"I know charges of anti-Semitism is en-vogue nowadays for any critic of Israel, but no damage control Carter does retroactively will convince the millions of people who are convinced that he, at the very least, is very pro-Palestinian and has made borderline anti-Semitic accusations countless times."

You can't be serious. You acknowledge that the charge of antisemitism is used as a cudgel against anyone critical of Israel, and then you proceed to call Carter an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. Sorry, but unless you can give an example of antisemitism (advocating better treatment of millions of Palestinians who were just plain-old born into something beyond their control does not count as antisemitism), you are making the same poor argument you acknowledge to be "en-vogue".

I have no interest in defending the ridiculous positions of the political parties/militants in Palestine. However, this idea that Israel--a state that receives much largess from the US--cannot be subjected to criticism because the Jews have a history of being persecuted is beyond ridiculous, it's pernicious. It allows radical Jews (and let's be honest, as is the case with the Palestinians, Israel has its nut-jobs) to say "we'll set up settlements wherever we please, because our book says we can, and if you say anything that goes against our wishes you are Hitler".

Sorry, but it's too stupid for me to avoid responding to.

"However, this idea that Israel ...-cannot be subjected to criticism because the Jews have a history of being persecuted is beyond ridiculous, it's pernicious."

That's why no one, including the Jewish critics of Jimmy Carter, makes such an argument. Jimmy Carter is condemned not for criticizing Israel, but for _unfairly_ and _maliciously_ criticizing Israel. Reasonable criticisms would have been accepted.

When you say "unfairly_ and _maliciously_ criticizing Israel" what do you mean?

What has he said exactly? Why was it unfair?

In response to your question: What has Jimmy Carter done that makes him an anti-Semite?

I concede that my last sentence was poorly constructed and rushed for the sake of brevity, as I had a huge test this morning I was concomitantly cramming for. What I meant to say is that after years of playing soft-ball in regards to Palestinian terrorism, while constantly making insidious and unsubstantiated charges that Israel is an "apartheid state" guilty of myriad atrocities, is evidence enough of at the minimum bias against Israel. What makes my pointed allegation somewhat legitimate is the fact his vitriol towards Israel (and seemingly Jew's in general, despite his objections to the contrary) is compounded by the disproportionate sums relative to the number of allegations made against Palestinians. Sheer support for the Palestinian cause is prerogative and he has the right to feel however he wants. However, based on his historically anti-Israel and borderline anti-Semitic comments, it is not illogical to at least accuse former-President Carter of potentially being anti-Semitic. The same goes for his former NSA advisor and scholar Zbig.

However, I take little pride in belittling a former President (however poor of a job he did) for his beliefs. Fact is, if he is actually anti-Semitic -- which I am only alleging based on his past remarks -- it is his right. What I take offense to is that the imprimatur of being a former President gives him the credibility to espouse very negative country that I hold dear, thus rendering them more credibility than they deserve.

If you want evidence of his past anti-Semitic-like behavior, just look at the book titles of his books, and watch a couple of speeches via youtube or something like that. I am not just making completed capricious and arbitrary accusations against a former President of the United States.

**** THE SMOKING GUN
He recently offered an "al het" -- which means asking for forgiveness -- to the Jewish people, in general. In doing so, he admits that he can understand why people have perceived him as harboring much of the resent against the Jews that I just stated. The link is:

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/21/1009832/carter-offers-jewish-community-al-het

However, there are many others. You were either lazy or disingenuous if you are actually going to ask such a question. Do your research.

Start with the old "apartheid" libel. Look at his ridiculous, anti-semitic book. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/carter-anti-semitic/

Come observe his tacit approval of countless blood-libel attacks over the years, including the bizarre claims that the Israeli army "harvests" organs from dead Palestinians (patently ridiculous but that never stops the nutballs).

Carter ignores the fact that the pseudo-religion of Islam (more political than religion, the same as the cult of $cientology) is the "official religion" of more than 27 nations, yet he believes the recognition of Israel as a Jewish homeland is "an obstacle to peace." This despite the fact that Judaism, Christianity, and anything else not Muslim is banned from those nations, while Israel recognizes freedom of religion for its citizens and legal residents.

Sounds plenty anti-semitic to me.

But aren't the Palestinians Semites?

So far as I can tell, your case against Carter has 5 major components:

1. Carter spent "years of playing soft-ball in regards to Palestinian terrorism". This charge is too vague to refute. But that's not really my job. If you're claiming that Carter was soft on the PLO, tell me what he did that say, Regan, would have done differently. I am not a Carter booster by any stretch, and I would certainly be interested to hear your arguments as to why the way in which he dealt with the PLO was particularity inept, but don't expect me to make them for you.

2. As for the charge that Carter is "constantly making insidious and unsubstantiated charges that Israel is...guilty of myriad atrocities", I think there is plenty of substantiation available. You may think that bombing Lebanon's infrastructure and civilians in 2006 was totally justified, but I think that it was out of proportion to the event that set the campaign in motion (an attack on a pair of Israeli military vehicles). No doubt about it, the Israeli's have to deal with a bunch of fanatics who will do anything they can to win a victory. You can bet Hezbollah will hide their rockets in buildings filled with civilians and fire rockets into Israeli towns until the day a peace is reached (and at this point, I'm not so sure that day will come). But the more powerful force does have a moral obligation to obtain from causing civilian causalities, and Israel has not always done so--the 2006 campaign is a prime example.

