President Ronald Reagan's uncompromising approach (which has been widely credited with helping bring down the "evil empire") also speak to his lack of understanding when it comes to the nature of totalitarian regimes. Then there's Carter's propensity for certifying obviously compromised elections in places such as Venezuela and Haiti.

Carter's failed approach to foreign policy has indeed put America in a perilous position in the world. If we look at some of the major challenges facing the United States today, we can thank Jimmy Carter for getting us off on the wrong foot. Whether it's the Middle East, Iran or North Korea, Carter's track record as president is nothing to brag about and his career as ex-president has been even worse.

'Worst Ex-President'

Author Steven F. Hayward, who has labeled Carter the "worst ex-president" certainly thinks so. In his book, "The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry," Hayward runs down the ways in which America continues to reap the legacy of Carter's missteps, both during his presidential term and after.

When it comes to the belligerence of North Korea, Carter's past involvement has done considerable damage. In the early 1990s, Carter traveled to North Korea on another of his "peacekeeping missions" and brokered a deal with dictator Kim Il Sung. He did so without the blessing of the Clinton administration, although, at the behest of then-Vice President Al Gore, President Clinton later agreed to adopt Carter's deal. The United States ended up providing aid, oil and, incredibly, material for building light-water nuclear reactors to the North Koreans in exchange for their abandoning their nuclear weapons program. The problem is they didn't abandon their nuclear weapons program; they just said they did. And in 2002, they admitted as much. Still, to this day, Carter claims that his approach was a success and that it was President Bush's inclusion of North Korea in the famous "axis of evil" speech that led to current leader Kim Jong Il's hostility toward America.

The fruits of Carter's history with Iran are even more rotten. Carter's abandonment of the shah in 1977-78 helped lead to the Islamic revolution (and the murder or imprisonment of many of the Iranian leftists who had supported overthrowing the shah), the emboldening of the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and the rise of radical Islam worldwide. His botched approach to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 inspired Islamic terrorists all over the world, culminating in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The threat of nuclear war emanating from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be seen as another offshoot of Carter's ineffective policies. Predictably, Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his former national security adviser, are now pushing for "direct talks" with Iran. But considering the abject failure of U.N.-brokered negotiations (supported by the Bush administration) thus far, it is difficult to imagine how U.S.-led negotiations would fare any better.

Wherever U.S. interests have been imperiled and a temporary "peace" could be bought at the expense of long-term security, Carter has always been on board. The late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan summed it up when he said of Carter in 1980, "Unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies, he has essentially adopted our enemies' view of the world."

Meddler and Failure

Another of Jimmy Carter's dubious legacies has been the now common habit of former presidents meddling in current politics. Carter has made many an enemy among both Republican and Democratic administrations by undermining their foreign policies via the Carter Center. As Chris Suellentrop put it in an article for Slate magazine, Carter has "difficulties coming to grips with the fact that he … [is] not president."

Despite the overwhelming evidence of failure, Carter has become something of a sacred cow to many liberals, who often express outrage when their hero is criticized. But no one who inserts himself into the public sphere is above criticism. And how quickly Carter's fans forget the malaise that gripped the nation under his presidency.

My own childhood memories of the time consist mostly of long lines snaking around gas stations due to the embargo on Iranian oil, not to mention a general feeling in the country of want and hopelessness. Carter may have inherited a recession, but his presidency did little to improve the weak economy. This was among the reasons that he lost re-election to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Yet somehow Carter's presidency is still held up by some as a shining example for the current leadership to follow.

Woe unto Israel now that Carter's book has entered the pantheon of propaganda.

And woe unto America if Jimmy Carter is our guiding light.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.79 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 04:27:08