Judy needs the Jews to get their land back so the rapture will come and she can go to heaven and watch the Jews roast in hell along with all the 'cool' kids from highschool.
Anyone who doesn't want the Jews to get their homeland back while Judy is still alive is an antisemite and a commie, and just an old pissant
Full Version: Jimmy Carter
QUOTE(kaliessin @ Jan 15 2007, 04:53 AM) [snapback]276579[/snapback]
Judy needs the Jews to get their land back so the rapture will come and she can go to heaven and watch the Jews roast in hell along with all the 'cool' kids from highschool.
Anyone who doesn't want the Jews to get their homeland back while Judy is still alive is an antisemite and a commie, and just an old pissant
Hate America First
Blame George Bush Second.
Despise Jesus and His Followers Third.
Destroy Israel Fourth
The lefty Politics of Fear.
QUOTE(kaliessin @ Jan 14 2007, 10:53 PM) [snapback]276579[/snapback]
Judy needs the Jews to get their land back so the rapture will come and she can go to heaven and watch the Jews roast in hell along with all the 'cool' kids from highschool.
Anyone who doesn't want the Jews to get their homeland back while Judy is still alive is an antisemite and a commie, and just an old pissant
Uh oh.
When did you join the conspiracy against the Republicans, Christians, yeah, even General Jesus himself?
QUOTE(kaliessin @ Jan 14 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]276579[/snapback]
Judy needs the Jews to get their land back so the rapture will come and she can go to heaven and watch the Jews roast in hell along with all the 'cool' kids from highschool.
Anyone who doesn't want the Jews to get their homeland back while Judy is still alive is an antisemite and a commie, and just an old pissant
Sounds like you were home-schooled by davis.
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Jan 15 2007, 07:20 AM) [snapback]276589[/snapback]
Sounds like you were home-schooled by davis.
That certainly explains why he is not conversant with the subject.
JIMMY FOR TERROR
January 15, 2007 -- Has a former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?
Sure looks that way.
How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter's new anti-Israel screed, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid"?
To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)
You don't have to read between the lines here.
Carter isn't calling on the Palestinians to give up terror and murder now as a way to convince Israel they are serious about peace. Rather, he says they can wait until they've achieved their goals at the bargaining table. No need, says Carter, to give up terrorism until then.
Certainly, that's how 14 members of the Carter Center's advisory board read that paragraph. Indeed, it's why they angrily submitted their resignations last week.
That's also how Melvin Konner read it. He's a respected anthropology professor at Emory University and had been asked to be part of an academic group meant to advise the former president and the Carter Center on how to respond to criticism of the book.
As Konner wrote to John Hardman, the center's executive director, in declining the invitation: "I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. The sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger."
Konner, by the way, is no Carter-basher; he describes the former president as "one of my greatest heroes."
But he is troubled by what he calls Carter's "rigid and inflexible views" that render him "no longer capable of dialogue" on the issue. He is deeply bothered by Carter's "complete failure to engage criticism from much greater experts than me about his numerous and serious errors" of fact in the book.
And he's understandably offended by Carter's "repeated public insinuations that the Jews control the media and the Congress - well-worn anti-Semitic slurs that, especially coming from President Carter, present a clear and present danger to American Jews."
How did this man ever become president of the United States?
He's gone from failed president to friend of left-wing tyrants and global scold of anything that represents America's legitimate interests.
Now, in his bid to demonize Israel (recall that he secretly gave PR and political advice to Yasser Arafat), Carter has turned mythmaker - distorting history and misrepresenting facts, when he isn't making them up altogether.
That's bad enough, of course.
But when he flatly condones mass murder, he goes beyond the pale.
It's time for the Democrats to finally cut all their ties to Carter, who was rehabilitated as a party icon at the 2004 convention. If they don't, Americans should consider the implications.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01152007/posto...editorials_.htm
January 15, 2007 -- Has a former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?
Sure looks that way.
How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter's new anti-Israel screed, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid"?
To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)
You don't have to read between the lines here.
Carter isn't calling on the Palestinians to give up terror and murder now as a way to convince Israel they are serious about peace. Rather, he says they can wait until they've achieved their goals at the bargaining table. No need, says Carter, to give up terrorism until then.
Certainly, that's how 14 members of the Carter Center's advisory board read that paragraph. Indeed, it's why they angrily submitted their resignations last week.
That's also how Melvin Konner read it. He's a respected anthropology professor at Emory University and had been asked to be part of an academic group meant to advise the former president and the Carter Center on how to respond to criticism of the book.
As Konner wrote to John Hardman, the center's executive director, in declining the invitation: "I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. The sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger."
Konner, by the way, is no Carter-basher; he describes the former president as "one of my greatest heroes."
But he is troubled by what he calls Carter's "rigid and inflexible views" that render him "no longer capable of dialogue" on the issue. He is deeply bothered by Carter's "complete failure to engage criticism from much greater experts than me about his numerous and serious errors" of fact in the book.
And he's understandably offended by Carter's "repeated public insinuations that the Jews control the media and the Congress - well-worn anti-Semitic slurs that, especially coming from President Carter, present a clear and present danger to American Jews."
How did this man ever become president of the United States?
He's gone from failed president to friend of left-wing tyrants and global scold of anything that represents America's legitimate interests.
Now, in his bid to demonize Israel (recall that he secretly gave PR and political advice to Yasser Arafat), Carter has turned mythmaker - distorting history and misrepresenting facts, when he isn't making them up altogether.
That's bad enough, of course.
But when he flatly condones mass murder, he goes beyond the pale.
It's time for the Democrats to finally cut all their ties to Carter, who was rehabilitated as a party icon at the 2004 convention. If they don't, Americans should consider the implications.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01152007/posto...editorials_.htm
QUOTE
Has a former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?
Sure looks that way.
Sure looks that way.
Anyone who would say this is a god damned idiot.
QUOTE
It's time for the Democrats to finally cut all their ties to Carter, who was rehabilitated as a party icon at the 2004 convention. If they don't, Americans should consider the implications.
Same goes with this. Jimmy Carter is just a target for you sons of beotches because GW and Darth, I mean Cheney are the biggest losers and incompetents that have ever graced DC.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
QUOTE
But when he flatly condones mass murder, he goes beyond the pale.
Jimmy Carter condones mass murder. You have no shame. Losing the elections has seriously finished off any sense of decency you had.
Go fark yourself.
Not sure if you ever had any. I thought so at first but that passed.
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Jan 16 2007, 01:19 AM) [snapback]276812[/snapback]
Anyone who would say this is a god damned idiot.
Same goes with this. Jimmy Carter is just a target for you sons of beotches because GW and Darth, I mean Cheney are the biggest losers and incompetents that have ever graced DC.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Jimmy Carter condones mass murder. You have no shame. Losing the elections has seriously finished off any sense of decency you had.
Page 213 in his book as Judy has posted......
To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)
Looks like carter is the idiot. 14 people resigned their posts with him davis, you should be able to figure that out.
