All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss 2

[Stuartbirdan2]

Blood money

An editorial in Investor's Business Daily, captioned "Jimmy Carter's L'il Ol' Stink Tank," revealed that the Center's $200 million endowment derives from multi-million-dollar gifts from Saudi princes and government, oil sheikhs, crooked Mideast bankers and Arafat cronies:

"Arab cash flows into the Center from people known to demand something in return. The Center's contributions and Carter's anti-Israel diatribes have both increased dramatically."

Saudi Arabia -- a country in which I observed flagrant human rights violations during visits in 1995 and 1998 -- routinely beheads prisoners (102 in the first half of 2007, including 3 women), chops off limbs, sentences rape victims to lashings and forbids women to drive. Carter has never criticized Saudi Arabia. Apparently, Saudi money speaks loudly to him. Carter reserves his criticism for American Jews who make contributions to candidates they favor.

While Carter castigates Israeli leaders, including those responsible for withdrawing from Gaza, he has showered praise on dictators, including the Father-Son Dr. Strangeloves of North Korea (who let millions of their own citizens starve to death), Hafez al-Assad (who slaughtered 20,000 of his own citizens at a place called Hama), Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, Hosni Mubarak, Tito and Ceausescu (asserting the latter two believed in "human rights") Democratic Party leaders are scrambling to distance Carter from their Convention and the presidential election; Americans disagree on many issues, but there is no strong pro-Hamas faction in this country.

Jimmy Carter Disgraced For Many Reasons

When it came time to judge Jimmy Carter's presidency, Americans voters thundered: Carter, receiving 40% of the popular vote, carrying six states. With sound reasons: The prime rate had soared to 20%, inflation to 12.5% and unemp...

www.americanthinker.com

About Us
American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.

There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions -- strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military -- is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Blood money

An editorial in Investor's Business Daily, captioned "Jimmy Carter's L'il Ol' Stink Tank," revealed that the Center's $200 million endowment derives from multi-million-dollar gifts from Saudi princes and government, oil sheikhs, crooked Mideast bankers and Arafat cronies:

"Arab cash flows into the Center from people known to demand something in return. The Center's contributions and Carter's anti-Israel diatribes have both increased dramatically."

Saudi Arabia -- a country in which I observed flagrant human rights violations during visits in 1995 and 1998 -- routinely beheads prisoners (102 in the first half of 2007, including 3 women), chops off limbs, sentences rape victims to lashings and forbids women to drive. Carter has never criticized Saudi Arabia. Apparently, Saudi money speaks loudly to him. Carter reserves his criticism for American Jews who make contributions to candidates they favor.

While Carter castigates Israeli leaders, including those responsible for withdrawing from Gaza, he has showered praise on dictators, including the Father-Son Dr. Strangeloves of North Korea (who let millions of their own citizens starve to death), Hafez al-Assad (who slaughtered 20,000 of his own citizens at a place called Hama), Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, Hosni Mubarak, Tito and Ceausescu (asserting the latter two believed in "human rights") Democratic Party leaders are scrambling to distance Carter from their Convention and the presidential election; Americans disagree on many issues, but there is no strong pro-Hamas faction in this country.

Jimmy Carter Disgraced For Many Reasons

When it came time to judge Jimmy Carter's presidency, Americans voters thundered: Carter, receiving 40% of the popular vote, carrying six states. With sound reasons: The prime rate had soared to 20%, inflation to 12.5% and unemp...

www.americanthinker.com

Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher, calls himself a recovering academic. After graduating from Kenyon College, he studied modern Japan, sociology, and business as a graduate student at Harvard (three degrees) and joined the faculty at Harvard Business School, where he began the consulting career that was to lead him away from academia. He also taught sociology and East Asian studies at Harvard and held visiting professorships at Columbia University and the Japanese National Museum of Ethnology. As a consultant, he has worked with major companies from the United States, Japan, Europe, Asia, and Australasia at the nexus of human, organizational, and strategic issues.

