Carter is a Southern Baptist from Georgia. Need I say more. I was discussing Carter with a ladyfriend, with whom I run, who is also a Southern Baptist, and I mentioned his referring to Israel as an apartheid state, his conduct towards Israel when he was President, and his current remarks. She told me that Southern Baptists are, in general, antisemites.
Here’s a new column from the Jerusalem World Review: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0310/tobin032910.php3
Yes. Yes, you do.
Two more commentaries:
You said it so well and i agree totally.
It is a matter of balancing the vast, lasting and measurable benefits of dissociating against the destructive potential of the various Israel lobbies. A proper repudiation of Israel will probably take time and coalition building within the US before it can advance.
But they’re terrorists because they’ve been told to go to hell. Trouble is, they try to take as many people as possible with them when they go.
Here’s what the non-extremist Palestinians and most Arabs want:
I wouldn’t give them 100% of their demands either, but I fail to see how “No, no and no” amount to being offered “almost everything”.
Here is what the Palestinians turned down in 2000:
I don’t see that as no, no, and no. Considering that throughout history demands from the losing side of a war have been greeted with a giant “lick my balls,” I see this as a very generous offer.
Ramat Shlomo was part of a Palestinian village until the 1970s. Israel’s ownership of it is not widely accepted by all sides.
From somebody who was there :
On the eve of Camp David, Israeli negotiators described their purported red lines to their American counterparts: the annexation of more than 10 percent of the West Bank, sovereignty over parts of the strip along the Jordan River, and rejection of any territorial swaps. At the opening of Camp David, Barak warned the Americans that he could not accept Palestinian sovereignty over any part of East Jerusalem other than a purely symbolic “foothold.” Earlier, he had claimed that if Arafat asked for 95 percent of the West Bank, there would be no deal…
The final and largely unnoticed consequence of Barak’s approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel’s position in the event of failure, and resolved not to let the Palestinians take advantage of one-sided compromises, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal. The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing, but orally conveyed. They generally were presented as US concepts, not Israeli ones; indeed, despite having demanded the opportunity to negotiate face to face with Arafat, Barak refused to hold any substantive meeting with him at Camp David out of fear that the Palestinian leader would seek to put Israeli concessions on the record. Nor were the proposals detailed. If written down, the American ideas at Camp David would have covered no more than a few pages. Barak and the Americans insisted that Arafat accept them as general “bases for negotiations” before launching into more rigorous negotiations.
And the reason Barak couldn’t make an actual firm offer was that he was facing an election at home and if any offer had become public his own electoral coalition would have fallen apart, never mind the fact that his opponents (who were dead against any deal) would have gained massive support and swamped him at the poll (which is what happened anyway with even the suggestion of a peace agreement.)
Yes, Obama would run the risk of what happened to George HW Bush.
Damn Carter, I hate it when people show prejudice towards people from a particular religion.
Yeah, all those Georgia Baptists are such bigots. Good thing you and I don’t have any prejudices.
Oh, and you even have a Baptist friend! Oh how nice!
Sorry when did I say that Israel was surrounded by Islamist states ?
Don’t make things up and then imply that I said them please.
Your knowledge of modern M.Eastern history seems to be very limited to say the least so I’ll content myself by mentioning the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War.
In 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan, together with troops and other assistance from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Sudan were totally defeated by the I.D.F. in spite of the huge numbers of forces that the arab nations put both in the air and on the ground.
When Egypt, Syria and Iraq(as well at least some Moroccan soldiers who were captured by the Israelis) attacked on what is the Jews holiest day of the year( and when Israel was in virtual shutdown ),Yom Kippur,the I.D.F. still inflicted a massive defeat on their attackers.
Political restraint was the only thing that stopped them putting their enemies out of business once and for all.
As I said in the post you replied to,as long as the U.S. is a friend and ally of Israel then it has influence over them.
Remove the alliance and you remove Israels restraint.
Since those times the I.D.F. is even more efficient and better armed, not less so.
The I.D.F. was seriously constricted by Hezboullahs tactics of using,human shields for attacks on the Israelis and constructing apartment blocks over weapons bunkers,not by the magnificance and courage of Hezs fighting which were most obvious by their absence.
Remove the constraints…
I.M.O. the Israelis would only nuke their enemies if their enemies threats of driving them into the sea looked like becoming a reality.
In which case they’d probably try to make sure that there would be very little left for their enemies to rally around.
It might of course inflame the ordinary Muslim in the street or it might give them pause for thought about where Pan Arabism and Islamic Fundamentalism were taking them.
In case you weren’t aware of it the I.F.s are already trying to take over the Muslim world and have often expressed the desire to enforce Islam and Sharia law on those parts of the world that doesn’t suscribe to their religion.
The schism between the Sunnis and the Shias is probably one of the main reasons at present why this goal is severly hampered.
For the record, some of the most ardent supporters of Israel I know are Southern Baptists. Ardent to the point of being blind supporters of Israel.
You know, “God’s chosen people” and all that. Here is a collection of Biblical passages underlying such thinking.
Carter, in voicing criticism of Israel, is actually going against the flow of those who share his faith.
How much foreign aid was Israel receiving during the war of 67?
The 67 and 73 wars were brief defensive wars which is mainly what the IDF has been organized to fight. Israel does not have the military or economic capacity to fight major offensive wars against serious opposition. As its experience in Lebanon has shown it has a very limited ability to occupy even small amounts of hostile territory. The bottom line is that Israel cannot destroy any Islamist country unless it uses nukes which would sooner or later lead to retaliation in kind and its own destruction.
As for accusing Jimmy Carter of being an anti-Semite it’s truly beneath contempt. As president he did more to establish Israel’s long-run security than any President since. Since leaving office he has become one of the world’s great humanitarians. If Carter is an anti-Semite, I would be proud to call myself one too.
Native Americans are full American citizens with all rights and duties of any citizen with the addition that they get to live on the reservation if they want to. The blood libel you suggest against Native Americans is disgusting. There is nothing morally equivalent comparing the full rights of Native Americans with the oppression of Palestinians by the US and Israel.
I am constantly amazed by how otherwise rational intelligent people can become retartded when it comes to defending Israel’s behaviour.
Carter, the only President who actually brought any peace to the middle east is now an anti-semite. /boggle
I happened to drive past a Baptist church on Highway 151 in rural north Georgia today. Out front, flapping in the wind: the flag of Israel. “Need I say more?”