QUOTE(patheticJT @ Jan 15 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]276848[/snapback]
Page 213 in his book as Judy has posted......
To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)
Looks like carter is the idiot. 14 people resigned their posts with him davis, you should be able to figure that out.
14 out of 200. 186 did not resign.
QUOTE(patheticJT @ Jan 15 2007, 06:57 PM) [snapback]276848[/snapback]
Page 213 in his book as Judy has posted......
To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)
Looks like carter is the idiot. 14 people resigned their posts with him davis, you should be able to figure that out.
QUOTE
17
SUMMARY
Since the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty was signed in 1979, much blood has been shed unnecessarily and repeated efforts for a negotiated peace between Israel and her neighbors have failed. Despite its criticism from some Arab sources, this treaty stands as proof that diplomacy can bring lasting peace between ancient adversaries. Although disparities among them are often emphasized, the 1974 Israeli-Syrian withdrawal agreement, the 1978 Camp David Accords, the Reagan statement of 1982, the 1993 Oslo Agreement, the treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994, the Arab peace proposal of 2002, the 2003 Geneva Initiative, and the International Quartet's Roadmap all contain key common elements that can be consolidated if pursued in good faith.
There are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East:
Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and
Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.
In turn, Israel responds with retribution and oppression, and militant Palestinians refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Israel and vow to destroy the nation. The cycle of distrust and violence is sustained, and efforts for peace are frustrated. Casualties have been high as the occupying forces impose ever tighter controls. From September 2000 until March 2006, 3,982 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis were killed in the second intifada, and these numbers include many children: 708 Palestinians and 123 Israelis. As indicated earlier, there was an ever-rising toll of dead and wounded from the latest outbreak of violence in Gaza and Lebanon.
The only rational response to this continuing tragedy is to revitalize the peace process through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, but the United States has, in effect, abandoned this effort. It may be that one of the periodic escalations in violence will lead to strong influence being exerted from the International Quartet to implement its Roadmap for Peace. These are the key requirements:
a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed. The Arabs must acknowledge openly and specifically that Israel is a reality and has a right to exist in peace, behind secure and recognized borders, and with a firm Arab pledge to terminate any further acts of violence against the legally constituted nation of Israel.
b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israel's permanent legal boundary. The unwavering official policy of the United States since Israel became a state has been that its borders must coincide with those prevailing from 1949 until 1967 (unless modified by mutually agreeable land swaps), specified in the unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 242, which mandates Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories. This obligation was reconfirmed by Israel's leaders in agreements negotiated in 1978 at Camp David and in 1993 at Oslo, for which they received the Nobel Peace Prize, and both of these commitments were officially ratified by the Israeli government. Also, as a member of the International Quartet that includes Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union, America supports the Roadmap for Peace, which espouses exactly the same requirements. Palestinian leaders unequivocally accepted this proposal, but Israel has officially rejected its key provisions with unacceptable caveats and prerequisites.
Despite these recent developments, it is encouraging that Israel has made previous commitments to peace as confirmed by the Camp David Accords, the withdrawal of its forces from the Sinai, the more recent movement of settlers from Gaza, and its official endorsement of pertinent U.N. resolutions establishing its legal borders. After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli military forces occupied all of the territory indicated on Map 4, but joined the United States and other nations in supporting United Nations Resolution 242, which is still the binding law that condemns the acquisition of land by force and requires Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.
c. The sovereignty of all Middle East nations and sanctity of international borders must be honored. There is little doubt that accommodation with Palestinians can bring full Arab recognition of Israel and its right to live in peace, with an Arab commitment to restrain further violence initiated by extremist Palestinians.
The overriding problem is that, for more than a quarter century, the actions of some Israeli leaders have been in direct conflict with the official policies of the United States, the international community, and their own negotiated agreements. Regardless of whether Palestinians had no formalized government, one headed by Yasir Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas, or one with Abbas as president and Hamas controlling the parliament and cabinet, Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land. In order to perpetuate the occupation, Israeli forces have deprived their unwilling subjects of basic human rights. No objective person could personally observe existing conditions in the West Bank and dispute these statements.
Two other interrelated factors have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and regional upheaval: the condoning of illegal Israeli actions from a submissive White House and U.S. Congress during recent years, and the deference with which other international leaders permit this unofficial U.S. policy in the Middle East to prevail. There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories. At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7,500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan.
The United States has used its U.N. Security Council veto more than forty times to block resolutions critical of Israel. Some of these vetoes have brought international discredit on the United States, and there is little doubt that the lack of a persistent effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a major source of anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the Middle East and the Islamic world.
A new factor in the region is that the Palestinian election of January 2006 gave Hamas members control of the parliament and a cabinet headed by the prime minister. Israel and the United States reacted by announcing a policy of isolating and destabilizing the new government. Elected officials are denied travel permits to participate in parliamentary affairs, Gaza is effectively isolated, and every effort is made to block humanitarian funds to Palestinians, to prevent their right to employment or commercial trade, and to deny them access to Israel and the outside world.
In order to achieve its goals, Israel has decided to avoid any peace negotiations and to escape even the mild restraints of the United States by taking unilateral action, called "convergence" or "realignment," to carve out for itself the choice portions of the West Bank, leaving Palestinians destitute within a small and fragmented remnant of their own land. The holding of almost 10,000 Arab prisoners and the destructive military response to the capture of three Israeli soldiers have aroused global concern about the hair-trigger possibility of a regional war being launched.
Despite these immediate challenges, we must not assume that the future is hopeless. Down through the years I have seen despair and frustration evolve into optimism and progress and, even now, we must not abandon efforts to achieve permanent peace for Israelis and freedom and justice for Palestinians. There are some positive factors on which we may rely.
As I said in a 1979 speech to the Israeli Knesset, "The people support a settlement. Political leaders are the obstacles to peace." Over the years, public opinion surveys have consistently shown that a majority of Israelis favor withdrawing from Palestinian territory in exchange for peace ("swapping land for peace"), and recent polls show that 80 percent of Palestinians still want a two-state peace agreement with Israel, with nearly 70 percent supporting the moderate Mahmoud Abbas as their president and spokesman.
There have been some other encouraging developments over the years. Along with the awareness among most Israelis that a solution to the Palestinian question is critical if there is ever to be a comprehensive settlement, there is a growing recognition in the Arab world that Israel is an unchanging reality. Most Palestinians and other Arabs maintain that the proposal made by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, a proposal approved at the Arab summit in 2002 (Appendix 6), is a public acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist within its legal borders and shows willingness to work out disputes that have so far not been addressed directly. The Delphic wording of this statement was deliberate, in Arabic as well as in Hebrew and English, but the Arabs defend it by saying it is there to be explored by the Israelis and others and that, in any case, it is a more positive and clear commitment to international law than anything now coming from Israel.
Furthermore, the remaining differences and their potential resolution are clearly defined. Both Israel and the Arab countries have endorsed the crucial and unavoidable U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, under which peace agreements have already been evolved.