A Democrat by birth, Thomas became more conservative in adulthood as reality taught him that dreams of perfecting human society always run smack into human nature.

In 2003 he founded American Thinker.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

[The view on the book from a Historian who knows Jimmy Carter]

"He does what no non-fiction author should ever do," Stein writes. "He allows ideology or opinion to get in the way of facts."

Q: Stein says Carter's new book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is slanted against Israel. He resigned his fellowship at the Carter Center over the book.

A: The difficulty comes between me, the historian, and Jimmy Carter, the mediator. He tends to want to be more agile in the use of the facts. I'm a little bit more rigid and historically consistent. And my disagreement with him comes from that.

Q: This is all about the Golan Heights, a disputed piece of territory between the two countries.

A: That's correct. Now there are two pieces of evidence that suggest what Carter is saying is not accurate. First are my own notes, at that meeting. And more importantly, I think, if you don't want to believe my notes, is the press conference that Jimmy Carter attended immediately following, in which he articulated the following, he said, "Now this is my personal opinion, I think the Syrians would be willing make a compromise and move further back from the Heights." What he now says in 2006 is, he makes it into fact, and you can't do that.

Q: I want to back away from some of these details, and I don't mean to suggest at all that the details are unimportant, but if we back away from some of the details, and look at the central premise of Carter's book, which is that you have a man of long experience on Mideast issues, who has met a lot of the players involved, who started out very sympathetic to Israel years ago, but has come around to the view that the Israelis are guilty of something he calls "apartheid" in their treatment of Palestinians on the West Bank. Would you argue with the broad strokes of that?

A: I would argue with the terminology. I think, in his interview with you on Thursday, he used the word "total domination," he used the term "harsh oppression." Make no mistake about it, the manner in which Palestinians have lived in the territories since 1967 has been bad. Part of that has been clearly imposed and applied by the Israelis. Part of it has been clearly imposed by leadership that has not been able to demonstrate it's more interested in the Palestinians than it's interested in itself. In other words, what Carter has done in his book, Carter has put the burden of responsibility on one side.

Q: You arguing that this is a complicated situation in which Palestinians bear some responsibility.

A: And so do Israelis.

Q: A layman might look, though, at some of the facts, and let's emphasize some of the facts, here, and say, "well we've got this area, it's under Israeli occupation (that's the United Nations definition), you've got barriers, you've got segregated communities, you've got segregated highways connecting those communities to one another, why not call it 'apartheid'?" A layman might ask that question.

A: A layman would have every right to ask that question. But that doesn't mean, if it looks like a duck and it smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, that it's a duck.

Q: And the difference to you is?

A: The difference to me is, that part of this problem is that the Palestinians have chosen to use terrorism. And every time they've chosen to use terrorism, the Israelis have come into the territories, or they have closed the territories, and they have made it more difficult for the Palestinians to have regular life. There's not doubt that the Israelis have confiscated Palestinian lands, confiscated Palestinian lands illegally. But if you tell the Arab-Israeli conflict, and you tell the history of it, you cannot unpack it in such a way that one side is just seen to be responsible. History always tells us that truth is some place in between.

Does Stein have a first name?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Blood money

An editorial in Investor's Business Daily, captioned "Jimmy Carter's L'il Ol' Stink Tank," revealed that the Center's $200 million endowment derives from multi-million-dollar gifts from Saudi princes and government, oil sheikhs, crooked Mideast bankers and Arafat cronies:

"Arab cash flows into the Center from people known to demand something in return. The Center's contributions and Carter's anti-Israel diatribes have both increased dramatically."

Saudi Arabia -- a country in which I observed flagrant human rights violations during visits in 1995 and 1998 -- routinely beheads prisoners (102 in the first half of 2007, including 3 women), chops off limbs, sentences rape victims to lashings and forbids women to drive. Carter has never criticized Saudi Arabia. Apparently, Saudi money speaks loudly to him. Carter reserves his criticism for American Jews who make contributions to candidates they favor.