I should perhaps mention that I served in Iraq (USMC), and so I have an understanding of some of the tactics used by groups like Hezbollah. But if a platoon of Marines comes gets fired on from a building that contains civilians, they cannot--and don't--just call in airstrikes. They, due to the United States' military superiority, have to risk being killed in order to ensure minimum damage to the civilian population. Despite the efforts ensure minimum casualties, sometimes atrocities do happen--war is messy. However, in the conduct of the incursion into Lebanon, Israel did exercise such restraint. The guilt of the Palestinian militants in no way absolves Israel of its responsibility.

3. As for the "Carter called Israel an "apartheid state" business, see my reply to ITGURU42.

4. You criticize Carter for his "his historically anti-Israel and borderline anti-Semitic comments". I'm sorry, again, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you're referring to the Carter describing the state as an apartheid state, I'll have to refer you back to my reply to ITGURU. Otherwise, you should really avoid making a statement and then telling me to go and find support for your statement.

5. Finally, your "smoking gun". He apologized to Jewish people by way of a traditional Jewish apology (an "al het"). If he was such an antisemite, why on earth would he go through the trouble of issuing an "al het"? If you truly hated Jews, would you apologize for offending them? Would you expect an avowed hate monger to apologize for his beliefs? Would a Klansman who's book was poorly received by the Congressional Black Caucus show up to make a formal apology? Perhaps you think Carter only apologized because he received a negative reaction and he can't stand the thought of bad press. But why would he care about bad press? He's never going to run for anything again, and his legacy couldn't be much worse.

In closing, I think you are playing the same game as ITGURU42. That is to say, I think that you are equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism in an effort to silence said criticism. However, I would like to thank you for being less hysterical than he is.

Correction in caps:

"However, in the conduct of the incursion into Lebanon, Israel did NOT exercise such restraint. The guilt of the Palestinian militants in no way absolves Israel of its responsibility."

The story of the Israeli army and medical fields' conspiring to harvest Palestinian organs was proven earlier late last year by Israeli TV.

Check it out:

CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/20/ap/middleeast/main6001606.shtml

Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs

B--shire is right: s/he wins.

DavidGreenFutureDoctor

See below, you dishonorable, racist, bigoted, anti-semitic pile of rectal rejections.

Dear Scott: I hope you did better on your test than you've done here. Even after admitting you probably went too far in accusing President Carter of being an anti-semite, your second post repeats the same logical leaps as the first- i.e. that Carter's apparent grudge against Israel is proof that he "seemingly" feels the same way against Jews.

You don't like the title of President Carter's book? Well, if you'd bothered to read his books you'd learn that he is the farthest thing from an anti-semite. He was after all the only U.S. president to negotiate a lasting peace accord between Israel and an Arab country. It's true he now has very powerful criticisms of the Israeli state. But they're entirely legitimate. Israel continues to build settlements on land that has never been accepted as Israeli territory, has built security walls that cut through Palestinian territory, and cut Palestinians off from basic resources and forced them to spend hours to travel within their own territory. I can see why you'd want to brand as anti-semitic anyone who brings those inconvenient truths to light or who points to the obvious similarities between the Israeli regime and another oppressive regime. You can call the messenger whatever you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Facts:

1) double digit inflation and double digit unemployment during Carter's brief tenure

2) withdrew US support for the Shah of Iran, then an anchor of western Stability, leaving a vacuum filled by the current regime internally... final chapter still unwritten. Externally by Saddam Hussein. This in turn drawing the US into 2 wars... final chapter still unwritten.

3) Purposefully destabilised Afghanistan and recruited Pakistani and Saudi involvement. Afghanistan was previously as was the history independent of Pakistan in opposition to the Islamic regime and allied more with India a democracy. Creating a Muslim army, the Mujahideen, leading to 9/11 and another US fought war...final chapter still unwritten.

4) wreaked havoc with the democratic party causing a large scale exodus from the democratic party - the Reagan Democrats
1980 saw the republicans not only retake the presidency but in quick succession both houses of congress numerous state legislatures and governorships that has taken 30 years to repair....

5) Surrendered to Iran in the Algiers agreement...final chapter still unwritten.

6) Iran a previously peaceful country setting up shop in Lebanon. Support for Hizbollah Terrorists leading to the killing 241 American servicemen...final chapter still unwritten.

So what are you waiting for? Those of us who where alive during Jimmy Carters time in office to die off hoping history can rewrite the facts? Your little statement about Carter is great for those to young to know any better but you see Mr Defannin I lived thru his time in the white house. I remember how it felt to be a American under him. Then I remember how I felt under mr Reagan. It was like night and day. I am not a member of any party and at the time didn't know the difference but I know this. You are dead wrong! Mr Carter was the worsest president in my lifetime! People like you can try to rewrite it but I know better because I was there!

Nixon the burglar and Reagan the drug dealer and gun runner are easily the worst presidents America has ever had. Reagan got the United States convicted for terrorism. Mr. Carter is an intelligent, honorable, decent man and was a great president. These attacks are coming from Israelis and quasi-Israelis.

Jimmy Carter has indeed been 'appreciated' in his lifetime. All too well.