Here are two voices, one Palestinian and the other Israeli, with remarkably similar assessments of what needs to be done.
Jonathan Kuttab, Palestinian human rights lawyer: "Everybody knows what it will take to achieve a permanent and lasting peace that addresses the basic interests of both sides: It's a two-state solution. It's withdrawal to 1967 borders. It's dismantlement of the settlements. It's some kind of shared status for a united Jerusalem, the capital of both parties. The West Bank and Gaza would have to be demilitarized to remove any security threats to Israel. Some kind of solution would have to be reached for the refugee problem, some qualified right of return, with compensation. Everyone knows the solution; the question is: Is there political will to implement it?"
Dr. Naomi Chazan, professor at Hebrew University and former deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset: "I don't think any difference now remains between the majority of Israelis and Palestinians in understanding that there has to be some kind of accommodation between both people. There are two possibilities on how to do it. To acknowledge and then to implement the Palestine right to self-determination, and to make sure that the two-state solution is a just and fair solution, allowing for the creation of a viable state alongside Israel on the 1967 boundaries, and if there are any changes, they are by agreement on a swap basis. And on the Israeli side, there is the need to maintain a democratic state with a Jewish majority, which can only be achieved through the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel."
An important fact to remember is that President Mahmoud Abbas retains all presidential authority that was exercised by Yasir Arafat when he negotiated the Oslo Agreement, and the Hamas prime minister has stated that his government supports peace talks between Israel and Abbas. He added that Hamas would modify its rejection of Israel if there is a negotiated agreement that Palestinians can approve (as specified in the Camp David Accords). It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
One promising development came in May 2006 when Marwan Barghouti, the most popular and influential leader of Fatah, joined forces in an Israeli prison with Abed al-Halak Natashe, a trusted spokesman for Hamas, in endorsing a two-state proposal that could unite the two Palestinian factions. Their influence is enormous. The prisoners' proposal called for a unity government with Hamas joining the PLO, the release of all political prisoners, acceptance of Israel as a neighbor within its legal borders, and an end to violent acts within Israel (but not in Palestinian territory). It endorsed the key U.N. resolutions regarding legal borders and the right of return.
With public opinion polls indicating a 77 percent rate of approval, President Abbas first proposed a referendum among Palestinians on the prisoners' proposal, and then both Hamas and Fatah accepted its provisions.
Although a clear majority of Israelis are persistently willing to accept terms that are tolerable to most of their Arab neighbors, it is clear that none of the options is attractive for all Israelis:
A forcible annexation of Palestine and its legal absorption into Israel, which could give large numbers of non-Jewish citizens the right to vote and live as equals under the law. This would directly violate international standards and the Camp David Accords, which are the basis for peace with Egypt. At the same time, non-Jewish citizens would make up a powerful swing vote if other Israelis were divided and would ultimately constitute an outright majority in the new Greater Israel. Israel would be further isolated and condemned by the international community, with no remaining chance to end hostilities with any appreciable part of the Arab world.
A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed, although many citizens of Israel deride the racist connotation of prescribing permanent second-class status for the Palestinians. As one prominent Israeli stated, "I am afraid that we are moving toward a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship. The West Bank is not worth it." An unacceptable modification of this choice, now being proposed, is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory, with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences, and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them.
Withdrawal to the 1967 border as specified in U.N. Resolution 242 and as promised in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement and prescribed in the Roadmap of the International Quartet. This is the most attractive option and the only one that can ultimately be acceptable as a basis for peace. Good-faith negotiations can lead to mutually agreeable exchanges of land, perhaps permitting a significant number of Israeli settlers to remain in their present homes near Jerusalem. One version of this choice was spelled out in the Geneva Initiative.
The bottom line is this: Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens -- and honor its own previous commitments -- by accepting its legal borders. All Arab neighbors must pledge to honor Israel's right to live in peace under these conditions. The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories.
It will be a tragedy -- for the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the world -- if peace is rejected and a system of oppression, apartheid, and sustained violence is permitted to prevail.
SUMMARY
Since the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty was signed in 1979, much blood has been shed unnecessarily and repeated efforts for a negotiated peace between Israel and her neighbors have failed. Despite its criticism from some Arab sources, this treaty stands as proof that diplomacy can bring lasting peace between ancient adversaries. Although disparities among them are often emphasized, the 1974 Israeli-Syrian withdrawal agreement, the 1978 Camp David Accords, the Reagan statement of 1982, the 1993 Oslo Agreement, the treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994, the Arab peace proposal of 2002, the 2003 Geneva Initiative, and the International Quartet's Roadmap all contain key common elements that can be consolidated if pursued in good faith.
There are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East:
Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and
Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.
In turn, Israel responds with retribution and oppression, and militant Palestinians refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Israel and vow to destroy the nation. The cycle of distrust and violence is sustained, and efforts for peace are frustrated. Casualties have been high as the occupying forces impose ever tighter controls. From September 2000 until March 2006, 3,982 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis were killed in the second intifada, and these numbers include many children: 708 Palestinians and 123 Israelis. As indicated earlier, there was an ever-rising toll of dead and wounded from the latest outbreak of violence in Gaza and Lebanon.
The only rational response to this continuing tragedy is to revitalize the peace process through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, but the United States has, in effect, abandoned this effort. It may be that one of the periodic escalations in violence will lead to strong influence being exerted from the International Quartet to implement its Roadmap for Peace. These are the key requirements:
a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed. The Arabs must acknowledge openly and specifically that Israel is a reality and has a right to exist in peace, behind secure and recognized borders, and with a firm Arab pledge to terminate any further acts of violence against the legally constituted nation of Israel.
b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israel's permanent legal boundary. The unwavering official policy of the United States since Israel became a state has been that its borders must coincide with those prevailing from 1949 until 1967 (unless modified by mutually agreeable land swaps), specified in the unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 242, which mandates Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories. This obligation was reconfirmed by Israel's leaders in agreements negotiated in 1978 at Camp David and in 1993 at Oslo, for which they received the Nobel Peace Prize, and both of these commitments were officially ratified by the Israeli government. Also, as a member of the International Quartet that includes Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union, America supports the Roadmap for Peace, which espouses exactly the same requirements. Palestinian leaders unequivocally accepted this proposal, but Israel has officially rejected its key provisions with unacceptable caveats and prerequisites.
Despite these recent developments, it is encouraging that Israel has made previous commitments to peace as confirmed by the Camp David Accords, the withdrawal of its forces from the Sinai, the more recent movement of settlers from Gaza, and its official endorsement of pertinent U.N. resolutions establishing its legal borders. After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli military forces occupied all of the territory indicated on Map 4, but joined the United States and other nations in supporting United Nations Resolution 242, which is still the binding law that condemns the acquisition of land by force and requires Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.
c. The sovereignty of all Middle East nations and sanctity of international borders must be honored. There is little doubt that accommodation with Palestinians can bring full Arab recognition of Israel and its right to live in peace, with an Arab commitment to restrain further violence initiated by extremist Palestinians.