While Carter castigates Israeli leaders, including those responsible for withdrawing from Gaza, he has showered praise on dictators, including the Father-Son Dr. Strangeloves of North Korea (who let millions of their own citizens starve to death), Hafez al-Assad (who slaughtered 20,000 of his own citizens at a place called Hama), Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, Hosni Mubarak, Tito and Ceausescu (asserting the latter two believed in "human rights") Democratic Party leaders are scrambling to distance Carter from their Convention and the presidential election; Americans disagree on many issues, but there is no strong pro-Hamas faction in this country.

Jimmy Carter Disgraced For Many Reasons

When it came time to judge Jimmy Carter's presidency, Americans voters thundered: Carter, receiving 40% of the popular vote, carrying six states. With sound reasons: The prime rate had soared to 20%, inflation to 12.5% and unemp...

www.americanthinker.com

Sorry, the dog ate our page.
404 - Page not found

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

[ Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles...
And in the end, Jimmy Carter himself......does not believe that Israel is an Apartheid system. Lots of people seem to have chosen NOT to read his book, but go only by the title.....maybe? His main problem is believing that the West Bank is Palestinian territory, despite the fact that this Palestinians did not care to "fight" for their land against the Hashemite Jordanians between 1948 and 1967, and much less during the whole Ottoman occupation of that region. Someone explain it to me]

JIMMY CARTER: Yes…. I wanted to…. provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States, but it’s prevalent every day in Israel and in Europe. This is needed, I think, for our country to understand what’s going on in the West Bank.

And I chose this title very carefully. It’s Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians’ territory, not Israel….

Apartheid doesn’t apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel, to the nation. It doesn’t imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis — we’re not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land. So the whole system is designed to separate through a ferocious system Israelis who live on Palestine territory and Palestinians who want to live on their own territory.

In order to have peace, Israel has got to withdraw from the occupied territories, not just from token withdrawals from a few settlements leaving about 150 other settlements on Palestinian land.
-----------------------

What follows is an abbreviated version of this interview interspersed with my comments italicized in brackets. — R. Seliger

[I have no fondness for the settlements either, but Carter surprisingly ignores the prospect of trading those settlement blocs closest to Green Line Israel for other territory going to the Palestinians, as envisioned in the Geneva Accord/Initiative — probably a more realistic basis for peace than the unlikely scenario of Israeli doves mobilizing the support of a majority of the electorate to remove all 300-400,000 settlers wholesale. Carter even attended the gala unveiling of the Geneva Accord, in Switzerland in December 2003. Since a swap of territory is acceptable to prominent Palestinians who have signed onto Geneva, why is this concept absent from Carter’s discussion?]


(Full interview online)

Jimmy Carter's 'Apartheid' Book

Jimmy Carter was interviewed on the PBS "NewsHour" broadcast of Nov. 28. Carter makes it clear to me (although surely not to all) that he's not an enemy of Israel, but he is an overly one-sided critic. For example, he admits to being provocative in using the noxious term, "apartheid," in the...

www.progressiveisrael.org

Quoting carter:
Apartheid doesn’t apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel, to the nation. It doesn’t imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis — we’re not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land. So the whole system is designed to separate through a ferocious system Israelis who live on Palestine territory and Palestinians who want to live on their own territory

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

[ Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles...
And in the end, Jimmy Carter himself......does not believe that Israel is an Apartheid system. Lots of people seem to have chosen NOT to read his book, but go only by the title.....maybe? His main problem is believing that the West Bank is Palestinian territory, despite the fact that this Palestinians did not care to "fight" for their land against the Hashemite Jordanians between 1948 and 1967, and much less during the whole Ottoman occupation of that region. Someone explain it to me]

JIMMY CARTER: Yes…. I wanted to…. provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States, but it’s prevalent every day in Israel and in Europe. This is needed, I think, for our country to understand what’s going on in the West Bank.

And I chose this title very carefully. It’s Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians’ territory, not Israel….

