Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar

By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 14, 2006
Even as Islamic Hitlerites gather in Iran to deny the first Holocaust of the Jews and to plot the second, former president Jimmy Carter tours America with a new book that describes Jews as racists and oppressors, and suggests they are also a conspiratorial mafia that intimidates “critics,” controls America’s media and war policy, and are therefore also the source of Islamic terrorism and the Arabs’ genocidal campaign to eliminate them from the map of the Middle East.

In other words, Americans beware of the Jew in your midst.

Here is Carter’s description of the Middle East conflict in his own words, delivered during an interview he gave on National Public Radio during the second day of the Holocaust deniers’ conference in Teheran:
“I have spent a lot of time in Palestine in recent years. … The Palestinians have had their own land, first of all, occupied and then confiscated and then colonized. They’ve been excluded from their own gardens and fields, and pastures and churches. They have been severely restrained in their movements. They have to have different kinds of passes to go through different checkpoints inside their own lands on their own roads. The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine.They connect these settlements with very nice roads for the Israeli settlers, and then superhighways and so forth going into Jerusalem. Quite often the Palestinians are prevented from even riding on those roads that have been built in their own territory. So this has been in many ways worse than it was in South Africa.”
When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel this is more than a lie; it is a blood libel.
It is a lie that Palestinians “had their own land, first of all, occupied.” This is like saying that Texans had their own land occupied by Hispanics, ignoring the fact that Hispanics were there first. The very word Palestine is a Roman appellation for the people called Philistines, who were not Arabs but red-haired sailors from the Aegean. The Jews were there as well.
In short, first of all the Jews were in the land before the Arabs.
Second of all, the Arabs who inhabited the Palestine Mandate in 1948, at the time of the creation the state of Israel, considered themselves Syrians.
Third, the Palestine Mandate was not created on land taken from the Syrians or the Arabs. It was taken from the Turks.
It was not taken from the Turks by the Jews, but by the British and the French. They took it because Turkey sided with Germany in the First World War and, of course, lost. The Turkish empire had ruled the entire region including Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan for four hundred years before Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan were artificially created by the English and the French. Jordan – a state whose majority is Palestinian – occupies 80% of the Palestine Mandate.
So it is a preposterous lie to say that the Palestinians had their own land and that it was occupied by the Jews.
Fourth, the individual plots of land that Jews now own were in the first instance bought from the Arabs who regarded themselves as Syrians and who lived in the area of Israel. The only property that was confiscated was confiscated as a spoil of the aggressive war that five Arab states waged against Israel from the day of its birth. Five Arab armies invaded Israel, a sovereign state, with the declared intent of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” The cry today of the Muslim majority in the Middle East is to “liberate Palestine from the river to the sea.” In other words push the Jews into the sea.
By the standards of occupation and legitimacy Jimmy Carter invokes, Israel has more legitimacy as a Jewish state than Texas does as an American state, rather than a Mexican province.
The fifth Jimmy Carter lie in this lone Jimmy Carter sentence is the claim that the Jews have colonized anything. “The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine.”
Why is it wrong of the Jews to live in the West Bank? (The 7000 Jews of Gaza, of course, have already been expunged as result of the Arabs’ genocidal hate.) Why can’t Jews have settlements in the West Bank?
The answer is because the Palestinians Arabs are filled with a racist and theocratic hate towards the Jews. They can’t tolerate a non-Muslim, non-Arab people --however small a minority -- living in their midst. (The 7000 Jews of Gaza – out of a population of 1.2 million – were law-abiding and peaceful and created a horticultural industry that produced ten percent of Gaza’s gross national product. But they were Jews. And that was intolerable to Palestine’s Nazis. So they had to be removed.)
Contrast Carter’s attack on Jews living in the West bank as “colonizers” who must be expelled with the fact that more than a million Arabs live in Israel, where Israel provides them with more rights – including the right to vote and elect Arab members of Israel’s government – than any Arab who lives in any Arab state in the Middle East.
There is indeed a wall now between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. But it is not a wall to keep Arabs out of Israel because they are Arab, as Carter maliciously maintains. There are more than a million Arabs living in Israel. There are indeed checkpoints in the West Bank and into Israel and obstacles to Palestinians crossing them. But this is not because the Israelis discriminate against Palestinians because they are Muslims or Arabs.
It is because too many Palestinians have shown themselves to be bloodthirsty, murderers who have been indoctrinated by their religious leaders and their government to believe in a sick Islamic fantasy that it is their Muslim duty to kill Jews by blowing themselves up; and that, if they do so, they will go to heaven along with 70 members of their family; and, that, if they are lucky enough to be male they will be rewarded by 72 virgins on the other side.
On this side they will be regarded as martyrs and saints and honored by their government. Sixty-percent of Palestinians support suicide bombing and this sick, genocidal agenda – which is shared by all members of the Palestinians’ democratically elected government – to kill the Jews.
To ignore these facts and to invert them, as Jimmy Carter does, is to mark yourself as a moral defective.
To take on as a mission the spreading of lies that enable Islamic Nazis to carry out their final solution is the epitome of the evil that America’s fifth column left and its reprehensible ex-President represent in our time.