The overriding problem is that, for more than a quarter century, the actions of some Israeli leaders have been in direct conflict with the official policies of the United States, the international community, and their own negotiated agreements. Regardless of whether Palestinians had no formalized government, one headed by Yasir Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas, or one with Abbas as president and Hamas controlling the parliament and cabinet, Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land. In order to perpetuate the occupation, Israeli forces have deprived their unwilling subjects of basic human rights. No objective person could personally observe existing conditions in the West Bank and dispute these statements.
Two other interrelated factors have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and regional upheaval: the condoning of illegal Israeli actions from a submissive White House and U.S. Congress during recent years, and the deference with which other international leaders permit this unofficial U.S. policy in the Middle East to prevail. There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories. At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7,500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan.
The United States has used its U.N. Security Council veto more than forty times to block resolutions critical of Israel. Some of these vetoes have brought international discredit on the United States, and there is little doubt that the lack of a persistent effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a major source of anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the Middle East and the Islamic world.
A new factor in the region is that the Palestinian election of January 2006 gave Hamas members control of the parliament and a cabinet headed by the prime minister. Israel and the United States reacted by announcing a policy of isolating and destabilizing the new government. Elected officials are denied travel permits to participate in parliamentary affairs, Gaza is effectively isolated, and every effort is made to block humanitarian funds to Palestinians, to prevent their right to employment or commercial trade, and to deny them access to Israel and the outside world.
In order to achieve its goals, Israel has decided to avoid any peace negotiations and to escape even the mild restraints of the United States by taking unilateral action, called "convergence" or "realignment," to carve out for itself the choice portions of the West Bank, leaving Palestinians destitute within a small and fragmented remnant of their own land. The holding of almost 10,000 Arab prisoners and the destructive military response to the capture of three Israeli soldiers have aroused global concern about the hair-trigger possibility of a regional war being launched.
Despite these immediate challenges, we must not assume that the future is hopeless. Down through the years I have seen despair and frustration evolve into optimism and progress and, even now, we must not abandon efforts to achieve permanent peace for Israelis and freedom and justice for Palestinians. There are some positive factors on which we may rely.
As I said in a 1979 speech to the Israeli Knesset, "The people support a settlement. Political leaders are the obstacles to peace." Over the years, public opinion surveys have consistently shown that a majority of Israelis favor withdrawing from Palestinian territory in exchange for peace ("swapping land for peace"), and recent polls show that 80 percent of Palestinians still want a two-state peace agreement with Israel, with nearly 70 percent supporting the moderate Mahmoud Abbas as their president and spokesman.
There have been some other encouraging developments over the years. Along with the awareness among most Israelis that a solution to the Palestinian question is critical if there is ever to be a comprehensive settlement, there is a growing recognition in the Arab world that Israel is an unchanging reality. Most Palestinians and other Arabs maintain that the proposal made by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, a proposal approved at the Arab summit in 2002 (Appendix 6), is a public acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist within its legal borders and shows willingness to work out disputes that have so far not been addressed directly. The Delphic wording of this statement was deliberate, in Arabic as well as in Hebrew and English, but the Arabs defend it by saying it is there to be explored by the Israelis and others and that, in any case, it is a more positive and clear commitment to international law than anything now coming from Israel.
Furthermore, the remaining differences and their potential resolution are clearly defined. Both Israel and the Arab countries have endorsed the crucial and unavoidable U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, under which peace agreements have already been evolved.
Here are two voices, one Palestinian and the other Israeli, with remarkably similar assessments of what needs to be done.
Jonathan Kuttab, Palestinian human rights lawyer: "Everybody knows what it will take to achieve a permanent and lasting peace that addresses the basic interests of both sides: It's a two-state solution. It's withdrawal to 1967 borders. It's dismantlement of the settlements. It's some kind of shared status for a united Jerusalem, the capital of both parties. The West Bank and Gaza would have to be demilitarized to remove any security threats to Israel. Some kind of solution would have to be reached for the refugee problem, some qualified right of return, with compensation. Everyone knows the solution; the question is: Is there political will to implement it?"
Dr. Naomi Chazan, professor at Hebrew University and former deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset: "I don't think any difference now remains between the majority of Israelis and Palestinians in understanding that there has to be some kind of accommodation between both people. There are two possibilities on how to do it. To acknowledge and then to implement the Palestine right to self-determination, and to make sure that the two-state solution is a just and fair solution, allowing for the creation of a viable state alongside Israel on the 1967 boundaries, and if there are any changes, they are by agreement on a swap basis. And on the Israeli side, there is the need to maintain a democratic state with a Jewish majority, which can only be achieved through the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel."
An important fact to remember is that President Mahmoud Abbas retains all presidential authority that was exercised by Yasir Arafat when he negotiated the Oslo Agreement, and the Hamas prime minister has stated that his government supports peace talks between Israel and Abbas. He added that Hamas would modify its rejection of Israel if there is a negotiated agreement that Palestinians can approve (as specified in the Camp David Accords). It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
One promising development came in May 2006 when Marwan Barghouti, the most popular and influential leader of Fatah, joined forces in an Israeli prison with Abed al-Halak Natashe, a trusted spokesman for Hamas, in endorsing a two-state proposal that could unite the two Palestinian factions. Their influence is enormous. The prisoners' proposal called for a unity government with Hamas joining the PLO, the release of all political prisoners, acceptance of Israel as a neighbor within its legal borders, and an end to violent acts within Israel (but not in Palestinian territory). It endorsed the key U.N. resolutions regarding legal borders and the right of return.
With public opinion polls indicating a 77 percent rate of approval, President Abbas first proposed a referendum among Palestinians on the prisoners' proposal, and then both Hamas and Fatah accepted its provisions.
Although a clear majority of Israelis are persistently willing to accept terms that are tolerable to most of their Arab neighbors, it is clear that none of the options is attractive for all Israelis:
A forcible annexation of Palestine and its legal absorption into Israel, which could give large numbers of non-Jewish citizens the right to vote and live as equals under the law. This would directly violate international standards and the Camp David Accords, which are the basis for peace with Egypt. At the same time, non-Jewish citizens would make up a powerful swing vote if other Israelis were divided and would ultimately constitute an outright majority in the new Greater Israel. Israel would be further isolated and condemned by the international community, with no remaining chance to end hostilities with any appreciable part of the Arab world.
A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed, although many citizens of Israel deride the racist connotation of prescribing permanent second-class status for the Palestinians. As one prominent Israeli stated, "I am afraid that we are moving toward a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship. The West Bank is not worth it." An unacceptable modification of this choice, now being proposed, is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory, with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences, and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them.
Withdrawal to the 1967 border as specified in U.N. Resolution 242 and as promised in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement and prescribed in the Roadmap of the International Quartet. This is the most attractive option and the only one that can ultimately be acceptable as a basis for peace. Good-faith negotiations can lead to mutually agreeable exchanges of land, perhaps permitting a significant number of Israeli settlers to remain in their present homes near Jerusalem. One version of this choice was spelled out in the Geneva Initiative.