Apartheid doesn’t apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel, to the nation. It doesn’t imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis — we’re not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land. So the whole system is designed to separate through a ferocious system Israelis who live on Palestine territory and Palestinians who want to live on their own territory.

In order to have peace, Israel has got to withdraw from the occupied territories, not just from token withdrawals from a few settlements leaving about 150 other settlements on Palestinian land.
-----------------------

What follows is an abbreviated version of this interview interspersed with my comments italicized in brackets. — R. Seliger

[I have no fondness for the settlements either, but Carter surprisingly ignores the prospect of trading those settlement blocs closest to Green Line Israel for other territory going to the Palestinians, as envisioned in the Geneva Accord/Initiative — probably a more realistic basis for peace than the unlikely scenario of Israeli doves mobilizing the support of a majority of the electorate to remove all 300-400,000 settlers wholesale. Carter even attended the gala unveiling of the Geneva Accord, in Switzerland in December 2003. Since a swap of territory is acceptable to prominent Palestinians who have signed onto Geneva, why is this concept absent from Carter’s discussion?]


(Full interview online)

Jimmy Carter's 'Apartheid' Book

Jimmy Carter was interviewed on the PBS "NewsHour" broadcast of Nov. 28. Carter makes it clear to me (although surely not to all) that he's not an enemy of Israel, but he is an overly one-sided critic. For example, he admits to being provocative in using the noxious term, "apartheid," in the...

www.progressiveisrael.org

"And in the end, Jimmy Carter himself......does not believe that Israel is an Apartheid system" lie

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

[ Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles...
And in the end, Jimmy Carter himself......does not believe that Israel is an Apartheid system. Lots of people seem to have chosen NOT to read his book, but go only by the title.....maybe? His main problem is believing that the West Bank is Palestinian territory, despite the fact that this Palestinians did not care to "fight" for their land against the Hashemite Jordanians between 1948 and 1967, and much less during the whole Ottoman occupation of that region. Someone explain it to me]

JIMMY CARTER: Yes…. I wanted to…. provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States, but it’s prevalent every day in Israel and in Europe. This is needed, I think, for our country to understand what’s going on in the West Bank.

And I chose this title very carefully. It’s Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians’ territory, not Israel….

Apartheid doesn’t apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel, to the nation. It doesn’t imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis — we’re not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land. So the whole system is designed to separate through a ferocious system Israelis who live on Palestine territory and Palestinians who want to live on their own territory.

In order to have peace, Israel has got to withdraw from the occupied territories, not just from token withdrawals from a few settlements leaving about 150 other settlements on Palestinian land.
-----------------------

What follows is an abbreviated version of this interview interspersed with my comments italicized in brackets. — R. Seliger

[I have no fondness for the settlements either, but Carter surprisingly ignores the prospect of trading those settlement blocs closest to Green Line Israel for other territory going to the Palestinians, as envisioned in the Geneva Accord/Initiative — probably a more realistic basis for peace than the unlikely scenario of Israeli doves mobilizing the support of a majority of the electorate to remove all 300-400,000 settlers wholesale. Carter even attended the gala unveiling of the Geneva Accord, in Switzerland in December 2003. Since a swap of territory is acceptable to prominent Palestinians who have signed onto Geneva, why is this concept absent from Carter’s discussion?]


(Full interview online)

Jimmy Carter's 'Apartheid' Book

Jimmy Carter was interviewed on the PBS "NewsHour" broadcast of Nov. 28. Carter makes it clear to me (although surely not to all) that he's not an enemy of Israel, but he is an overly one-sided critic. For example, he admits to being provocative in using the noxious term, "apartheid," in the...

www.progressiveisrael.org

Stop Annexation Now

Stop Annexation Now Campaign Joe Biden Can, and

www.progressiveisrael.org

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

[ Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles...
And in the end, Jimmy Carter himself......does not believe that Israel is an Apartheid system. Lots of people seem to have chosen NOT to read his book, but go only by the title.....maybe? His main problem is believing that the West Bank is Palestinian territory, despite the fact that this Palestinians did not care to "fight" for their land against the Hashemite Jordanians between 1948 and 1967, and much less during the whole Ottoman occupation of that region. Someone explain it to me]

JIMMY CARTER: Yes…. I wanted to…. provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States, but it’s prevalent every day in Israel and in Europe. This is needed, I think, for our country to understand what’s going on in the West Bank.

