Jimmy Cater's Jew Hatred.....there's More

With each passing day more eyewitness accounts are published about how much the peanut president despises the Jewish people and Israel. His arrogance has no bounds. Part of his hatred is based on pure anti-Semitism, part of it is because he cannot believe that anyone has the gall to disagree with him, and part of his hatred stems from the fact that he needs someone to blame for the lousy Carter Presidency. Joseph Puder put it wonderfully today:

Jimmy Carter, it appears, needed a scapegoat for his failed presidency and Israel served as a convenient target. His new book ''Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid'' is a shameful tract filled with factual inaccuracies, and blatant one-sidedness. His pent up frustration with his inability to influence U.S. policy on behalf of his Arab friends prompted the publication of this libelous book.

If you read the entire piece you will find out the truth behind only good thing to come out of the Carter White House the Sadat/Begin peace initiative. Sadat made the move to blunt a peace conference in Geneva that Mr. Peanut wanted.

One of the first things I read over my bagel and schmear each morning is Boker Tov Boulder. Yael always finds a new column, source or other information. Today she added to the Carter knowledge base with this post below it provides some great insight and is well worth sharing:

A reader refers us to a letter published at The Jewish Exponent, from William Bradford Smith, Chair of the Division of History, Politics & International Studies at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta. The professor writes, in part:

Carter's hatred of Israel and, by extension, of all Jews (and make no mistake, if you spend any time in the man's presence, his discomfort at being in the same room with someone who merely appears to be Jewish is palpable), is rooted in the man's megalomania, and his unflinching belief in his own rectitude.

He cannot but hate anyone who disagrees with him. His tactic -- one I have seen up close -- is to bribe and flatter people around him into a state where their sense of obligation prohibits them from disagreeing publically even when they know he is wrong.

On the plus side, at least he has finally revealed his true feelings publicly....

Sheesh. I have little doubt that this is true. I knew someone in New York in the 1980s who had worked in the Carter administration. He told us that Carter was terribly "mean" in person. I didn't believe it at the time, since I still had a liberal filter on incoming information (if it "fit" into the established group-think bias, then it was assumed true; if it didn't "fit" it couldn't be true). I look back now and realize the person who told us this... was Jewish. Twenty years ago I was not so smart.

Another letter at the Exponent (same link) interests me as well. M. J. Rosenberg - an analyst for the Israel Policy Forum - writes:

Carter does not say that Israel is an apartheid state. He says explicitly that it is not, and that, when he uses the word, he is not referring to Israel.

"I am," he says, "referring to Palestine and not to Israel."

Carter's argument is that Arabs in the West Bank do not have the same rights as Israeli Arabs. That isn't so much an argument as a fact. That's why most Israelis are eager to divest themselves of it.

There is a disturbing trend in the pro-Israel community in which the usual suspects react to any and all criticism of Israeli policies by assaulting the critics -- demanding that they either shut up or be prohibited from speaking at a particular venue. This has to stop.

Americans should be free to discuss any subject they choose without being subjected to hit jobs from self-appointed monitors of Middle Eastern political correctness.

A "disturbing trend" indeed. Enemies of Israel make verbal war on the Jewish state, and advocates for Israel fight back. If we fight back by exposing the context in which our enemies operate or the history from whence they come, how is that different from a court of law in which attorneys work to affirm or deny the credibility of witnesses and thereby, of their testimony?

And who exactly has ever been prohibited from speaking? I would remind Rosenberg that it was not an advocate for Israel who attacked Natan Sharansky at Rutgers with a pie in the face, or William Kristol with the same at Earlham College. It wasn't advocates for Israel who attacked Jim Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart at Columbia University.

Meanwhile, terrorist spokesmen and representatives of countries that threaten Israel get to speak, unhindered, uninterrupted, all over America. They are given invitations and opportunities, afforded microphones and loudspeakers in lavish auditoriums, and in the process, they are lent the legitimacy of some of our finest educational institutions.

Just to be clear, this one self-appointed monitor observer of public events has no such access to a university podium or think-tank lecturn; I have access only to an obscure blog. And what I want is not that the Ashrawis and Khatamis of the world be prohibited from speaking, only that there should be so little public enthusiasm for what they have to say, that they would have to partake in freedom of speech from back rooms, dusty basements and lonely street corners

... without, of course, getting a pie in the face