The bottom line is this: Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens -- and honor its own previous commitments -- by accepting its legal borders. All Arab neighbors must pledge to honor Israel's right to live in peace under these conditions. The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories.
It will be a tragedy -- for the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the world -- if peace is rejected and a system of oppression, apartheid, and sustained violence is permitted to prevail.
http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?...2298&agid=2
All in all, I think the reading to the effect that Carter is arguing that Israel does not have the right to live in peace UNLESS it is under the following conditions: It complies with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens, honors its own previous commitments and accepts its legal borders.
The excerpt selected by the rightwingers is particularly egregious, but I don't think Carter is actually saying something THAT different than what he's being accused of saying.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Jan 15 2007, 10:00 PM) [snapback]276870[/snapback]
All in all, I think the reading to the effect that Carter is arguing that Israel does not have the right to live in peace UNLESS it is under the following conditions: It complies with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens, honors its own previous commitments and accepts its legal borders.
The excerpt selected by the rightwingers is particularly egregious, but I don't think Carter is actually saying something THAT different than what he's being accused of saying.
Jimmah and I agree that the first thing Israel should do is to publicly dismantle all their nuclear weapons as a gesture of good faith...this would ensure that she would ultimately never violate international law again as she would be well along the Roadmap for Peace as envisioned by Iran.
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Jan 16 2007, 01:12 AM) [snapback]276875[/snapback]
Jimmah and I agree that the first thing Israel should do is to publicly dismantle all their nuclear weapons as a gesture of good faith...this would ensure that she would ultimately never violate international law again as she would be well along the Roadmap for Peace as envisioned by Iran.
Bub... which should they have more faith in... their nukes... or their God?
QUOTE(CharlieRay @ Jan 16 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]276936[/snapback]
Bub... which should they have more faith in... their nukes... or their God?
Go with the nukes. God has been a little unreliable over the years.
QUOTE(CharlieRay @ Jan 16 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]276936[/snapback]
Bub... which should they have more faith in... their nukes... or their God?
The definition of faith requires the answer be their God...nukes have demonstrably passed a performance test.
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Jan 16 2007, 10:23 AM) [snapback]276958[/snapback]
The definition of faith requires the answer be their God...nukes have demonstrably passed a performance test.
No wonder Iran wants to develop the capacity to produce them (a la Japan and Brazil) without necessarily producing them.
Isreal has been known to engage in pre-emptive offensive "defensive" military actions.
More Carter defections:
Running from Jimmy
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Mr. Carter is most adept at using rhetoric as incendiary as it is inaccurate.
The principled resignations last week of 14 advisory board members of the Carter Center is a reminder that Jimmy Carter is better at building habitats for humanity than bridges.
Mr. Carter's latest literary effort -- a rewrite of history titled "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" -- suggests the failed one-term president is most adept at burning bridges using rhetoric as incendiary as it is inaccurate.
Carter says Israel's treatment of Palestinians -- supposedly depriving them of basic human rights -- has at times been more onerous than the treatment of black people in South Africa by the then-apartheid government.
Perhaps he's unaware that roughly 24 percent of Israel's non-Jewish population within its pre-1967 boundaries mostly is Arab, very peaceful, and that Arabic is the official language used for the Arab minority.
The former peanut farmer from Georgia also claims Americans are afraid to express their opinions about the Middle East for fear of retribution by the "Jewish Lobby."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...e/s_488664.html
Running from Jimmy
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Mr. Carter is most adept at using rhetoric as incendiary as it is inaccurate.
The principled resignations last week of 14 advisory board members of the Carter Center is a reminder that Jimmy Carter is better at building habitats for humanity than bridges.
Mr. Carter's latest literary effort -- a rewrite of history titled "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" -- suggests the failed one-term president is most adept at burning bridges using rhetoric as incendiary as it is inaccurate.
Carter says Israel's treatment of Palestinians -- supposedly depriving them of basic human rights -- has at times been more onerous than the treatment of black people in South Africa by the then-apartheid government.
Perhaps he's unaware that roughly 24 percent of Israel's non-Jewish population within its pre-1967 boundaries mostly is Arab, very peaceful, and that Arabic is the official language used for the Arab minority.
The former peanut farmer from Georgia also claims Americans are afraid to express their opinions about the Middle East for fear of retribution by the "Jewish Lobby."
- At least Mr. Carter did not accuse Israel of turning children into suicide bombers, the 9/11 terrorists into heroes or turning on 14 loyalists who were so repulsed by the Man from Plains that they shunned him in unison
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...e/s_488664.html
Heh.
QUOTE
The former peanut farmer from Georgia also claims Americans are afraid to express their opinions about the Middle East for fear of retribution by the "Jewish Lobby."
This is most certainly true. I don't know why you can't just admit it.
Yep.
With all the criticism of Israel and their "lobby" I keep reading, they are really, really effective.
For those who cannot "hear" my words - that was sarcasm, or at least meant as such.
With all the criticism of Israel and their "lobby" I keep reading, they are really, really effective.
For those who cannot "hear" my words - that was sarcasm, or at least meant as such.
Jimmy Carter continues to be newsworthy (in a negative way, of course) and by the San Francisco Examiner editorial of all things!!
Carter continues to forge a befuddled legacy
The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper, The Examiner
Jan 16, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO - Recently, while researching a column that touched on foreign aid, I discovered that Jimmy Carter had once said Americans “don’t really care about what happens” to the poor of other lands. In fact, when you add private contributions to government assistance, our generosity to them is amazing.
Those infamies show up in a Carter book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” that holds Israel chiefly responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it traipses through a host of errors detected by critics.
They say he gets it wrong, among many other things, when he says Palestinians embraced a peace proposal by President Bush wholeheartedly from the start, when he says Hezbollah was formed in large part to help Palestinians get their land back and when he says Israel retaliated against Hezbollah massively in the most recent war in Lebanon only because of the kidnaping and killing of a few Israeli soldiers.
The critics’ response is that Palestinians never went along with the Bush proposal’s strictures against terrorist activities, that Hezbollah was formed in part to obliterate Israel from the face of the earth, and that Hezbollah was launching missiles at Israel before Israel hit back. Few would contend Israel has made no errors or committed no misdeeds in its conflicts, but a failure to see how its best intentions have been repeatedly thwarted by enemies wanting to kill every Jew in the nation is to be utterly biased.
Carter is 82, and you might excuse him by saying age is catching up with him — that he has slowed down a step or two — except that the book appears in keeping with behavior that existed in his presidency and repeatedly since then.
Here is a man whose presidential policies on the deposing of the shah in Iran and the Iranian hostage crisis have not just a little but a lot to do with the growth of the Islamic fascism that gave us 9/11, some say.
Here is a man who has repeatedly played kissy-face with tyrants, who once spoke of Americans as overly worked up about communism and whose uninvited diplomacy — by at least some accounts — helped allow North Korea to proceed with nuclear weapons production, some say.
