What's new

Jimmy Carter on Jews

Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Jimmy Carter on Jews

"Too many Jews", By Joseph Farah, World Net Daily (WND), January 27, 2007
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=53958

"Too many Jews"
That was the comment former President Jimmy Carter scrawled on a memo suggesting prospective members of the board of the Holocaust Memorial Council.
"Too many Jews."
That was the problem Carter saw with the names suggested by Monroe Freedman, executive director of the council, he revealed in a stunning interview with WND's Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein this week.
"Too many Jews."
Naturally, Freedman was shocked by the statement given the Holocaust Memorial Council's job was to establish the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. The Nazi Holocaust took the lives of approximately 6 million Jews during World War II.
"Too many Jews."
"If I was memorializing Martin Luther King, I would expect a significant number of board members to be African American," explained Freedman. "If I was memorializing Native American figures, I'd expect a lot of Native Americans to be on the board."
"Too many Jews."
What prompted Freedman, a "self-proclaimed liberal" like Carter, to speak out years later on the comment was the release of Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace No Apartheid," which strongly suggests Israel's "intransigence" is responsible for the Middle East conflict.
"Too many Jews."
Ultimately, that's what Carter and others like him believe is the real problem in the Middle East too many Jews. There are about 7 million Jews living in Israel nearly 1 million of them refugees from predominantly Muslim Arab lands populated by 300 million non-Jews.
"Too many Jews."
It is this usually unspoken belief that leads to ethnic cleansing policies like we see completed in the Gaza Strip, from which all Jews have been forcibly removed barren lands they had settled peaceably and turned into gardens. The same kinds of "no Jews allowed" policies will soon lead to the forcible evacuation of Jews from historically Jewish lands in Judea and Samaria.
"Too many Jews."
But, of course, those policies will never be enough for the Jew haters of the world people like Jimmy Carter and the terrorists he defends in the Palestinian Authority. There will always be "too many Jews" as long as Jews are permitted to live in the Middle East their historic and enduring homeland.
"Too many Jews."
Freedman has performed a real service to the world and to America for exposing Jimmy Carter for what he truly is an anti-Semite, a bigot, a Baptist backslider of the first degree.
"Too many Jews."
Every time you hear or read the name Jimmy Carter from this day forward, I want you to remember those three words he scrawled in his own handwriting on a memo proposing board members for the Holocaust Memorial Council . That's the real Jimmy Carter. He poses as a reasonable, even-handed fellow when promoting his book on C-SPAN. But if you want to know who he really is, just remember those three words the three words that define growing anti-Semitism in our world today as well as a growing blame-Israel-first attitude.
"Too many Jews."
That's what Jimmy Carter believes is the problem. That's what Hamas believes is the problem. That's what Hezbollah believes is the problem. That's what Mahmoud Abbas believes is the problem. That's what Syria and Iran believe is the problem. And, of course, that's what Hitler believed was the problem.
"Too many Jews."
How ironic that we would find out the truth about Jimmy Carter because of his meddling in the effort to memorialize Hitler's victims.
"Too many Jews."
 

Beinfest4Prez

Muckdog
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
11,276
Reaction score
0
If this is true, Jimmy Carter loses the respect of any rational person on this planet.
 

EndLine

Muckdog
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
3,224
Reaction score
0
Look at the date. We would have heard about it by now.
 

Flying_Mollusk

Muckdog
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
5,230
Reaction score
0
It's worldnetdaily for pete's sake. It's the kind of stuff wing nuts read so they can escape reality. It's fine if you go and read absolutely biased sources. But don't pawn them off as legitimate ones.
 

rorod

Muckdog
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
1,689
Reaction score
0
It's worldnetdaily for pete's sake. It's the kind of stuff wing nuts read so they can escape reality. It's fine if you go and read absolutely biased sources. But don't pawn them off as legitimate ones.
ok so i wont read the ny times and the washington post.....liberal media
 

Beinfest4Prez

Muckdog
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
11,276
Reaction score
0
I'd like to see a more reputable source but it really does not surprise me if true.
 