And I chose this title very carefully. It’s Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians’ territory, not Israel….

Apartheid doesn’t apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel, to the nation. It doesn’t imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis — we’re not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land. So the whole system is designed to separate through a ferocious system Israelis who live on Palestine territory and Palestinians who want to live on their own territory.

In order to have peace, Israel has got to withdraw from the occupied territories, not just from token withdrawals from a few settlements leaving about 150 other settlements on Palestinian land.
-----------------------

What follows is an abbreviated version of this interview interspersed with my comments italicized in brackets. — R. Seliger

[I have no fondness for the settlements either, but Carter surprisingly ignores the prospect of trading those settlement blocs closest to Green Line Israel for other territory going to the Palestinians, as envisioned in the Geneva Accord/Initiative — probably a more realistic basis for peace than the unlikely scenario of Israeli doves mobilizing the support of a majority of the electorate to remove all 300-400,000 settlers wholesale. Carter even attended the gala unveiling of the Geneva Accord, in Switzerland in December 2003. Since a swap of territory is acceptable to prominent Palestinians who have signed onto Geneva, why is this concept absent from Carter’s discussion?]


(Full interview online)

Jimmy Carter's 'Apartheid' Book

Jimmy Carter was interviewed on the PBS "NewsHour" broadcast of Nov. 28. Carter makes it clear to me (although surely not to all) that he's not an enemy of Israel, but he is an overly one-sided critic. For example, he admits to being provocative in using the noxious term, "apartheid," in the...

www.progressiveisrael.org

What follows is an abbreviated version of this interview interspersed with my comments italicized in brackets. — R. Seliger

[I have no fondness for the settlements either

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Tutu alleged, for example, that Israeli Jews “dominate over Palestinians.” A United Church of Christ meeting in Cleveland in 2015 cited the archbishop in support of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) resolution aimed at companies doing business in and products from what it mistakenly labeled “Palestinian territories” and “illegal” Israeli settlements. Tutu wrote:

“We grieve over Israel’s decades long oppression of Palestine [Sic.] and Palestinians: The illegal occupation…the separation wall…the network of checkpoints and settler bypass roads… [the] disruption of every aspect of daily life for Palestinians” (“UCC Action Seeking Peace Between Israel and Palestine,” Huffingtonpost.com, July 9, 2015).

In fact, Palestinian leadership has refused Israeli and U.S. offers of an independent West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem country, in exchange for peace with Israel as a Jewish state, four times since 2000. If Israeli Jews dominate Palestinian Arabs, as Tutu has it, the latter have chosen repeatedly not to end such a condition if the price is peace.

Also wrong on the law

Also contrary to Tutu, “the occupation” is not illegal but obligatory, the result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israel’s legal presence in the West Bank continues pending a peace agreement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim accord and related pacts.

Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), contrary to Tutu, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other newsmakers, are not only legal but also encouraged or anticipated under international law. The League of Nations (later United Nations) Palestine Mandate, Article 6; San Remo Treaty, 1920; Anglo-American Convention, 1924; and U.N. Charter, Chapter 12, Article 80 all support this status.

As for the archbishop’s “apartheid Israel” allegation, Rev. Kenneth Rasalabe Joseph Meshoe, a member of South Africa’s parliament and president of the African Christian Democratic Party, told Israel’s Channel 10 “there are many Christians that support Israel, but they don’t come out. … Those who know what real apartheid is, as I know, know there is nothing in Israel that looks like apartheid.”