In a book on Carter, Steven Hayward recalls how he tried to persuade allies to oppose the first Gulf War in the United Nations, and how Time magazine columnist Lance Morrow said, “Some of his Lone Ranger work has taken him dangerously close to the neighborhood of what we used to call treason.”
We can avoid the word “treason,” but let’s hope Carter’s latest literary excursion will keep us from using the word “saint.”
Carter continues to forge a befuddled legacy
The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper, The Examiner
Jan 16, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO - Recently, while researching a column that touched on foreign aid, I discovered that Jimmy Carter had once said Americans “don’t really care about what happens” to the poor of other lands. In fact, when you add private contributions to government assistance, our generosity to them is amazing.
- Carter, in short, was being true to his character in the remark — smug, irretrievably condemnatory of the land of his birth, a comfort to those who join in castigating us and fundamentally amiss about a large issue.
Those infamies show up in a Carter book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” that holds Israel chiefly responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it traipses through a host of errors detected by critics.
They say he gets it wrong, among many other things, when he says Palestinians embraced a peace proposal by President Bush wholeheartedly from the start, when he says Hezbollah was formed in large part to help Palestinians get their land back and when he says Israel retaliated against Hezbollah massively in the most recent war in Lebanon only because of the kidnaping and killing of a few Israeli soldiers.
The critics’ response is that Palestinians never went along with the Bush proposal’s strictures against terrorist activities, that Hezbollah was formed in part to obliterate Israel from the face of the earth, and that Hezbollah was launching missiles at Israel before Israel hit back. Few would contend Israel has made no errors or committed no misdeeds in its conflicts, but a failure to see how its best intentions have been repeatedly thwarted by enemies wanting to kill every Jew in the nation is to be utterly biased.
Carter is 82, and you might excuse him by saying age is catching up with him — that he has slowed down a step or two — except that the book appears in keeping with behavior that existed in his presidency and repeatedly since then.
Here is a man whose presidential policies on the deposing of the shah in Iran and the Iranian hostage crisis have not just a little but a lot to do with the growth of the Islamic fascism that gave us 9/11, some say.
Here is a man who has repeatedly played kissy-face with tyrants, who once spoke of Americans as overly worked up about communism and whose uninvited diplomacy — by at least some accounts — helped allow North Korea to proceed with nuclear weapons production, some say.
In a book on Carter, Steven Hayward recalls how he tried to persuade allies to oppose the first Gulf War in the United Nations, and how Time magazine columnist Lance Morrow said, “Some of his Lone Ranger work has taken him dangerously close to the neighborhood of what we used to call treason.”
We can avoid the word “treason,” but let’s hope Carter’s latest literary excursion will keep us from using the word “saint.”
QUOTE
Maybe the public will start discovering what a befuddled troublemaker he really is,
QUOTE
Yep.
With all the criticism of Israel and their "lobby" I keep reading, they are really, really effective.
For those who cannot "hear" my words - that was sarcasm, or at least meant as such.
It's still the truth. Especially with evangelicals. Israel has a very, very special place in their heart and to take a position against them is damned near an automatic war cry. That is what you are seeing with Judy. How dare Carter criticize Israel!
US Christians care more than US Jews
By Jonathan Rosenblum
November, 15 2001
Conventional wisdom attributes the broad popular support that Israel enjoys in the US to the power of the Jewish lobby and the intense support for Israel among American Jews. That conventional wisdom, however, misses a great deal.
Concern with Israel's security has long since ceased to preoccupy most American Jews. A recent survey by the Jewish Studies Center of CCNY concludes that of the 5.5 million Americans defined by sociologists as Jewish, half list their religion as "other" or "none."
Not surprisingly, ethnic identity of American Jews is declining rapidly. With little sense of themselves as Jews, most American Jews have little connection to one another, much less to Jews far away.
Even among those with more than a minimal Jewish identity, the Israel connection tends to be fickle. Witness the Reform movement's cancellation of programs last summer and the nearly 50% drop out rate among this year's rabbinical and cantorial students at the Conservative Shechter Institute. A mere 135 foreign students are registered for the Hebrew University's one-year program this year, less than a quarter of the number just two years ago.
When American Jews express opinions on Israel, they often appear to be completely out of touch with events here, and with the vast changes in Israeli public opinion over the past year. A recent survey conducted by Jewish groups close to the Clinton administration claims, mirable dictu, that 85% of American Jews want the US to return to the activist role of the Clinton years - 75% even if it leads to confrontations between Israel and the States.
While those numbers must be taken with a grain of salt, the remarkable thing is that they reflect absolutely no change in light of the events of the past year. The sole exception to this bleak general picture is the American Orthodox community. At the typical Israel Day Parade, a large majority of the participants will be wearing knitted kippot and long skirts. Already 20 years ago, historian Lucy Dawidowicz observed that only the Orthodox vote reflects great concern for Jewish interests, among which the security of Jews in Israel is paramount.
Nor is Orthodox support limited to sending checks. Despite a year of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks, there has actually been a slight increase in the enrollment of American post-high school students registered in yeshivas and seminaries in Israel.
Over 5,000 single young Orthodox Americans have come this year to study at these institutions, and thousands more young married men are continuing their yeshiva studies.
All this is not to say that the Jewish lobby does not play an important role in Washington, or that American Jewish philanthropy is not vital to Israel. AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying groups are feared, if not always loved, on Capitol Hill. Any politician with national ambitions must consider the heavy concentration of Jews in states rich in electoral votes, and the wildly disproportionate Jewish money contributed to campaigns.
But while Jewish votes assure that New York's senators will always be demonstrably pro-Israel, those votes cannot begin to explain the broad consensus of congressional support for Israel and the consistently positive feelings toward Israel of the general American population.
Many of Israel's staunchest supporters in Congress have traditionally come from states with small Jewish populations: e.g., Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, Attorney-General John Ashcroft, formerly a senator from Missouri; and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. Far from being supported by the mainstream Jewish community, these men are often anathematized by Jewish groups for their social conservatism. On a host of issues, from school prayer to aid to educational tax vouchers to abortion, they consistently line up on the opposite side from the organized Jewish community.
These men support Israel not because of the mainstream Jewish community, but despite it. Their views are shaped by their own consciences and reflect the consensus of their overwhelmingly Christian constituents.
Devout Christians constitute the bedrock of American support for Israel. Such Christians number in the tens of millions. Unlike American Jews, they are not embarrassed by criticisms of Israel in certain left-wing circles, and do not cancel tours to Israel after each terrorist incident.
Even a casual survey of the letters to the editor of The Jerusalem Post reveals how avidly many American Christians follow events in Israel. Mindful of the crucial importance of devout Christians, AIPAC employed an evangelical Christian as its chief lobbyist for years.
Orthodox Jews constitute a potentially vital link to the fundamentalist community. They find it easy to talk to believers of other religions. "God talk" does not give them the willies; they also talk like that.