"Am I oversimplifying the situation by equating Carter's perspective with the Muslim/Extreme Left alliance?"

I think Carter views the Palestinian people as powerless (or at least weak), and like many on the Left, he identifies with the underdogs.

I know it's hard for Americans to empathize with the Palestinians (they're Muslim, they dress differently, and every time we see them on TV they're lighting something on fire--usually the American flag). For that reason, Carter's calling attention to the plight of the Palestinian people strikes a lot of Americans as rooting for the bad guys.

As I alluded to in my response to Scott Goose, I have no skin in this game. I'm not a Jew, nor am I a Muslim. But I do see the whole conflict as a conflict over resources (land), fought by two groups who proclaim ownership of said resources on the basis of their respective religions (identity politics the Right can get behind). The major difference is that Israel has tanks and helicopters and they fight in uniforms (we, Americans, can identify with that), and the Palestinians throw rocks at said tanks and send suicide bombers into nightclubs (that strikes us as a bit Al-Queda-ish).

In addition to better equipment, the Jews have way better PR. For example, a Palestinian talking point: "death to America, death to Israel". An Israeli talking point: "Israel has a right to exist". The cartoon version of the American response: "well, I'm certainly not one for death to America, so those Palestinian guys are out. As for the other folks, I can't see myself denying anybody a right to exist, so I guess I'm on their side." (Never mind the ridiculously loaded nature of the "right-to-exist" line, most people are pretty susceptible to specious arguments if they are worded correctly.)

So, no, I don't think Carter is part of any "extreme"-Left, pro-Muslim conspiracy. I think he just sees himself as the defender of the weak, which is really more old-Left than extreme-Left. You can think he is wrong for his advocacy--you can even think that the Palestinians are getting what they deserve, wrong book and all--but I don't think you can hammer Carter for being part of some kind of antisemitic cabal.

In his criticism of Israel, Carter has taken the risk to speak out about something very few American public figures, political or otherwise, would dare to do. Whatever you may think of Carter's accomplishments while President, it is hard to deny that he is very qualified to speak to the issue of Israel and the Middle East. I am an American centrist... not a Democrat, nor Jewish or Islamic, but am well educated on the history and politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Carter has spoken out against Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories because they are oppressive, racist, and inhumane. They represent apartheid-like tactics which have been substantiated by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.N. All of these institutions and most of the governments of Europe are now considered by Israel and American Jewry to be biased against Israel because of such criticism. Crying bias and making accusations of being anti-semitic is the formulaic, now hollow, response Israel and Washington have been using for years.

It makes sense Carter would speak out against this inhumane treatment because he has always done so, whether it was in China, the Soviet Union, or other areas of the Middle East, regardless of the political consequences. But in the case of Israel it is of particular importance and unique because, unlike other governments guilty of systematic human rights violations, Israel owes its very existence to the United States (and ironically to the U.N., which Israel now discredits because of its condemnations towards its apartheid like tactics).

Beyond being the first country to vote in favor of Israel's recognition as a State by the U.N., the U.S. has contributed more total funds (direct aide, loans without requirement to be repaid, tax deductible gifts from U.S. citizens, direct and indirect Military aide), than it has to any other country, by far (over $100 Bil.), since the U.S. was created. Therefore we should be holding Israel to a standard similar to what we would hold ourselves to.

And there lies the greatest irony. As stated, this conflict is over land. And this land has been inhabited by the indigenous Palestinian people for all recorded history, even according to the Jewish Old Testament. The principally Ashkenazi Jews of Israel are East European colonists in Palestine, Palestine that is now Israel because of a decree of the U.N. But according to the same U.N. the West Bank is not Israeli territory and Israel is, according to international law, illegally occupying this land not to mention subjecting its citizens to apartheid treatment in an effort to force them to flee the land so that Israel can further its settlements and eventual annexation.

The point to my response here is that the Palestinians are in every way analogous to the American Indians. As modern Americans, and let's say it... modern white Americans, like myself, we almost universally recognize that our forefathers mistreated, abused, exploited, and depraved the indigenous American Indians. Today we provide them numerous forms of reparations in an effort to make right our injustices. So why are we enabling and supporting one of our closest allies, Israel, to do the same injustices today?

How could Carter not stand up and voice this issue? Unfortunately the majority of other American public figures would not dare to do so because they fear receiving the same Edgar Hoover-like treatment Carter has received in the past two years.

To Jimmy Carter, I don't agree with many of your socialistic stances on economic policy, but I am proud to have had a man like you, truly brave with integrity, as our President.

"I know it's hard for Americans to empathize with the Palestinians (they're Muslim, they dress differently, and every time we see them on TV they're lighting something on fire--usually the American flag). "

Come again?

It was the Arab nations who stuffed Palestinians into "refugee camps" - on land designated for the Palestinian state no less, after the Arab states had swallowed it up - in 1948.

It was the Arab nations who passed laws preventing Palestinians from gaining citizenship in other Arab nations on the theory of "diluting the Palestinian cause."

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. " - Zahir Muhsein, PLO Executive Committee Member, 1977.

