Palestine: Peace or Apartheid

[mcqueen625]

But I had to provide an 'example' for you, since your worship of all things Carter is obstructing the reality of the middle east. His comparing it to aparthied, for instance, was an insult to those blacks who lived under that oppression. Not to mention Israel, who just gave a big chunk of land to the Palestinians in yet another attempt to win the peace.

And what chunk of land was that? As I recall, Nelson Mandela has been quite sympathetic to the comparison of the Palestinian situation to that of the blacks in South Africa.

They get missiles and attacks and a stupid book by JK in response. Instead of taking over the Palestinians, like they could do in 24 hours, they build a wall to keep the bomb back packs away.

J who?

The Israelis have considered annexation of the West Bank a number of times.The problem is that it would bring a mass of Arab voters into the Israeli democratic system - something to be avoided at all costs. Not to mention that world opinion would never accept such a move.

Jimmy just can't get over his failed presidency. He's been stickng his nose in the U.S. government's business, trying to make up for his disaster of a presidency ever since. Another gigantic failure he authored was the north korea treaty. We certainly don't need his influence on the Middle East.

Hopefully his advanced years catch up with him and he spends the rest of his days like Reagan, in actual retirement.

So you are wishing that Carter gets Alzheimers? I can't be sure but this might actually represent a new low for you.

Isn't Carter the one always referred to a "The Peanut Farmer?" Maybe he should have stayed on the farm because he sucked at being President. Some on here referred to the fact that he became President as if that somehow makes him intelligent or good at the job. Just look at Canada, we have had quite a few incompetents elected to the PM's Office, such as Trudeau, Pearson, Mulroney, Chretien, and Martin, none of which were oarticularly bright, but they still managed to get elected to lead the country. U.S. Presnetial candiddates are picked using a process similar to that used in Canada, they are oicked by Party delegates, and chosen to run as their standard bearer. Again it certainly doesn't mean that you wind up with competent people, what it means is that the people are pissed at whoever was running the country before them, or the previous candidate's time wwas up in the case of the U.S. or the people are fed up and decide they need a change as happens in Canada.

[gc1765]

I find it hilarious that the lefties of the world are all looking to Jimmy Carter, a failed one-termer who got walloped by Reagan, for direction. Sad, actually.

Wasn't Carter in Power when the Iranians stormed the US embassy in Tehran? And what did he do? A book tour? The talk show circuit?

The last thing we need in the middle east is another appeaser.

I find it hilarious that right-wingers call Jimmy Carter a failure when he has accomplished much, much more than any of them. How many terms have you been president?

[ScottSA]

I find it hilarious that the lefties of the world are all looking to Jimmy Carter, a failed one-termer who got walloped by Reagan, for direction. Sad, actually.

Wasn't Carter in Power when the Iranians stormed the US embassy in Tehran? And what did he do? A book tour? The talk show circuit?

The last thing we need in the middle east is another appeaser.

I find it hilarious that right-wingers call Jimmy Carter a failure when he has accomplished much, much more than any of them. How many terms have you been president?

Well, I guess that means Hitler is a stunning success. After all, how many times have any of us been Reich Chancellor and run the better part of Europe? How silly. Carter was a stunning failure while he was president and in everything he did afterwards, including his replay of Munich in North Korea a few years ago.

[gc1765]

Well, I guess that means Hitler is a stunning success. After all, how many times have any of us been Reich Chancellor and run the better part of Europe? How silly. Carter was a stunning failure while he was president and in everything he did afterwards, including his replay of Munich in North Korea a few years ago.

Surely even you can see that Carter has accomplished more than Hitler.

[jbg]

How silly. Carter was a stunning failure while he was president and in everything he did afterwards, including his replay of Munich in North Korea a few years ago.

To be somewhat fair to Carter, when he was President many of the so-called "right wing" alternatives were only barely coming to the table, and only as a result of the country's near implosion. Nixon and Johnson share with Carter much of the credit for those developments.

Carter did start, timidly, to rearm the country and deregulate the economy. He did deregulate the airlines and started, too slowly, to pull price controls from oil and natural gas. He did appoint Volker to the Federal Reserve, but only after a year of the disastrous G. William Miller. Camp David, itself, was not bad. Carter's turn towards treason came largely after office.

For me, the real black marks on his term in office were Billygate, the handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis, surrender of the Panama Canal (though Maggie did little better with Hong Kong), the failed attempts (thankfully) at Salt II and the Law of the Sea Treaty ("LOST" for short).