Christian supporters of Israel open up their Bibles and read that Israel is the Promised Land, promised to the Jews. The God-intoxicated Jews they read about in the Bible observe strict dietary laws, honor the Sabbath, and are bound by strict codes of sexual morality.
The Jews of the Bible, however, bear little resemblance to those the average American Christian is likely to see on TV or read about, who are likely to be found at the forefront of every movement of sexual liberation.
Given the image of Jews as the least religious segment of the American population, Christians who take the Bible seriously are bound to ask themselves: Do the Jews of the Bible - the ones to whom the Land was promised - still exist?
Similar questions about the connection between Jews of today and those of the Bible are aroused by the apparent indifference of so many modern Jews to the sanctity of the Land and even to the most important historical sites of their religion, like Rachel's Tomb and the Temple Mount.
Israel's Christian friends are thrilled when they meet Jews who take seriously the Bible's commandments and who continue to cherish the Temple Mount as the place where the Divine Presence dwelt. A visible Orthodox community thus serves as an important corrective to Christian stereotypes about godless Jews.
Orthodox Jews are Israel's secret weapon in the war for American public opinion. They constitute, as a group, Israel's most committed supporters within the American Jewish community. And they serve as a crucial link between Israel and its strongest Christian supporters.
©2001 - Jerusalem Post
http://christianactionforisrael.org/action/care.html
QUOTE
Here is a man whose presidential policies on the deposing of the shah in Iran and the Iranian hostage crisis have not just a little but a lot to do with the growth of the Islamic fascism that gave us 9/11, some say.
Here is a man who has repeatedly played kissy-face with tyrants, who once spoke of Americans as overly worked up about communism and whose uninvited diplomacy — by at least some accounts — helped allow North Korea to proceed with nuclear weapons production, some say.
Here is a man who has repeatedly played kissy-face with tyrants, who once spoke of Americans as overly worked up about communism and whose uninvited diplomacy — by at least some accounts — helped allow North Korea to proceed with nuclear weapons production, some say.
This is complete bullsheit. God, you people are just twisted. some say.
A cult of madness. SOME SAY.
I feel almost like Ben Stein in Ferris Buehler's Day Off:
"Anyone here afraid to criticize Israel due to the retribution of the "Jewish Lobby?"
"Anyone?"
"Anyone?"
"Anyone here afraid to criticize Israel due to the retribution of the "Jewish Lobby?"
"Anyone?"
"Anyone?"
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Jan 16 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]276990[/snapback]
It's still the truth. Especially with evangelicals. Israel has a very, very special place in their heart and to take a position against them is damned near an automatic war cry. That is what you are seeing with Judy. How dare Carter criticize Israel!
Why would you dismiss any notion that Judy might simply believe that Carter is wrong?
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Jan 16 2007, 03:07 PM) [snapback]276992[/snapback]
I feel almost like Ben Stein in Ferris Buehler's Day Off:
"Anyone here afraid to criticize Israel due to the retribution of the "Jewish Lobby?"
"Anyone?"
"Anyone?"
<shakes head>
It's a political payback. OK? They don't send around goons to break your legs.
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Jan 16 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]276993[/snapback]
Why would you dismiss any notion that Judy might simply believe that Carter is wrong?
I've read her posts. I'm judging from what news she contributes and her writing itself. IMO, that is one of the main things that motivates her hatred of Jimmy Carter.
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Jan 16 2007, 04:07 PM) [snapback]276992[/snapback]
I feel almost like Ben Stein in Ferris Buehler's Day Off:
"Anyone here afraid to criticize Israel due to the retribution of the "Jewish Lobby?"
"Anyone?"
"Anyone?"
No one here represents the MSM. Our jobs don't depend on who we criticize or speak out about.
Nor apparently so for any of those in the MSM who pen such criticism - as the multitude such stories and op-eds sourced within these very threads attests.
Really, really effective lobby. Not.
Really, really effective lobby. Not.
You think that AIPAC is powerless? You think their influence is minimal?
No, just overblown in some circles.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Jan 16 2007, 11:17 AM) [snapback]276955[/snapback]
Go with the nukes. God has been a little unreliable over the years.
I think God's idea of the long view and our's may be a little different. What's a few thousand years give or take?
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Jan 16 2007, 11:17 AM) [snapback]276955[/snapback]
Go with the nukes. God has been a little unreliable over the years.
Do you really think so?... mightn't it be the human element that has been unreliable?
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Jan 16 2007, 11:23 AM) [snapback]276958[/snapback]
The definition of faith requires the answer be their God...nukes have demonstrably passed a performance test.
You don't think God has "demonstrably passed a performance test"?
Worst President in America's history
Jimmy Carter: A Weak, Ineffectual President And An Embarrassing And Dishonest Ex-President
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon,
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
If historians accurately describe the record of ex-President Jimmy Carter, they will be forced to conclude that Carter was probably the worst President in America's history.
Why? A bit of history is in order. Those old enough to remember Carter's four dismal years in the White House should recall that it was Carter who withdrew American support for the pro-Western Shah of Iran for his alleged "human rights" violations.
As a result of Carter's withdrawal of support from the Shah, the pro-Western nation fell into the hands of the radical Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly murdered more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians by firing squad. Iran became a stronghold for Islamists and destabilized the entire Middle East.
One of Khomeini's henchmen at the time is now the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In 1979, Ahmadinejad was a rabid college student who helped organize the storming of the American Embassy on November 4. He was joined in this attack by 400 Iranians wielding sticks and chains. They invaded the embassy in Tehran and held the embassy personnel until January 1981. Ahmadinejad served as a liaison between the hostage-takers and Ali Khamenei, who currently serves as Iran's Supreme (spiritual) Leader.
By subverting the pro-Western Shah, Jimmy Carter gave us Islamic radicalism in Iran -- and a dangerous nuclear threat. Within a year after Khomeini seized power in Iran, it was at war with Iraq. More than 500,000 died in this war. These people died because of Carter's personal weakness and his outright subversion of the Shah.
In addition, the Soviet Union recognized the weakness of Carter and invaded Afghanistan. In an attempt to protect the Afghans from Soviet oppression, America helped the Mullahs fight back. One of those Muslim leaders was Osama Bin Laden. Carter can be indirectly linked to the empowerment of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the spread of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Now, the ex-President is in the news again. This time it's about his anti-Israel book, probable plagiarism and the resignation of 14 Carter Center leaders over his pro-Islamic terrorist comments. They have resigned over concern about lies and distortions in his book. In addition, former Ambassador Dennis Ross is also concerned that Carter ripped off maps that he had created and never credited him in the book. Ross is calling for a correction and attribution.
The 14 Carter Center officials who resigned sent a joint letter to Carter. In it, they said: "We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support."
But, wait. There's more! Not only is Carter in the news over his anti-Israel, pro-Islamist screed, but he and Bill Clinton have decided to create a broad and "inclusive" Baptist movement to overcome what they see as a negative image of Baptists. Carter and Clinton announced their new project at the Carter Center on January 9.