(full article online)

Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Tarnish Desmond Tutu's Nobel Peace Prize

When Archbishop Desmond Tutu's in the news, his Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned. His anti-Zionism and antisemitism usually are not. Such omissions paint a

www.camera.org

A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The scope of the problem
Inaccurate and distorted accounts of events in Israel and the Middle East are to be found everywhere from college radio stations to network television, from community newspapers to national magazines, and, of course, on the Internet. In recent years misinformation about the Middle East has also surfaced in fashion magazines, architectural publications, encyclopedias, professional reference works, geography textbooks, travel guides, and even dictionaries. Frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Tutu alleged, for example, that Israeli Jews “dominate over Palestinians.” A United Church of Christ meeting in Cleveland in 2015 cited the archbishop in support of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) resolution aimed at companies doing business in and products from what it mistakenly labeled “Palestinian territories” and “illegal” Israeli settlements. Tutu wrote:

“We grieve over Israel’s decades long oppression of Palestine [Sic.] and Palestinians: The illegal occupation…the separation wall…the network of checkpoints and settler bypass roads… [the] disruption of every aspect of daily life for Palestinians” (“UCC Action Seeking Peace Between Israel and Palestine,” Huffingtonpost.com, July 9, 2015).

In fact, Palestinian leadership has refused Israeli and U.S. offers of an independent West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem country, in exchange for peace with Israel as a Jewish state, four times since 2000. If Israeli Jews dominate Palestinian Arabs, as Tutu has it, the latter have chosen repeatedly not to end such a condition if the price is peace.

Also wrong on the law

Also contrary to Tutu, “the occupation” is not illegal but obligatory, the result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israel’s legal presence in the West Bank continues pending a peace agreement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim accord and related pacts.

Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), contrary to Tutu, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other newsmakers, are not only legal but also encouraged or anticipated under international law. The League of Nations (later United Nations) Palestine Mandate, Article 6; San Remo Treaty, 1920; Anglo-American Convention, 1924; and U.N. Charter, Chapter 12, Article 80 all support this status.

As for the archbishop’s “apartheid Israel” allegation, Rev. Kenneth Rasalabe Joseph Meshoe, a member of South Africa’s parliament and president of the African Christian Democratic Party, told Israel’s Channel 10 “there are many Christians that support Israel, but they don’t come out. … Those who know what real apartheid is, as I know, know there is nothing in Israel that looks like apartheid.”

(full article online)

Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Tarnish Desmond Tutu's Nobel Peace Prize

When Archbishop Desmond Tutu's in the news, his Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned. His anti-Zionism and antisemitism usually are not. Such omissions paint a

www.camera.org

A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The scope of the problem
Inaccurate and distorted accounts of events in Israel and the Middle East are to be found everywhere from college radio stations to network television, from community newspapers to national magazines, and, of course, on the Internet. In recent years misinformation about the Middle East has also surfaced in fashion magazines, architectural publications, encyclopedias, professional reference works, geography textbooks, travel guides, and even dictionaries. Frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice

Going after Jimmy Carter and Desmond tutu

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

No Credence Due Carter

This explains why no credence is due anything Carter says regarding public policy. To these defects of intellect and character, one more must be added: Carter's obsession about Israel which borders on -- and trespasses into -- outright anti-Semitism. You don't have to be Jewish to recognize the mischief Carter caused in the Middle East last week by his parleys with senior Hamas terrorist Khaled Meshaal. Michael Young of the Beirut Star editorialized: "Carter is on a fool's errand, complicating an already complicated situation" because his meetings with Hamas legitimate terrorists who have no interest in peaceful resolution.
The columnist added:

"You can almost hear Meshaal gasping at Carter's naiveté as he prepares to score points off his solemn American visitor."

The State Department and Congressmen from both parties condemned Carter's interference with U.S. policy of shunning Hamas until it abandons its aim of annihilating Israel. Hamas, claiming Carter won them respectability, celebrated by sending two explosive-laden cars into Israel, followed by an armored car filled with murderers, plus knocking out a power line with a rocket barrage.