[Rue]

I'd call Carter a has been except he's a neva wuz. He has no business telling other governments anything when he was so inept with his own. His book borders on anti-semitism, so of course all Israel haters will gobble up every word.

What did he say that could be interpreted as anti-semitic?

There are some references that could be interpreted to be critical not of Israeli policies, but concepts as to Judaism as a religion. Certainly his criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic. Certain passages that could be construed as criticizing Judaism as a religion might be although I do not believe that was his intention. I think what we see in the book is Jimmy Carter being uncharacteristically angry and bias after years of making it a point of not taking sides. Some say the reason for this sudden change is a feeling he was ignored by Bill Clinton and made to feel stupid by Bill Clinton and that this is really a pissing match with Bill Clinton over how both these democrats perceived their roles.

Clinton was highly criticial of Carter's role in the Middle East and felt it fueled Palestinian intransigence. Suprisingly in his lecture circuit these days Clinton's take on the Middle East is not that different from Ronald Reagan's or Gerald Ford's.

No I would not call Carter an anti-semite for being bias against Israel in his book. He's entitled to his opinions. The problem is much of what he said is in direct contradiction to what he previously said in papers, speeches and in interviews. I think he let his anger with Bill Clinton side track-him from his usual role as a mediator to that of a someone trying to rationalize his different approach to the PLO then Reagan, Ford and Clinton. Interestingly its the present George Bush and Carter who have been the only two US Presidents to really deviate from what has otherwise been pretty much a doctrine they inherited from Eisenhower and have for the most part followed, democrat or republican.

[gc1765]

There are some references that could be interpreted to be critical not of Israeli policies, but concepts as to Judaism as a religion. Certainly his criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic. Certain passages that could be construed as criticizing Judaism as a religion might be although I do not believe that was his intention.

Thanks. I haven't actually read the book, but I found it hard to believe that Carter would be anti-semitic. Maybe I'll check out the book and decide for myself, if I have time to read it.

[Higgly]

There are some references that could be interpreted to be critical not of Israeli policies, but concepts as to Judaism as a religion. Certainly his criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic. Certain passages that could be construed as criticizing Judaism as a religion might be although I do not believe that was his intention.

What a surprise to come back after all this time and find this thread still alive... not surprisingly due to another dollop of Rue spew.

So note the words folks... Rue doesn't think this was his intention but it could be interpreted as such. Well here's a newsflash, Rue - the Bible could be interpreted to forbid blood transfusions.

One again we have Rue hacking away with the gory old anti-semitism axe at the first sign of any legitimate discourse other than the pro-Israel party line, even though "I do not believe that was his intention". LOL.

And by the way Rue, there are lots of non-Jewish Israelites - George Bush and Condoleeza Rice come to mind. Blindly supporting Israel while it continues to steal land that does not belong to it and repress the people who are its rightful owners. Since you responded to my post about the leaked Israeli government documents showing that 85% of the land under Ma'ale Adummin is rightfully owned by Palestinians, and that the same can be said for some 45% of land under all Israeli settlements, you know what I mean when I talk about Israel stealing land, Rue.

And finally, to the matter of Mr. Carter's presidency. Carter lost a second term because of the Iran hostage crisis. Something that was the direct result of incompetence on the part of the previous administration (it started the day he took ofice) and about which Mr. Carter could do little. Witness how Carter's successor had to resort to an illegal arms deal (facilitated by Oliver North and - this part is delicious - the government of Israel) to get the hostages back.

[jbg]

Witness how Carter's successor had to resort to an illegal arms deal (facilitated by Oliver North and - this part is delicious - the government of Israel) to get the hostages back.

That had to do with the attempt to circumvent the unconstitutional War Powers Act in order to support the Nicaragua contras; get your facts straight.

[Higgly]

That had to do with the attempt to circumvent the unconstitutional War Powers Act in order to support the Nicaragua contras; get your facts straight.

Reagan denied that it was for the release of hostages; nobody was fooled. Why else would the US government supply arms to Iran, a government that was holding its diplomatic staff hostage and which was at war with Saddam's Iraq following an invasion the US did everything it could to encourage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Too bad so many of the relevant documents were destroyed by the Reagan government.

[Figleaf]

Carter's turn towards treason came largely after office.

Treason???

[jbg]

Carter's turn towards treason came largely after office.

Treason???

Gave aid and comfort to North Korean and Palestinian enemies.

[Figleaf]

Carter's turn towards treason came largely after office.

Treason???