Flying_Mollusk

Muckdog
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
5,230
Reaction score
0
It's worldnetdaily for pete's sake. It's the kind of stuff wing nuts read so they can escape reality. It's fine if you go and read absolutely biased sources. But don't pawn them off as legitimate ones.
ok so i wont read the ny times and the washington post.....liberal media

Cool with me. You keep reading a source that has ads asking "Should Christians be armed?" and articles saying that a nuclear attack wouldn't be that bad and liberals just hype it up.

Of course you could defend this source by providing another more established source as having reported the same thing. I doubt you can do that though.
 

CTMarlinsfan

Muckdog
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
0
I don't believe it. A few years ago, Carter spoke at my synagague. He's not anti-Jewish, he just has a bad reputation and sometimes says the wrong stuff that can be interperated different
 

HelmsE

Muckdog
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
630
Reaction score
0
haha, if anyone is looking for a good way to kill some time I highly recommend going to worldnetdaily and browsing the site, just hilarious. In the future, can we all agree to post news bits from at least semi-reputable or valid sources?
 
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem


It is hard to criticize an icon. Jimmy Carter's humanitarian work has saved countless lives. Yet his life has also been shaped by the Bible, where the Hebrew prophets taught us to speak truth to power. So I write.

Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," while exceptionally sensitive to Palestinian suffering, ignores a legacy of mistreatment, expulsion and murder committed against Jews. It trivializes the murder of Israelis. Now, facing a storm of criticism, he has relied on anti-Semitic stereotypes in defense.

One cannot ignore the Holocaust's impact on Jewish identity and the history of the Middle East conflict. When an Ahmadinejad or Hamas threatens to destroy Israel, Jews have historical precedent to believe them. Jimmy Carter either does not understand this or considers it irrelevant.

His book, which dwells on the Palestinian refugee experience, makes two fleeting references to the Holocaust. The book contains a detailed chronology of major developments necessary for the reader to understand the current situation in the Middle East. Remarkably, there is nothing listed between 1939 and 1947. Nitpickers might say that the Holocaust did not happen in the region. However, this event sealed in the minds of almost all the world's people then the need for the Jewish people to have a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland. Carter never discusses the Jewish refugees who were prevented from entering Palestine before and after the war. One of Israel's first acts upon declaring statehood was to send ships to take those people "home."

A guiding principle of Israel is that never again will persecuted Jews be left with no place to go. Israel's ideal of Jewish refuge is enshrined in laws that grant immediate citizenship to any Jew who requests it. A Jew, for purposes of this law, is anyone who, had that person lived in Nazi Germany, would have been stripped of citizenship by the Nuremberg Laws.

Compare Carter's approach with that of Rashid Khalidi, head of Columbia University's Middle East Institute and a professor of Arab studies there. His recent book "The Iron Cage" contains more than a dozen references to the seminal place the Holocaust and anti-Semitism hold in the Israeli worldview. This from a Palestinian who does not cast himself as an evenhanded negotiator.

In contrast, by almost ignoring the Holocaust, Carter gives inadvertent comfort to those who deny its importance or even its historical reality, in part because it helps them deny Israel's right to exist. This from the president who signed the legislation creating the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Carter's minimization of the Holocaust is compounded by his recent behavior. On MSNBC in December, he described conditions for Palestinians as "one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation" in the world. When the interviewer asked "Worse than Rwanda?" Carter said that he did not want to discuss the "ancient history" of Rwanda.

To give Carter the benefit of the doubt, let's say that he meant an ongoing crisis. Is the Palestinians' situation equivalent to Darfur, which our own government has branded genocide?