I suffered a one-on-one meeting with Carter during the 1976 primaries. Carter assured me that, as a devout Christian, he was committed to Israel's security. He handwrote a confirmation. It was all lies. Carter reportedly told intimates that Sen. Henry Jackson had the Jewish voters "so we'll get the Christians." In 1980, Carter ordered an unprecedented vote against Israel in the UN Security Council. He subsequently put out the lie that our delegate misunderstood instructions! As November neared and American Jews--like their Christian neighbors--indicated that they would back Reagan in unprecedented numbers, Carter told associates, "If I get back in, I'm going to **** the Jews." And so he has been trying for 28 years.

Carter's Discredited Book

Carter wrote a mendacious book about Israel, jamming the expletive "Apartheid" into his title to achieve maximum defamatory effect, though he knows Israeli Arabs enjoy equal rights unknown in other Mideast countries.

Scholar Kenneth Stein, ex-director of the Carter Center, wrote that Carter's book was,

"replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited [including maps stolen from Dennis Ross' book with captions switched], glaring omissions and simply invented segments."

Even the New York Times, deriding Carter's "narrow perspective," charged the book with lying about Arafat's supposedly abandoning terrorism. Arafat was Carter's endeared friend despite his murders of U.S. diplomats in Khartoum [machine-gunned in 1973] and Gaza [blown up in 2003]. Carter, who placed flowers on Arafat's grave last week, edited the unrepentant master terrorist's speeches to maximize a false spin of peace-loving.

Professor Stein and 13 other senior advisers of the Carter Center -- which underwrites Carter's travels and writings -- resigned in protest over the "Apartheid" book.

(full article online)

Jimmy Carter Disgraced For Many Reasons

When it came time to judge Jimmy Carter's presidency, Americans voters thundered: Carter, receiving 40% of the popular vote, carrying six states. With sound reasons: The prime rate had soared to 20%, inflation to 12.5% and unemp...

www.americanthinker.com

Stein:
Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and,
act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter
has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I
teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand
recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left
the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the
Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record,
I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of
President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the
book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally.
President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even
print,
Anger mismanagement

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

ABSTRACT
On 22 December 1989, the anti-apartheid activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu conducted a Christmas pilgrimage to Israel and the Occupied Territories. Tutu used his visit to relay political messages in support of the Palestinian liberation struggle and to criticize Israeli-South African ties, and his statements evoked sever criticism on the part of Zionist Jewish constituencies. Through a tighter focus on Tutu’s various public statements and their reception in the years leading up to the visit, this article traces the history of different sets of interlocking analogies in Tutu’s thought, positioning his 1989 visit to Israel-Palestine—neglected thus far in the critical literature —as a landmark in his thinking. In so doing, it offers a critical analysis of another instance of the Israel-apartheid analogy in the political struggle against the Israeli occupation. At the same time, it points to the genesis of the analogy in Tutu’s ongoing engagements with the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14623528.2019.1673606

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

Aims and scope
Journal of Genocide Research is a cross-disciplinary journal that promotes the scholarly study of genocide and related phenomena, like crimes against humanity, war crimes, and violence against civilians. It publishes articles on the history of these phenomena from all periods.

Genocide is a contested legal, historical, sociological and political term that is applied in various spheres: in international law, in academic analyses of genocide, past and present, and in political claim making. Journal of Genocide Research welcomes contributions that combine empirical research with conceptual reflection on these and related topics, like para- and pre-genocidal policies and practices, humanitarian intervention, military sociology, post-genocide, as well as gender, trauma, and memory issues. As cross-disciplinary, the Journal of Genocide Research is open to all relevant scholarly methods and disciplines.

All research articles undergo rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by at least two external scholars. Reflection Articles, Forums, and Book Forums are reviewed by the Editorial board.

Authors can choose to publish gold open access in this journal.