Gave aid and comfort to North Korean and Palestinian enemies.

When? How?

[Higgly]

Gave aid and comfort to North Korean and Palestinian enemies.

Anybody who lumps the Palestinians in with Kim Jong Il is shotgunning foreign policy.

Have you either been to the West Bank or North Korea?

An amazing juxtoposition. Scarey to think that everyone in New York might think the way you do. Beyond racism really. Psychiatrict.

[Alexandra]

And finally, to the matter of Mr. Carter's presidency. Carter lost a second term because of the Iran hostage crisis. Something that was the direct result of incompetence on the part of the previous administration (it started the day he took ofice) and about which Mr. Carter could do little. Witness how Carter's successor had to resort to an illegal arms deal (facilitated by Oliver North and - this part is delicious - the government of Israel) to get the hostages back.

What is especially delicious is that neither Israel nor Reagan had resorted to an illegal arms deal with any country to facilitate the release of the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage by Iran for 144 days during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Presumably it would suit the purpose of certain people who believe Israel should not exist in its' past, present or future form to deliberately misrepresent Israel's role, which was non-existent, in the actual U.S. Embassy hostage release negotiated by Reagan.

Carter lost a second term because he had lost the confidence of the American voters overall not, as stated by Higgly, because of the 'Iran hostage crisis' which he had bungled from the very beginning. Such as rushing an unprepared military into the so-called Desert One hostage rescue which failed miserably.

Perhaps this botched attempt at hostage rescue by the Carter admin. could be blamed on Israel though. It appears everything else wrong in the Middle East is, was, and will be Israel's fault.

[Figleaf]

Carter's turn towards treason came largely after office.

Treason???

Gave aid and comfort to North Korean and Palestinian enemies.

When? How?

:crickets:

[jbg]

Anybody who lumps the Palestinians in with Kim Jong Il is shotgunning foreign policy. Have you either been to the West Bank or North Korea? An amazing juxtoposition. Scarey to think that everyone in New York might think the way you do. Beyond racism really. Psychiatrict.

My point is not that NK and the Palestinians have any similarity beyond being enemies of the West and by extension the US. Carter's negotiation, on the US's behalf but with no authority, of the ad hoc deal with NK, which Clinton was forced to accept, was an act of disloyalty, as has Carter's continuing dalliance with the Palestinians.

Also, learn to spell,

[mcqueen625]

Quote from the Jerusalem Post;

My Webpage

Hamas legislator Ismail al-Ashkar claimed that Israel and the US were continuing to arm forces loyal to Abbas and his Fatah faction. He said that in recent weeks large shipments of weapons had entered the Gaza Strip with the hope that they would be used by Fatah against Hamas.

The Israelis and Americans, he added, have decided to fight Hamas by using Palestinian puppets. "The weapons that they are sending to the Gaza Strip are for use against Palestinians, not the occupation," he said.

So the U.S. and Israel were right when they asked the UN and other countries to hold off on endorsing a coalition PA Government controlled by the terrorist group Hamas. By these statement Hamas has not renounced violence and they have not acknowledged Israel's right to exist, two of the main declarations which the international community demanded before there would a Palestinian government would be recognized. The EU and some other European countries are so eager to resume or continue doing business with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah that they would sacrifice Israel and her people for nothing more noble than simple economics. This attitude offers nothing towards peace but instead encourages militants to continue using violence even against their own people. Where has the morals and values for human life gone when we have supposedly free countries encouraging the elimination of a people for economic gain? What is happening is the result of countries like Norway jumping onto the Hamas' bandwagon. Civil war was not the aim of Hamas, their aim was the destruction and elimination of Israel, by Hamas' own words they bluntly state that weapons were to be used against the occupation not against Palestinians. Neither Hamas nor the PA deserve recognition until Israel's right to exist is complied with, as well as the stoppage of violence, obviously Hamas's intention was not civil war, but the elimination of Israel, and for the rest of the Palestinian people to bow down to Hamas.

[Rue]

"Well here's a newsflash, Rue - the Bible could be interpreted to forbid blood transfusions."

well Higgly nice to see you come back on this post, read what I said out of context and try infer I stated that criticism of Israel is always anti-semitic. Then again I would not expect you to debate honestly as the history of your previous comments have made it clear in your world, anyone who supports Israel is part of a greater conspiracy to manipulate the world.

"One again we have Rue hacking away with the gory old anti-semitism axe at the first sign of any legitimate discourse other than the pro-Israel party line..."