I empathize with the Palestinians. They are an uneducated, brainwashed, mass who have been brutalized and mistreated by the same people who feed them the same old lies about "ethnic brotherhood" and teach them to hate the "common enemy." But I will not, ever, fall into the trap that Carter and so many dolts from the Left fall into and think that because the Arabs have kept the "poor Palestinians" locked up as a propaganda point and source of suicidal crazies with which to launch blatant attacks bent on genocide and in violation of ALL tenets of the Geneva Conventions, that somehow the "Evil Joos" are to blame.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is, for most Americans, an issue that they seem content to have a pretty superficial knowledge of--though not as simple as your reading of my previous post would have it.

When I made the statement about the American public's opinion being colored by the Palestinian dress, I did not mean that Americans viewed Palestinians as the less sympathetic group because their dress was less Western than that of the Israelis. I wasn't saying that Americans hold different clothing to be bad prima facie. I think if the conflict were between a group of smartly-dressed Chinese with a tendency toward violent oppression (we'll call them the CCP) and a group of non-violent Buddhists whose garb bore little resemblance to our own (Tibetans, for the sake of argument), there is no reason to believe that the average American would not take the side of the more strangely dressed bunch. I think that most Americans make exactly the calculation that you have made: in the case of Arab Muslims, that strange dress indicates an adherence to a set of values and beliefs utterly at odds with our own. Meanwhile, Israeli culture is much more palatable--provided you're content to regard the Orthodox set in the same way many people regard the Amish: as a benign curiosity.

But our willingness to take Israel's side in the conflict based on the perception--rightly held, provided you exclude the Zionist wing-nuts--that Israeli/Jewish culture is more compatible with Western values results in an incredibly one-sided approach to the conflict. We view Israel as an ally, and--particularly under Bush--pretty near anything they wanted to do in response to a flare-up in Gaza or Lebanon was justified because "Israel has a right to defend itself" (again with the loaded language).

Surely Israel has a right to defend itself, but what about the 10 year-old Palestinian playing soccer in the streets when the Israeli bombardment starts? Well, that where Carter comes in I suppose.

The bottom line is, regardless of what Avigdor Lieberman thinks, at some point the Israelis are going to have to cede some ground--either that or exterminate the Palestinians outright, but that might be detrimental to their moral standing, and probably a bit too ironic. It would be nice if more American politicians were willing to lean on them a bit in pursuit of a two-state solution, but the charge of antisemitism is always looming, and so leaning is rare.

I dare say that Carter would be much less outspoken were his aspirations for elected office not long behind him, but since they are, he says what he wants--even if it comes of as hippy idealism at times. But I actually think his outspokenness serves a useful purpose. He prods American into reexamining--or at least talking about--their stance on Israel, and in doing so, maybe it will eventually be possible for our politicians to make "coldly rational decisions" about policy toward Israel without the constant fear of the charge of antisemitism.

"Surely Israel has a right to defend itself, but what about the 10 year-old Palestinian playing soccer in the streets when the Israeli bombardment starts?"

The Geneva Conventions are clear: blame lies with HAMAS, PLO, and the rest of the Palestinian genocidal alphabet soup of terrorist organizations. It lies with them for recruiting women and children to deliver their attacks. It lies with them for dressing as civilians, hiding their weapons and soldiers in civilian homes while on-duty, for lobbing missiles and mortars from the rooftop or sidewalk of civilian homes, shops, hospitals, and civic buildings.

I mourn for the ten-year-old, but I put the moral blame right where it should be: on the terrorists who hide behind women and children for protection.

ITGURU42 Israelis being transported to an occupied territory, Palestine, is defined by the Geneva Conventions as a Crime Against Humanity. Israeli trespassers and squatters on Palestinian land must expect the use of force by Palestinians, to remove them from Palestinian lands. It is a long settled law that the owner of land must openly and notoriously contest the occupation of his land by the trespasser.

Yawwwwwn.

The Arabs started how many genocidal wars and lost.

"Palestinian" land? When it was held by Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan, the "Palestinians" might have had a case. Today, after starting more genocidal wars, they have no case left. Time to cut the crap.

I'm curious ITGURU, what do you call Netanyahu, Lieberman, and the rest of the Likud party?

Criticize Israeli policies, and your called an anti-semite. I think it would be more accurate to call absolute defenders of Israel... anti-American.

Jimmah Cardigan is an anti-semite because he hates jews. Very simple.

The fact that you also have a deep-seated hatred, and utter the same old cover-words as others, sways me not in the slightest. Ol' Jimmah's own words, when he wrote his disgusting book which parroted a recent libel and in times when he has been caught "pants down" speaking his real mind freely instead of self-censoring, have shown him to be so.

Stand around blaming Dem Evil Joos for everything wrong in the world and especially in the Middle East, fail to hold the Arabs to blame for their starting of multiple genocidal wars, the pogroms of the 1920s, and for gobbling up all the supposed "Palestinian" land and then sticking the "poor Palestinians" into "refugee camps" (quick quiz: who held all the land the supposed "Palestinians" are living in "refugee camps" on in 1948? That's right - the Arab nations), and I will call you what you are: a deluded anti-semite.

Peace will come with honesty. There so far is none from Carter, from his anti-semite friends, or it would seem, from you.

Substantiate specifically anything I've said that is anti-semitic. Of course you can't.

Israel has to acknowledge its injustices (substantiated by numerous independent human rights groups) and stop violating U.N. resolutions by illegally occupying territory that does not belong to it if it is ever to achieve peace.