Carter has repeatedly fallen back -- possibly unconsciously -- on traditional anti-Semitic canards. In the Los Angeles Times last month, he declared it"politically suicide" for a politician to advocate a "balanced position" on the crisis. On Al-Jazeera TV, he dismissed the critique of his book by declaring that "most of the condemnations of my book came from Jewish-American organizations." Jeffrey Goldberg, who lambasted the book in The Post last month, writes for the New Yorker. Ethan Bronner, who in the New York Times called the book "a distortion," is the Times' deputy foreign editor. Slate's Michael Kinsley declared it "moronic." Dennis Ross, who was chief negotiator on the conflict in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, described the book as a rewriting and misrepresentation of history. Alan Dershowitz teaches at Harvard and Ken Stein at Emory. Both have criticized the book. Because of the book's inaccuracies and imbalance and Carter's subsequent behavior, 14 members of the Carter Center's Board of Councilors have resigned -- many in anguish because they so respect Carter's other work. All are Jews. Does that invalidate their criticism -- and mine -- or render us representatives of Jewish organizations?

On CNN, Carter bemoaned the "tremendous intimidation in our country that has silenced" the media. Carter has appeared on C-SPAN, "Admin King Live" and "Meet the Press," among many shows. When a caller to C-SPAN accused Carter of anti-Semitism, the host cut him off. Who's being silenced?

Perhaps unused to being criticized, Carter reflexively fell back on this kind of innuendo about Jewish control of the media and government. Even if unconscious, such stereotyping from a man of his stature is noteworthy. When David Duke spouts it, I yawn. When Jimmy Carter does, I shudder.

Others can enumerate the many factual errors in this book. A man who has done much good and who wants to bring peace has not only failed to move the process forward but has given refuge to scoundrels.

The writer teaches at Emory University. Her latest book is "History on Trial: My Day in Court With David Irving."



Carter Accuses Jewish Group of "Slander" After Questioning Controversial Book

WASHINGTON — Jimmy Carter has accused an international Jewish human rights group of "falsehood and slander" for launching a petition that resulted in thousands of signatures being sent to the former president in protest of his controversial book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"I don't believe Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds," Carter wrote last month in a handwritten letter to the head of the human rights center that bears the name of the late Holocaust survivor and Nazi hunter. The petition does not require payment to be sent, though Carter's letter suggests it is being used as a fundraising tool.

"I believe that Simon Wiesenthal would have been as outraged by your book, 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,' as I was," Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, wrote in a Feb. 2 response to Carter.

Carter's fiery exchange with Hier is the latest in the controversy over the book, which last year prompted resignations of a longtime Carter aide and 14 members of a Carter Center board.

Critics allege the book contains inaccuracies and distorts history to shape the reader's opinion to one side of the issue. Carter has defended the book, saying he didn't mean to offend anyone.

Hier sent 25,000 signed petitions to the Carter Center to show concern over the book among the Jewish community. The center's online petition called visitors to "act now against President Carter's one-sided bias against Israel." The Wiesenthal Center has about 400,000 members.

Carter's response shows that the number of petitions delivered to the Carter Center "touched a raw nerve," Hier said.

"He could be the director of public relations for the Palestinian cause," Hier told FOXNews.com. "The book was a litany of complaints blaming Israel for everything."

Carter's letter "indicates to me that he's uncomfortable with this criticism but this criticism is well-deserved," Hier said.

Click here to read the petition.



The World According to Jimmy Carter
Huffington Post Commentary by Alan Dershowitz

I like Jimmy Carter. I have known him since he began his run for president in early 1976. I worked hard for his election, and I have admired the work of the Carter Center throughout the world. That's why it troubles me so much that this decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