Ooopsy Higgly maybe you should read what I wrote. If I was doing the above, why would I have stated what I did about Carter? Oh but don't let logic get in the way of your diatribe.

"even though "I do not believe that was his intention". LOL."

Gosh Higgly our nose out of joint about something? Could it be we still feel a bit prickly about being challeneged about making generalizations about all Jews and all supporters of Israel?

"And by the way Rue, there are lots of non-Jewish Israelites"

Now Higgly you are lowering yourself to absurdity. If you want to try back peddle your way out of your previous Israelite comment, back peddle. Its pathetic. Be a man and admit you got caught once again using a coded word for slandering anyone who is favourable to the existence of the state of Israel.

"Blindly supporting Israel while it continues to steal land...."

Higgly the mantra is tiresome. We know you feel Israel bad demon nation. But its tiresome. All it does is manifest you have a hard on against Israel, nothing else. Its boring. We get it. Israel bad bad bad.

"Since you responded to my post about the leaked Israeli government documents showing that 85% of the land under Ma'ale Adummin is rightfully owned by Palestinians, and that the same can be said for some 45% of land under all Israeli settlements, you know what I mean when I talk about Israel stealing land, Rue."

No I do not and I have no clue what you are referring to other then once again you are trying to revise history and then engage in the kind of response that infers I have agreed with your revisionist opinions. Of course I do not and my debates with you in the past over the legal issues associated with who owns what greatly differ from yours not to mention this latest simplistic attempt to demonize Israel as the bad guy and portray a complex legal series of issues into "those bad bad Israelis stole it.."

"And finally, to the matter of Mr. Carter's presidency. Carter lost a second term because of the Iran hostage crisis...."

Again you seem to have simplistic answers for everything. Some of us would also believe Carter lost not just because of the Iran hostage event, but economic problems in the U.S probably caused by world wide economic questions...but then in Higgly's world of bad guys and good guys and demon Israel stealing things, where everything is as you say Higgly delicious, its all Israel's fault because I mean they were part of some sinister conspiracy with Olllie North right? Can't forget those delicious sinister behind the scenes Israelis and their cionspiracies and manipulations and shape-shifting right Higgly.

Please go watch the documentary about you.You shouldn't wrestle naked in public either.

[Figleaf]

Carter's negotiation, on the US's behalf but with no authority, of the ad hoc deal with NK, which Clinton was forced to accept, was an act of disloyalty, as has Carter's continuing dalliance with the Palestinians.

Phoquing stupid comment.

[sharkman]

Carter's negotiation, on the US's behalf but with no authority, of the ad hoc deal with NK, which Clinton was forced to accept, was an act of disloyalty, as has Carter's continuing dalliance with the Palestinians.

Phoquing stupid comment.

Even STUPIDER, actions by Carter who never met a used car salesman who didn't rub his hands in glee.

[Higgly]

What is especially delicious is that neither Israel nor Reagan had resorted to an illegal arms deal with any country to facilitate the release of the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage by Iran for 144 days during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Presumably it would suit the purpose of certain people who believe Israel should not exist in its' past, present or future form to deliberately misrepresent Israel's role, which was non-existent, in the actual U.S. Embassy hostage release negotiated by Reagan.

Carter lost a second term because he had lost the confidence of the American voters overall not, as stated by Higgly, because of the 'Iran hostage crisis' which he had bungled from the very beginning. Such as rushing an unprepared military into the so-called Desert One hostage rescue which failed miserably.

Perhaps this botched attempt at hostage rescue by the Carter admin. could be blamed on Israel though. It appears everything else wrong in the Middle East is, was, and will be Israel's fault.

Thou stump of rot. Thou thatch of shite.; Leonard Cohen; Beautiful Losers.

[Higgly]

Surely even you can see that Carter has accomplished more than Hitler.

LOL...

[Higgly]

Isn't Carter the one always referred to a "The Peanut Farmer?"

And what would be your attitude if a posse of armed insurgents arrived at Mr. Carter's home in the middle of the night and told him that the mortgage he had worked so long to pay off was no longer valid?

[Higgly]

What is especially delicious is that neither Israel nor Reagan had resorted to an illegal arms deal with any country to facilitate the release of the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage by Iran for 144 days during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Presumably it would suit the purpose of certain people who believe Israel should not exist in its' past, present or future form to deliberately misrepresent Israel's role, which was non-existent, in the actual U.S. Embassy hostage release negotiated by Reagan.

And I heard the wind cry...Olly... LOL. What century did you wake up in?