Until then, the State of Israel, and no, not Jewish people, is a liability for Americans.

You start by lobbing a list of bogeymen.

Then you run for the traditional cover of the anti-Semite, the "but I'm just criticizing Israel" lie. Odd how it always goes downhill from there.

Is there room to criticize policies of Israel? Sure. Do I believe that's all you are after? If I were that dumb, you could sell me the Brooklyn Bridge too.

ITGURU42, I want to respond to your arguments.

You say: "Jimmah Cardigan is an anti-semite because he hates jews"

Wonderfully circular. You are--up and down this message board--pretty much summing up all of the ridiculous, one sided arguments about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Argument 1 (paraphrased): "It's the other Arab countries that created the situation in Palestine". Let's assume that's true (let's ignore, for now, the there would be no refugee camps if the Zionists had not decided to set a state where a bunch of people already lived). How does that make the situation in Palestine today, in 2010, justifiable? Should failings of past Arab regimes (and they are many) subject the Palestinians to eternal peril?

Argument 2 (paraphrased): "Jimmy Carter hates Jews because he is critical of Israel, which he is critical of because of his deep-seeded antisemitism". I think that is ridiculous enough on its face--no need to deconstruct it any further.

Argument 3 (paraphrased): "Calling Israel an apartheid state is antisemitic libel". Libel is writing that misrepresents the truth in an effort to damage the subject of the writing. Apartheid is the policy of separation based on caste or ethnic group. Is it a misrepresentation to say that Israel has constructed multiple barriers with the expressed purpose of separating Palestinians from Jews? No question the Palestinians employ deplorable tactics, and I understand why Israeli's would grow tired of the constant threat of suicide bombings, but if you build a wall to keep an antagonistic ethnic group away from your ethnic group you have created an apartheid. Sorry, you entitled to whatever terminology you choose (Jews call it the "Anti-terrorist wall", Arabs call it the "racial segregation wall"), but you are not entitled to your own facts. The World Court (the UN's high court) says of the West Bank barrier: "Israel cannot rely on a right of self?defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. Construction of the barrier is contrary to international law." Is the court in cahoots with Carter--an antisemite-packed court perhaps?

Argument 4 (paraphrased): "If you agree with Carter you are obviously an avowed antisemite who hates Jews".
You're just running up and down this message board throwing flames at anyone who takes issue with any of your poorly constructed arguments. I think this, quoted directly, typifies your response to any argument critical of Israel:

"Then you run for the traditional cover of the anti-Semite, the "but I'm just criticizing Israel" lie.

Not content with the ad hominem, you tack on a little of the ol' slippery slope:

"Odd how it always goes downhill from there."

ITGURU42, you can do better.

"Is it a misrepresentation to say that Israel has constructed multiple barriers with the expressed purpose of separating Palestinians from Jews?"

You bet your ass it is. The Arabs have, far more than those "Evil Jews" you hate so much, done demeaning and degrading things to the "palestinians", starting with sectioning them off. Stealing the land that was supposed to be theirs from the 1948 accords. Putting up walls around them long before the "Evil Jews" were stuck maintaining them and eventually putting up walls of their own in self-defence.

Educate yourself, if educating something like you is indeed possible. Who were the first to wall off the Palestinian terrorists in Gaza? Hint: it wasn't Israel.

"The World Court (the UN's high court) says of the West Bank barrier:"

And we are supposed to take the word of a body which is set up largely for the purpose of attacks upon Israel, created by a body which makes a burgeoning industry of constantly attacking Israel based on the outrageous claims of tin-pot dictatorships, actual human rights abusers and ridiculous 7th-century religious despotisms, with anything less than a few strip-mines worth of salt? Really? A body which has placed nations like Cuba, Libya, Syria, and the Despotic Regime of China on a "Human Rights" commission?

How gullible are you, really?

As for the rest of your dishonest "paraphrases", I expect no less of someone who falsely claims to have been a member of the US military to buttress his other lies.

Tell me, do you enjoy knocking down strawmen? Because that is all you have done here. You have not correctly "paraphrased" even one sentence of what I have said, you stinking liar.

Thanks.

Lobbing a list of boogey men... ? The two men mentioned are the current Prime Minister, another currently serving in the Knesset, and the political party associated with both of them. How is this a list of boogey men. They are Israel's current leadership.

You have no argument, just pathetic ranting and name calling that lacks any coherent logic to support it. It's laughable, and completely proves the point of how the policies of the Israeli government cannot be criticized without Pro-Israelis crying anti-semitism.

Hopefully my fellow Americans will finally become wise to these bullying tactics and start treating Israel with the scrutiny we should treat any other country, especially our closest allies.

You lose and should be prosecuted for your lying claim to be an Iraq veteran just like Jessie Macbeth.

thank you for your rational well thought out responses. i, too lived through the carter administration. i can tell you that after a long liberal background (ccny), active democrat, my mother an active member of our local democratic club, i became a reagan democrat and never looked back, becoming the first republican in the family. my wife who looked for the liberal party after we moved to california in the 70's also is a conservative.
there is no doubt in my mind that carter has been aligned with the arabs since his presidency and the "al het" he gave to the jewish community was based on the fact that his grandson is running for congree in georgia in a predominately jewish district.
there is no doubt in my mind that, if given the opportunity, that obama will follow a similar path.
keep up the good work!!

illegitiMi. Can't type at the speed of thought ;-)

INTDLN The Marines fouled up the mission in Iran. For you to criticise Mr. Carter for the failure of the Marines is ridiculous. Your reason for your hostility is Mr. Carter, in your mind, stopped the Nile-to-Euphrates Eretz Israel program by getting Israel to hand back the Sinia to the Egyptians.