They claim they want a Baptist movement that is more concerned about the environment and global conflicts. Jimmy Carter should know about global conflicts. He helped foment several wars while President. And perhaps Bill Clinton wishes to create an inclusive Ten Commandments that does away with such negative commands as "do not commit adultery," and "do not lie."
Carter and Clinton are the perfect pair for subverting Baptists because both of them have difficulty telling the truth. The world would be better off if both of them kept their mouths shut, but this is unlikely to happen. Both are ego-driven and can't stand to be out of the limelight--even if it's negative publicity.
I'm afraid we're going to be enduring their underhanded activities for years to come. Let's pray that they fail in all of their efforts.
This Editorial can be viewed online at:http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2984
Note to Sherryb.... no Jews in this report!
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Jan 16 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]276993[/snapback]
Why would you dismiss any notion that Judy might simply believe that Carter is wrong?
Because she just spews invective at him or about him without ever discussing his arguments for what he says and offering counter arguments.
The uneducated, ill-informed and stupid take her tack. Like you.
As do those with an agenda that overwhelms ordinary reason. Also like you.
And I keep thinking she is just a little crazy, because her basis of argument is so often so unreal, and out of contact with reality.
So says the guy with an IQ slightly below retard.
QUOTE
ut, wait. There's more! Not only is Carter in the news over his anti-Israel, pro-Islamist screed,
Anything that criticizes Israel is considered eeeeeevil. Anything that gives Muslims even the slightest measure of humanity is being a terrorist lover.
QUOTE
but he and Bill Clinton have decided to create a broad and "inclusive" Baptist movement to overcome what they see as a negative image of Baptists. Carter and Clinton announced their new project at the Carter Center on January 9.
And why shouldn't they be able to do this? What about freedom of religion?
QUOTE
They claim they want a Baptist movement that is more concerned about the environment and global conflicts.
THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. Remember that freedom of religion thing again? If Dobson and the rest of his crew can try to convince Christians in this country that torturing SUSPECTS is perfectly ok and even moral then you should have -0- problem with it.
QUOTE
Jimmy Carter should know about global conflicts. He helped foment several wars while President.
Egypt and Israel's peace is one of the only success stories in the ME.
QUOTE
And perhaps Bill Clinton wishes to create an inclusive Ten Commandments that does away with such negative commands as "do not commit adultery," and "do not lie."
I have to tell you, linking Clinton's whoredog morals to Carter's criticism of Israeli policies is pretty god damned low.
These fools are just disgustinga nd I'm ashamed that our country could produce such lowlife scum.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Jan 17 2007, 09:35 AM) [snapback]277186[/snapback]
So says the guy with an IQ slightly below retard.
Some folks just can't handle the truth.
Another moron heard from Looks like a moron morning today.
QUOTE
Jimmy Carter should know about global conflicts. He helped foment several wars while President.
Coming from a Bush lover this is indeed the height of hypocrisy. Bush directly causes the deaths of uncounted thousands of people, starts a major ME war with us trapped in the center, embraces torture as official United States policy, raises the level of hostility in the world to an all time high and this
wants to criticize Carter, undoubtedly the most peaceful, decent president we've had in my lifetime.QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Jan 17 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]277188[/snapback]
Another moron heard from Looks like a moron morning today.
Take your bs lies and fake morals and shove up yer blankety blank you enlightened faith-based gentleman.
Edited by me. Can you guess what part?
What a farking moron, that davis.
Could tell us why y'all are inherently morally superior to everyone else again?
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Jan 17 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]277188[/snapback]
Another moron heard from Looks like a moron morning today.
Seriopusly, are you all right ?
I mean, your insults have really taken a turn for the worse.
I admit that it must be getting harder to do what with the election loss and the clear failure of every effort of this administration to move things forward at all even in conservative terms, but really, you're just not doing well.
Was it Thurmond dying that finally started you downhill ?
Two worthless pieces of sheit.
I knew that would be an interesting answer. Makes me want to go to church.
Slimey chunk of snot.
QUOTE(Celt Cahill @ Jan 17 2007, 07:14 AM) [snapback]277181[/snapback]
The uneducated, ill-informed and stupid take her tack. Like you.
As do those with an agenda that overwhelms ordinary reason. Also like you.
And I keep thinking she is just a little crazy, because her basis of argument is so often so unreal, and out of contact with reality.
I noticed you were grading the quality of insults this am...as this is your handiwork, I must assume this is some of your best efforts.
Need I say more?
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Jan 16 2007, 02:12 AM) [snapback]276875[/snapback]
Jimmah and I agree that the first thing Israel should do is to publicly dismantle all their nuclear weapons as a gesture of good faith...this would ensure that she would ultimately never violate international law again as she would be well along the Roadmap for Peace as envisioned by Iran.
True, but only If you're going to let the Iranian President do your thinking for you.
QUOTE(judy @ Jan 17 2007, 07:21 AM) [snapback]277179[/snapback]
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
If historians accurately describe the record of ex-President Jimmy Carter, they will be forced to conclude that Carter was probably the worst President in America's history.
Why? A bit of history is in order. Those old enough to remember Carter's four dismal years in the White House should recall that it was Carter who withdrew American support for the pro-Western Shah of Iran for his alleged "human rights" violations.
As a result of Carter's withdrawal of support from the Shah, the pro-Western nation fell into the hands of the radical Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly murdered more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians by firing squad. Iran became a stronghold for Islamists and destabilized the entire Middle East.
Note to Sherryb.... no Jews in this report!
No Jews? Good, now we can believe everything in it.
I just can't rate Carter anything but a ineffectual dupe. A real villain would he been more effective. I doubt he has any real ill will for Israel, he just has blinders on that only allow him to see one side of the issue. Like any good liberal he sees the US as the problem and just can't bring himself to side with our ally, Israel.
Just like he couldn't bring himself to side with the Shah. Now see what we have in Iran.
The CFP article was written by a right wing nut.
Right Wing Organizations
Traditional Values Coalition
The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) is a small but influential organization that appears to consist mostly of the Rev. Lou Sheldon and his daughter Andrea Sheldon Lafferty. Both are mainstays on the conservative circuit, though their reputation has been damaged by revelations that Lou Sheldon took money from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff to help kill an anti-gambling bill that would have hurt one of Abramoff’s clients.
Traditional Values Coalition
100 S. Anaheim Boulevard - Suite 320
Anaheim, CA 92805
Traditional Values Coalition
139 C Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
He hates Carter but takes money from Abramoff. What a guy.
QUOTE
As a result of Carter's withdrawal of support from the Shah, the pro-Western nation fell into the hands of the radical Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini
Unbelievable. Literally in-credible.
I suppose the farking Shah himself and his apparatus were innocent little secular, capitalist royal saints, eh?
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Jan 17 2007, 10:35 AM) [snapback]277229[/snapback]
Unbelievable. Literally in-credible.
I suppose the farking Shah himself and his apparatus were innocent little secular, capitalist royal saints, eh?
In the future we should only support saints. That will work well.
At least with that strategy the USSR would have gone defunct long ago. Under German management.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.