-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
A few years back Jimmy Carter published an idiotic book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The book, and Carter’s statements in interviews promoting it, kicked off a discussion in Jewish circles about whether the former President is an anti-Semite, a question raised both by his passionate hatred for the Jewish state, and by his “feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control,” in the words of Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. For those of us who had been paying close attention, these weren’t new questions; both Carter’s Israel-hatred and his tendency to indulge in conspiratorial tones when discussing US policy toward Israel (not to mention his friendship, in the 1990s, with prolific Jew-killer Yasser Arafat) were known long before the book was published.
Now Carter is asking for forgiveness:
In a letter released exclusively to JTA, the former U.S. president sent a seasonal message wishing for peace between Israel and its neighbors, and concluded: “We must recognize Israel’s achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so.”
“Al Het” refers to the Yom Kippur prayer asking God forgiveness for sins committed against Him. In modern Hebrew it refers to any plea for forgiveness.
Carter assures us, by the way, that this has nothing to do with his grandson’s outreach to influencial Jewish leaders as he considers a run for state Senate. (Of course not.)
Foxman advocates giving Carter the benefit of the doubt. “When a former president reaches out to the Jewish community and asks for forgiveness, it’s incumbent of us to accept it,” he tells the AP. “To what extent this is an epiphany, only time will tell. There certainly was a lot of hurt, a lot of angry words that need to be repaired. But this is a good start.”
It’s a noble sentiment, but it’s complicated by the fact that Carter’s mea culpa came just days after he published an op-ed on Gaza written from the same cartoonish perspective he’s always had.
One might add that Carter’s habit of viewing international politics through a preposterously blinkered lens is hardly limited to Israel. Over the years Carter has lavished embarrassing praise on tyrants in Yugoslavia, Romania, Syria, Ethiopia, Haiti, North Korea, and Nicaragua. It seems rather myopic for Carter to issue an apology directed at “the Jewish community” when he owes an apology to a much wider swath of humanity.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/24/on-carter-and-the-jews-and-eve
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 12.24.09 @ 4:54PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : On Carter and the Jews, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 12.24.09 @ 6:27PM
Let's see. When Carter was running for office in Georgia he used the old bromides about blacks to get elected in a Klan-friendly state. He insults Jews, other Christians, and whoever strikes his fancy. Now he wants forgiveness and probably can't understand why people are wary of his "apology", such as it is. Amazing sort of transformation, isn't it? The world will be a better place when Sweet Jesus takes his hand. Pray for his soul.
Dell| 12.24.09 @ 7:06PM
I swear to God on high; if I ever get that stupid, please, please just shoot me dead. One shot would be nice. Thank you kindly.
gvbfg| 12.24.09 @ 9:19PM
Now he wants forgiveness and probably can't understand why people are wary of his "apology", such as it is. Amazing sort of transformation, isn't it?
Mp3 2010 | hot information
Hogtrashhd| 12.24.09 @ 9:47PM
"I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen,
here in defiance of tyranny! You have come to fight as free men. And
free man you are! What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?"
"Two thousand against ten?" - the veteran shouted. "No! We will
run - and live!"
"Yes!" Wallace shouted back. "Fight and you may die. Run and you
will live at least awhile. And dying in your bed many years from now,
would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for
one chance, just one cahnce, to come back here as young men and tell
our enemies that they may take our lives but they will never take
our freedom!"
Martin j smith| 12.25.09 @ 8:15AM
Let me tell one simple truth, you can never earase the spots of a leopard ever.
Now here is an idea, an off shoot of Podhoretz question of why American Jews tend to vote Democrat. In the case of the 2008 election I would say fear of anti-semitism. There are no doubt some people on the right that I regard as anti-semites. But what is often ignored are those on the left. I am convinced that American Jews voted Obama because of fear of being singled out,scapegoated if you will if Obama had lost. The Marxist oriented left aligns often with anti-Israeli forces in the muslim world. And,among some in the left Black political community anti-semitism is an undercurrent at all times.. Voting for Obama by a large proportion of Jewish voters partly represents fear of attack. That is what is sad for me. As a Jew, I must say, that for all the freedom and mobility that Jews and other immigrants have in this country, Jewish organizations have failed to confront head on the always,ever present threat of anti-semitism that exists here in this country in rgards to support for Israel as well as identifying those on both sides who are in fact anti-semites--Jimmy Carter is one. Abe Foxman is such a failure. He is too forgiving. He too is afraid.