As if the Israelis ever wanted to hold Sinai permanently? Please. Pull the other one.

Throw any more codewords out and you'll qualify as the anti-semite's walking codebook.

ITGURU42 Anti-semitism against the Palestinians, Arabs, and some Muslims, coming from you has been the backbone of your comments.

In coloser reading i see in the article that the covert opetions to use Afghanistan as cold war cannon fodder began in 1978!!!

CAMERA and other right wing, Pro-Israel media groups are relentless in their pursuit to stifle any debate relating to Israel. Carter is well aware of this. All the more reason to recognize his bravery in confronting these issues.

CAMERA and these other AIPAC groups should be registered as foreign entities in the U.S. as they are placing the interests of another nation above that of the U.S. The same can probably be said of many other nationalistic/ethinic lobbying groups, but the Pro-Israel ones have been the most vitriolic and oppressive, and causing the U.S. the most damage in terms of its national security and overall interests.

The age-old "Israel Lobby", aka "Secret Cabals of Jews Control The World" bullshit.

Wonderful to see how you nutballs come out of the woodwork. So how is the City Full Of Gays anyways, Mike? Please, go visit an Arab nation and see what they do to people with your sexual preference. I bet you'd be happier in Israel, where your type have the right to live peacefully rather than get their heads cut off.

ITGURU42 With targeted assasination as a government policy in Israel, and the government identity theft and use of those identities for killings, Israel is not a safe place to go for anyone, including the Olim.

The phrase is "reap what you sow."

As for the "both arabs and jews are semites" saw, please stop. The dictionary definition of anti-semitism is racial/religious bigotry and hatred directed against jews.

"Due to the poor foreign policy of the US"

- You mean time and again trying to broker peace only to have genocidal Arab groups lie and break their promises?

"and regional aspirations of Israel"

- Oh I'll agree. Israel should not have the aspiration to live in peace with secure borders and a lack of bombs, rockets, and mortars flying at her citizens. And they definitely shouldn't have the aspiration to be a model to the region of how a fully functioning representative government operates, a definite fresh alternative to the tin-pot dictatorships, fascist and monarchist regimes, and outright frauds that comprise the Islamist political system of the 27 Arab nations surrounding it.

ITGURU42 Isrealis practice anti-semitism with impunity, using violence, terrorism, and apartheid against the semitic people of Palestine. The term anti-semite was coined to describe the hatred of some europeans to those with semitic features. An Ashkenazi attacking a Palestinian fits that very definition of an anti-semite.

If you think I was saying that the Palestinians are uniformly not guilty or that I have a soft spot for Islamists, you've got me wrong.

When you say:
.
"For many westerners it may seem like aiding one’s own demise to support 1) a Muslim state that 2) endorses terror against civilians as an acceptable means of conflict resolution and 3) continues to enforce the horrific anti-Jew, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-progress agenda that is at the heart of Islam."
.
you should know that I'm right there with you. I think that our unwillingness to play tough with the Saudis is FAR more appalling then our unwillingness to put pressure on Israel. The spread of Wahhabi Islam, a direct result of Sadui money flowing into the hate-teaching madrassas that extend across central Asia and all the way down to the Philippines, is perhaps the most pernicious cultural phenomenon in history. As an ideology, it is WORSE, I think--more dangerous, more irrational, more pervasive, and most importantly, more permanent--than any of the fascist ideologies of the previous century. I will say that Hitler's Wehrmacht was far more dangerous to the world than Islamofacisim in the short run, but don't confuse what I am saying with a weakness for Islam. You'll find none here.
.
.
As for this, "So, while casually casting these facts aside you instead resort to the liberal’s most frequently used tool – emotional appeal" I don't think that's a fair charge. The reason I mentioned a ten-year-old is that I think we can all agree that he/she, at that age, would be free from guilt in the I/P conflict. What I was saying is that many people who are not guilty of supporting Islamofacists are killed as a result of Israeli military action. If you think that is "emotional appeal"--if you think that saying "steps should be taken to protect the innocent" is emotional appeal--then I have no idea why you are supportive of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions were created (in large part) for the protection of civilians caught up in war.
.
And, while I'm sure you were trying to be cute, but I'll nevertheless mention that this statement:
"So what about that 10 year old boy? Well, the kids, they blow up so fast these days!"
is not exactly in line with the Geneva conventions you claim to support.
.
.
What I am advocating is that Israel restrict themselves to a more targeted approach when dealing with Hezbollah, etc., not that the Israelis refuse to respond when their border towns are bombarded by rockets. I'm advocating proportionality and precision, not pacifism. And I'm advocating that US politicians push for such an approach, even if there are ITGURU42-types in Israeli government refuse on the grounds that Israel is right in all situations, and Israel has some sort of divine mandate to do whatever it wants. It is in the interest of the US for Israel to secure a peace deal, and I am interested in what is good for the US. Like it or not, there are religious crazies in Israel--just like there are in the US--who would reject any deal that required them to give anything up because they think the Jews have some sort of Biblical claim to the land. I think such people should be roundly ignored.
.
.
As for this statement: "Might Israel have to cede some ground someday? Yes, I wouldn’t rule that out", I really don't know what the alternative is. Seems to me that if the Israelis want peace (and I'd venture to say that the ones who aren't bent on expanding Israeli territory through settlements--the average Israeli, the non-fanatic--probably do), they are going to have negotiate some kind of two state solution. I don't really see an alternative, but I would welcome you, NSC LONDON, or anybody else on here (ITGURU42 excepted) to lay out an alternative if they think there is one.