Read the Instructions for Authors for information on how to submit your article.
Sounds credible, unlike ur cheerleaders

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Tutu alleged, for example, that Israeli Jews “dominate over Palestinians.” A United Church of Christ meeting in Cleveland in 2015 cited the archbishop in support of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) resolution aimed at companies doing business in and products from what it mistakenly labeled “Palestinian territories” and “illegal” Israeli settlements. Tutu wrote:

“We grieve over Israel’s decades long oppression of Palestine [Sic.] and Palestinians: The illegal occupation…the separation wall…the network of checkpoints and settler bypass roads… [the] disruption of every aspect of daily life for Palestinians” (“UCC Action Seeking Peace Between Israel and Palestine,” Huffingtonpost.com, July 9, 2015).

In fact, Palestinian leadership has refused Israeli and U.S. offers of an independent West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem country, in exchange for peace with Israel as a Jewish state, four times since 2000. If Israeli Jews dominate Palestinian Arabs, as Tutu has it, the latter have chosen repeatedly not to end such a condition if the price is peace.

Also wrong on the law

Also contrary to Tutu, “the occupation” is not illegal but obligatory, the result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israel’s legal presence in the West Bank continues pending a peace agreement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim accord and related pacts.

Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), contrary to Tutu, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other newsmakers, are not only legal but also encouraged or anticipated under international law. The League of Nations (later United Nations) Palestine Mandate, Article 6; San Remo Treaty, 1920; Anglo-American Convention, 1924; and U.N. Charter, Chapter 12, Article 80 all support this status.

As for the archbishop’s “apartheid Israel” allegation, Rev. Kenneth Rasalabe Joseph Meshoe, a member of South Africa’s parliament and president of the African Christian Democratic Party, told Israel’s Channel 10 “there are many Christians that support Israel, but they don’t come out. … Those who know what real apartheid is, as I know, know there is nothing in Israel that looks like apartheid.”

(full article online)

Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Tarnish Desmond Tutu's Nobel Peace Prize

When Archbishop Desmond Tutu's in the news, his Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned. His anti-Zionism and antisemitism usually are not. Such omissions paint a

www.camera.org

Overview
Israel continued to impose institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians living under its rule in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It displaced hundreds of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as a result of home demolitions and imposition of other coercive measures. Israeli forces continued to use excessive force during law enforcement activities in Israel and the OPT. Israeli forces killed 31 Palestinians, including nine children, in the OPT; many were unlawfully killed while posing no imminent threat to life. Israel maintained its illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip, subjecting its residents to collective punishment and deepening the humanitarian crisis there. It also continued to restrict freedom of movement of Palestinians in the OPT through checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli authorities arbitrarily detained in Israel thousands of Palestinians from the OPT, holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, were committed with impunity. The authorities used a range of measures to target human rights defenders, journalists and others who criticized Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights. Violence against women persisted, especially against Palestinian citizens of Israel. The authorities denied asylum-seekers access to a fair or prompt refugee status determination process. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned

Human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories

Stay up to date on the state of human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories with the latest research, campaigns and education material from Amnesty International.

www.amnesty.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

Gil Troy talking about Jimmy carter
"In branding Israel with such an intemperate, counterproductive, dehumanizing label, the man who parades around as the world’s most charitable mediator has given a green light to Palestinian terrorism and extremism"

3 Posts in a row, not one response. More like "memorex"

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

Gil Troy talking about Jimmy carter
"In branding Israel with such an intemperate, counterproductive, dehumanizing label, the man who parades around as the world’s most charitable mediator has given a green light to Palestinian terrorism and extremism"

3 Posts in a row, not one response. More like "memorex"

Whining

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

Gil Troy talking about Jimmy carter
"In branding Israel with such an intemperate, counterproductive, dehumanizing label, the man who parades around as the world’s most charitable mediator has given a green light to Palestinian terrorism and extremism"

3 Posts in a row, not one response. More like "memorex"

Whining

And......another Memorex moment

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

Some are not. Most are?