David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son….

__________________

Horowitz is more of an extremist than Carter, IMO.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

agreed. it is not so much a question of who's right and who's wrong - both israelis and palestinians are right, they can claim some sort of legal and historical legitimacy to the territory. both are wrong as per having engaged in some sort of what can most easily be described as terrorism, some state sponsored. the real question is how to stop the bloodshed, a question that horowitz has seemed to answer with what amounts to killing all of the palestinians. BTW there is very little factually amiss in carter's representation of the current situation in palestinian lands.

__________________
1980 300CD 281,000 miles. 9,000 mi on custom WVO system.

Well put. It's hard to get real comfy with some Palestinian excesses, such as the recent murder of the 3 children of the Fatah official by Hammas (almost certainly) and now the reprisals. One wonders how much of this is a direct result of being crowded into Gaza years ago and now living in essentially the world's largest prison.

OTOH, what do you do? The Jews do have some claim on the region as well. However, the Zionists were saying more than 100 years ago that their aim was to simply sweep the Palestinians aside and claim the land. Not a good recipe for peace and harmony.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/

"for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"

__________________

I may not be the most savvy on the term of his presidency, but to describe him in such a fashion, is affecting my understanding of being tasteful.

__________________

When the English did it to the Africans it was wrong... but now... well, now...

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/entertainment/books/16235748.htm

Carter is calling it like it is, and some people hate him for it. He wasn't the best President we ever had, but he's right-on with this one.

I agree with Gotta!!

Yikes.

I cannot recall anything that Carter did right.

One of the worst things he did was after his presidency he broke with 200 years of precedent by politicizing his retirement. Prior to Carter, Presidents shut-up and got off the stage. Except for John Q. Adams, who had the integrity to get elected to office to stay in the political arena.

Jackass.

Why is that bad? It opened the door for Bill Clinton and George W. when he leaves, etc. Can we imagine a hit parade of ex-presidents squabbling with whomever is in office concerning policy matters? This, like the retired generals getting political as a group, is a familiar step in the shift from power politics to dictatorship.

B

Now, that's what I call an opinion.

__________________

What incredible insightfulness.

I hope there's nothing wrong with it.

__________________

lets see, how many presidents before carter were as young as he?

many were tired and sick or near death after the man breaking pace of being president.

carter has done many bipartisan things at the request of subsequent presidents of both parties. his post presidency is considered by most knowledgable folks to be the best ever.

in stark contrast to reagan who took a $2,000,000 "consulting fee" from the (japanese?) shortly after leaving office, carter has done non profit things, written thoughtful books and been an international troubleshooter for various administrations since he left office.

so i guess my opinion of him couldn't be more different than Mr. B's.

clinton has been fairly low key especially since the republican's favorite thing has been to blame whatever ills are happening on him. i suspect his near death experience with his heart surgery and subsequent close call with complications has kept his energy level beaten down pretty well.

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I'm having trouble understanding why this is a bad thing. Is there some reason why a president can't ignore the advice given by past presidents? Or, God forbid, maybe a president could learn from the experiences of past presidents. I know that W is allergic to advice from anyone with actual expertise, but other presidents might welcome input from his or her predecessors.

EDIT: I really don't follow how Carter's activism has anything to do with dictatorship. And don't we have a long tradition of retired generals going into politics?