I read your post hastily. (I guess I wrote in the same manner, because I noticed several editing mistakes in my previous posts). Anyway, I took this comment: "Well, the kids, they blow up so fast these days!" out of context.

I ignored the preceding sentence: "All I can do in response to such a nonsensical tactic is to employ a similarly absurd device, namely the oft used conservative tool, mean-spirited humour.".

(Though I stand by my statement that my use of 10-year-old civilian was not an appeal to emotion.)

I have yet to see anything in this discussion, certainly not anything from BFDMcJessieMacbeth or Jimmah Cardigan, that remotely approaches a "reasonable criticism of Israel."

If you feel there has been, please respond and point out what you consider "reasonable."

You're joking, right?

" but I think that it was out of proportion to the event that set the campaign in motion (an attack on a pair of Israeli military vehicles). "

Right here he plays down the Hizb'allah side. The "attack on a pair of Israeli military vehicles" was the proverbial straw breaking the camel's back, following a long series of Lebanese mortar and missile attacks lobbed at Israeli towns - CIVILIAN targets, I might add, that did not harbor any Israeli military assets, unlike the Hizb'allah military assets stored in the targets the Israelis hit. In the same COORDINATED attack where the Israeli military vehicles were hit, missiles and mortars were lobbed at these towns to distract Israeli assets on damage assessment and prevent a quick counterattack.

"But the more powerful force does have a moral obligation to obtain from causing civilian causalities"

Setting aside that the real word he should have used is "refrain", rather than "obtain", the statement is still bogus, and shows unequivocally a complete lack of understanding of international law and the Geneva Conventions. This alone is enough to show me that there's no way in hell he's USMC-anything.

The 2006 campaign is not a "prime example" of anything but the fact that the Arab terrorist groups - Hamas, PLO, PFLP, Hizb'allah, and the rest - deliberately violate the Geneva Conventions by putting civilians in harm's way for protective and propaganda value. I have, previously, quoted the relevant Geneva Conventions passages for you.

Your contention that the statement you quote is somehow "reasonable" or "balanced" is patently ridiculous.

The first link was a dead link, probably because CBS found out the "story" was bogus.

The second link, heavily amended, is about a generic medical scandal that could easily happen anywhere in the world, in which a hospital (singular) was harvesting organs from ANY dead body in their morgue.

Relevant quote:
"Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives."

The article you are looking for was published in the Swedish paper Aftonbladet, and later retracted completely when it turned out that the "reporter" had falsified most of his story, including when the PALESTINIAN FAMILIES he supposedly interviewed said they had told him no such thing.

I pray to whatever deity may exists that you never become a "doctor", you uneducated anti-semitic dolt.

ITGURU42 You wear your swastika well. Israelis emulate swastika wearing Germans, building walls and fences around the Gaza ghetto, where Palestinians are allowed out under an Arbeit Mach Frei policy. Palestinians languishing for decades in ghettos, refugee camps, denied their right of return to their homeland. Readers of this blog can clearly see a thread running through your comments. No crime is too great for you to commit, crimes against humanity, terrorism, bombing buildings, land theft, shooting children, apartheid, assasinations, killings, using white phosphorus on civilians, all because you think a Jew is entiled to commit these crimes and not be held responsible. The hollow cries of anti-semitism are not a defense to prosecution for these crimes.

My own biases?

Fine. I'll admit: I am terminally allergic to bullshit. And I do not suffer lies, fools, racists, or anti-semites gladly.

I suspect anti-semitism when I see idiots parroting the words of anti-semites. Nothing that has been said by the anti-semites above has not also been said by the worst rank anti-semites the world has to offer.

ITGURU could never answer this question, at least without listing a dozen reasons why Israel was justified in any wrong doing it committed. He, and other crazy right wing Zionists like him, are equal if not worse than Hamas and the many other Islamic loonies in their blind prejudice and stupidity. They rail against Hamas but idolize the Irgun who were/are different halves of the same rotten fruit.

But the more people like ITGURU come out into the light and expose their lack of logic and idiocy, the better the odds even-handed Zionists can again lead Israel and the American-Israel lobby. Then there may actually be a chance for peace.

The biggest irony is that if ITGURU and others of his ilk get what they want in the short term, longer term Israel will have a non-Jewish majority. If their illegal land grab of the West Bank is successful, they will have to give the indigenous people voting rights. As I understand it, within twenty years this collectively new Israel would then be non-Jewish. Then we'll see how democratic "the one democracy in the Middle East" will be. Israel as a concept can only continue if it i.) ceases to be a democracy, or ii.) gives up the Occupied Territories, or (the current government's goal)... iii.) induces the native population to flee to other lands to escape Israel's apartheid oppression.