His bias against Israel shows by his selection of the book's title: "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." The suggestion that without peace Israel is an apartheid state analogous to South Africa is simply wrong. The basic evil of South African apartheid, against which I and so many other Jews fought, was the absolute control over a majority of blacks by a small minority of whites. It was the opposite of democracy. In Israel majority rules; it is a vibrant secular democracy, which just today recognized gay marriages performed abroad. Arabs serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court and get to vote for their representatives, many of whom strongly oppose Israeli policies. Israel has repeatedly offered to end its occupation of areas it captured in a defensive war in exchange for peace and full recognition. The reality is that other Arab and Muslim nations do in fact practice apartheid. In Jordan, no Jew can be a citizen or own land. The same is true in Saudi Arabia, which has separate roads for Muslims and non-Muslims. Even in the Palestinian authority, the increasing influence of Hamas threatens to create Islamic hegemony over non-Muslims. Arab Christians are leaving in droves.
Why then would Jimmy Carter invoke the concept of apartheid in his attack on Israel? Even he acknowledges--though he buries this toward the end of his book--that what is going on in Israel today "is unlike that in South Africa--not racism, but the acquisition of land." But Israel's motive for holding on to this land is the prevention of terrorism. It has repeatedly offered to exchange land for peace and did so in Gaza and southern Lebanon only to have the returned land used for terrorism, kidnappings and rocket launchings.

I don't know why Jimmy Carter, who is generally a careful man, allowed so many errors and omissions to blemish his book. Here are simply a few of the most egregious.
  • Carter emphasizes that "Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times," but he ignores the fact that Jews have lived in Hebron, Tzfat, Jerusalem, and other cities for even longer. Nor does he discuss the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries since 1948.
  • Carter repeatedly claims that the Palestinians have long supported a two-state solution and the Israelis have always opposed it. Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal, because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own.
  • He barely mentions Israel's acceptance, and the Palestinian rejection, of the U.N.'s division of the mandate in 1948.
  • He claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.
  • Carter repeatedly mentions Security Council Resolution 242, which called for return of captured territories in exchange for peace, recognition and secure boundaries, but he ignores the fact that Israel accepted and all the Arab nations and the Palestinians rejected this resolution. The Arabs met in Khartum and issued their three famous "no's": "No peace, no recognition, no negotiation" but you wouldn't know that from reading the history according to Carter.
  • Carter faults Israel for its "air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor" without mentioning that Iraq had threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if they succeeded in building a bomb.
  • Carter faults Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring every religion the right to worship as they please--consistant, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt's brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967.
  • Carter blames Israel, and exonerates Arafat, for the Palestinian refusal to accept statehood on 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza pursuant to the Clinton-Barak offers of Camp David and Taba in 2000-2001. He accepts the Palestinian revisionist history, rejects the eye-witness accounts of President Clinton and Dennis Ross and ignores Saudi Prince Bandar's accusation that Arafat's rejection of the proposal was "a crime" and that Arafat's account "was not truthful"--except, apparently, to Carter. The fact that Carter chooses to believe Yasir Arafat over Bill Clinton speaks volumes.
  • Carter's description of the recent Lebanon war is misleading. He begins by asserting that Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. "Captured" suggest a military apprehension subject to the usual prisoner of war status. The soldiers were kidnapped, and have not been heard from--not even a sign of life. The rocket attacks that preceded Israel's invasion are largely ignored, as is the fact that Hezbollah fired its rockets from civilian population centers.
  • Carter gives virtually no credit to Israel's superb legal system, falsely asserting (without any citation) that "confessions extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts," that prisoners are "executed" and that the "accusers" act "as judges." Even Israel's most severe critics acknowledge the fairness of the Israeli Supreme Court, but not Carter.
  • Carter even blames Israel for the "exodus of Christians from the Holy Land," totally ignoring the Islamization of the area by Hamas and the comparable exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon as a result of the increasing influence of Hezbollah and the repeated assassination of Christian leaders by Syria.
  • Carter also blames every American administration but his own for the Mideast stalemate with particular emphasis on "a submissive White House and U.S. Congress in recent years." He employs hyperbole and overstatement when he says that "dialogue on controversial issues is a privilege to be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and withheld from those who reject U.S. demands." He confuses terrorist states, such as Iran and Syria to which we do not extend dialogue, with states with whom we strongly disagree, such as France and China, with whom we have constant dialogue.
I hope President Carter will seriously consider addressing these omissions and mistakes. He begins his book tour soon and he will have an opportunity to correct the record.