How about when your hero, the Wall-builder Ariel Sharon, allowed the Falangists to come into the refugee camps and massacre their Palestinian opponents in Beirut? I would say that perhaps that was worthy of being "open to criticism," though I suppose plausible deniability was maintained to some extent.

Why should we have an undying dedication to any foreign country, let alone one like Israel that has cost us > $100 billion directly, and much more indirectly?

They have at best been a liability. More generally, they commit atrocities to the indigenous populations in and around their borders.

Have we all as U.S. citizens been so brain washed that we fail to ask ourselves why we are obligated to continue this relationship?

Well, seeing that Israel is our one serious proxy in the Middle East, it is necessary to posture and placate delicately so that they may continue to be our useful agent in that region. One does not have to literally MEAN the expressed "undying dedication" -- obviously we want Israel to do what WE want them to do, but in that special relationship, we must act with agency and continue to speak as if what is in our best interest is in Israel's best interest. And so our "undying dedication..." to seeing that Israel does what we want them to do.

There may also be a moral imperative here -- especially when issuing the kinds of criticism Carter does so often -- to do so in a pros and cons tally sort of way. Say one good thing; then follow it with astute criticism. It's reflective of the moral situation Israel is in so often -- they commit atrocities (killing innocent people), but certainly this is in the broader scope of unspeakable atrocities committed against them.

And in general, it is wise to be friendly towards the Israel Lobby. Not to go all Walt and Mearsheimer on you, but they are powerful, so play politics. That, certainly, is in President Obama's interest.

I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt this whole debate but you just keep reverting to the same tired name calling. You seriously are a bigot but the terrifying thing is, you don't think you are. You think you're a wise, all-seeing seer who truly understands the conflict while all these other people are out to get you and are nothing but a bunch of imbeciles. Man, get off your goddamn tower and enter the real world. The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of people in the Western world aren't against the Jews in the slightest bit. You just need to relax man. Goddamn.

You are either one of the most dishonest people it has ever been my misfortune to encounter, or a simple raving lunatic.

"Bigot"? Moi? Furthest thing from it, I assure you. I am very simple, and this may be a concept you are incapable of conceiving, quite capable of telling the truth as it is - in other words, "calling a spade a spade."

I carry an understanding of the conflict, a result of long study and hard research into the matter. You, meanwhile, have proven you have absolutely no understanding at all of the conflict. How many times have I pointed something out to which you have no answer except to accuse me of "namecalling"? How many times have I pointed out the precise, relevant passages from the Geneva Conventions, for instance?

You are a sad, deluded, idiot. I begin to wonder if you are even capable of education

"The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of people in the Western world aren't against the Jews in the slightest bit."

Sadly, Jimmah Cardigan the senile old anti-semite, and the vast, vast majority of personages under the geopolitical regime of Islam, have been brainwashed into believing that "the Jews" are an evil force.

For instance: April 25, 2001. Egyptian national newspaper Al-Akhbar: "Thanks to Hitler, of blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough."

This was not an "isolated" incident: this was the official state newspaper of the Egyptian government.

As for the rest of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, you should do some research on the PLO and Hamas's overarching strategy. They call it, these days, the "two-phase plan." It has something to do with why every "palestinian" flag is a picture of the entire region, with the nation of Israel curiously missing...

NSC LONDON Establishing a homeland for the Jews = Destruction of Palestine. Get your code words right.

I agree with most of those Republicans retiring with dignity but not so much with Cheney. He's kind of an ass.

do we really need to doubt that "Mike Sacramento" and the rest are just a bunch of Stormfront-style/Hamas-style neo-nazi types trying to use "criticism of Israel" as cover for their outright anti-semitism?

Let's see... code word code word insult code word insult code word insult "crime against humanity" yadda yadda yadda... "Mike Sacramento", your little blip was better in the original Arabic. At least then it had a semblance of tempo and could possibly have been adapted to a poem.

Mike Sactown for Prez! Keep it coming, brother. ITGURU may be a guru, but he's no (political) pundit. As Akiva Orr has written, this kind of hysterical defensiveness are like the wails of a cat in its dying throes.

now I see where you, your clone, and "Davidfuturedoctor" came from.

Stormfront linked here right before you all showed up. So I know.

Go back to butt-fucking your Stormfront neo-nazi buddies.

Yawn.

Lying yet again?

The Israeli TV report you point to says NOTHING OF THE SORT. It is about the same report from earlier, when a single hospital was harvesting organs indiscriminately from any body in the morgue. They didn't give two shits where the body came from.

Your lies are self-evident, and your anti-semitism twice so. It's interesting that you are so guided by evil that you will take anything you can find to try to stamp the label of "Evil Jews" on it, even when the facts are in 100% contradiction to what you are trying to make them say.

Go back to butt-fucking your Stormfront neo-nazi friends.

DAVIDGREENFUTUREDOC I saw Israeli Dr. Yehuda Mengele Hiss's admission on the news. You are correct, Israel admits the allegation of the Swedish reporter is a fact.

Please, whatever you're smoking, it has undoubtedly destroyed your previously feeble mind.