HuffingtonPost.com
 

prinmemito

Muckdog
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
6,445
Reaction score
0
In reference to Alan Dershowitz's article, Jimmy Carter is entitled to his own opinions. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he's Satan or intentionally biased against Jews. I agree with some of his arguments and disagree with others. Don't slander someone simply because you disagree with them.
 

Shamrock

Muckdog
Joined
Sep 15, 2002
Messages
8,248
Reaction score
0
look! the right has its jimmyjacks too! thanks dan. I doubt many of the other right leaners read that site as most seem to be intelligent
 

DelGOT2Rings

Muckdog
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
723
Reaction score
0
In reference to Alan Dershowitz's article, Jimmy Carter is entitled to his own opinions. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he's Satan or intentionally biased against Jews. I agree with some of his arguments and disagree with others. Don't slander someone simply because you disagree with them.
It isn't as simple as saying that Carter's opinion is that it is the Jew's fault, and Dershowitz's opinion is that it isn't the Jew's fault. Dershowitz's whole article was to point out the "factual" mistakes and ommissions made by Carter, and how Carter's supposedly unbiased and expert opinion on the subject is errouneous because it is based on wrong facts and selective information. You can't label a situation an "apartheid" if you don't understand what that word actually means.
 

Hotcorner

Muckdog
Moderator
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
21,691
Reaction score
11
just shows that unless you're 100% on the Jewish side, you're anti-semitic in some people's eyes.
 

FlummoxedLummox

Guest
The number of Jewish members on this board seems proportionately high.
Anti-semite!!!

"Too many Jews," Penguino??? Or shall I call you Goebbles?



Seriously, though, I'm Jewish and I just wish people wouldn't cry 'anti-semite' every time a disagreement arises. It's a case of the boy who cries wolf, and as the story goes, when something serious occurs, it will fall on deaf ears.
 

yankeefan21

Muckdog
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
3,058
Reaction score
0
"Too many Jews"
That was the comment former President Jimmy Carter scrawled on a memo suggesting prospective members of the board of the Holocaust Memorial Council.
"Too many Jews."
That was the problem Carter saw with the names suggested by Monroe Freedman, executive director of the council, he revealed in a stunning interview with WND's Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein this week.
"Too many Jews."

Taken out of context, that makes Jimmy Carter ? FOUNDER of the Holocaust Memorial Council ? sound kind of like an anti-Semite.

I?m no Jimmy Carter fan by any stretch of the imagination but let?s take a chill pill and look at the reality. The guy was a POLITICIAN trying to get buy-in from other POLITICIANS and public support for the formation of a council he thought was important. A proposed council consisting of 90%-95% Jews would have gone over like a fart in a space helmet. Detractors would have easily discredited the council as a bunch of angry Jews with an agenda. Further, let?s look at the breakdown of the Holocaust death toll:

5 Million Jews
2 Million non-Jewish Poles
800,000 Gypsies
300,000 People with disabilities
200,000 European Freemasons
100,000 Communists
30,000 Homosexuals and Jehovah?s Witnesses

The way the numbers break down, the council should have been comprised of roughly 60% Jews. So, 33 or 34 of the 56 council members should be Jewish. 45 are Jewish. That looks like 11 or 12 too many Jews to me too.

Count for yourself:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/council/
 

FlummoxedLummox

Guest
The Jewish population of all human beings in the world is well below one percent. And yet it seems like every other member here is Jewish just about. I find that fascinating.
I agree. An actual count, then a study of why it was so would certainly be interesting.

From what I've gathered you work in "hard" science research, care to dabble in the social sciences? :mischief2
 

Out of the Past

Muckdog
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
0
The Jewish population of all human beings in the world is well below one percent. And yet it seems like every other member here is Jewish just about. I find that fascinating.
I agree. An actual count, then a study of why it was so would certainly be interesting.

From what I've gathered you work in "hard" science research, care to dabble in the social sciences? :mischief2
I don't think a study is needed. The Jewish population in So Fla is around 600k and growing very quickly.
 

Top Bottom