Red Phillips | 12.25.09 @ 1:11PM
This debate is dominated on both sides by excessive passion and as a result it is nearly impossible to find some sensible middle ground. Whatever you may think of Carter, he does not have a "passionate hatred of the Jewish state." That is just silly and unhelpful hyperbole. Carter is a liberal, and like most liberals he has a tendency to default side with the "oppressed." And it doesn't help to quote Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League. He has only a tiny bit more credibility than Morris Dees and the SPLC.
martin j smith| 12.25.09 @ 3:10PM
Yeah lets look for the" middle ground" on Nazis, , on slavery when it happened in this country--I could just imagine the howling that would take place. . Red Phillips I have to say that there are all kinds of Jewish groups said to represent us "common folk" and take what I would call the elitist view. However, as German Jews found out, even those that served in the Kaiser's army with dignity and loyalty were not exempt any more than the chasidem. Things do not really change much. Methodology does. Carter and his ilk are anti-semites in my oppinion. They hide behind the desire to " corect Israel". But take an eraser and rub a little and beneatho you are sure to find a Jew Hater. That in my oppinion is Jimmy Carter.
Red Phillips | 12.25.09 @ 4:32PM
Martin, going straight to the Nazi card illustrates the problem. I mean a middle ground on the Israel Palestine issue which has nothing to do with Nazis. Reasonable and sincere people can disagree on that issue without it meaning that one is a Jew hater or the other an Arab hater.
The important point is that the US should be officially NEUTRAL on the issue as George Washington advised us.
martin j smith| 12.26.09 @ 8:36AM
You may believe what you will. This is how see it: The Israeli-Palistinian issue is really a microcosm, a tool or device used by the greater Islamic world to avoid having to deal with Jews in their midst. The problem is not really the Palistinians, it is Saudi Arabia,Iran, Egypt ( ye sevn the very country that Jimmy Carter worked to broker the so called peace treaty with ) and many others ). Lets look at Iran and how the greater Arab world responds to stuff like holocaust denial and threats to obliterate Israel. ( The Nazi connection right there by thee way ). Do Arab nations condemn and isolate Iran-No. They might secretly fear the regime but at the same time the "enemy fo my enemy is my friend-"well ally at least for now. Iran serves the muslim world purpose against Israel- ( Jews )and of course radical Islam, hates all other religions.
We do not live in this contest in a reasonable world. As I see it anyway. There have many opportunities to make peace between Arab and Israelis. But given ongoing anti-semitism perpetrated in schools and media as well as implicit and at times explicit support to Iran's threats I do not see Red Phillips point of view being useful at least for Israelis and for anyone who supports Israel. It is useful for the Jimmy Carters of this world--for sounds sincere and its sounds rational--but in fact it is poisonous because it tolerates the very kind of Hatred for Jews in the middle east that does indeed forment
anti-semitism of a Nazi -like variety.
Red Phillips | 12.26.09 @ 12:49PM
Martin, American foreign policy is not supposed to be "useful" for Israel. It is supposed to be useful for America.
Individuals can and will support whoever they want. That Jews and dispensational Christians in America support Israel is entirely natural and understandable. That Arabs in America have sympathy for the Palestinians is likewise entirely natural. The point is that the US GOVERNMENT should be neutral. It is not our fight. Irish Catholics in America have a strong opinion on the Irish Question but it is not and should not be American policy to support Irish reunification.
What is seen in the Arab world as our inordinate support of Israel has cost us dearly and has not at all served well the interests of the US.
martin j smith| 12.26.09 @ 4:01PM
You are not relating at all to what i talke about. which is what side of the moral spectrum ones plicies are. In Jimmy Carter's case, he is In my on the wrong side. You sir are also on the wrong side. Here is one point: fools accept the islamist accusations that US policy is too pro-Israel. The truth: Its the very existence of the US,our ( till Obama ) support of Democratic movements in all nations and in fact Western Civilization in generalYou are an isolationist--I suspect a follower of Ron Paul ? Or perhaps a Democratic troll ? Whatever. In any event you go your I will go mine and continue to expose the kind of illogic that your stance shows. These are facts: terrorist attacks on the US and the West will continue with or without Israel. Appeasement is a failed policy as seen in 1930's and even today terror attacks continue unabated inspite of or even perhaps because of Obama's appeasement policy's--so there you go take it or leave it I really do not care about you. I care about Jewish survival, American survival and Western Civilization survival in general. They are all intertwined together.
Red Phillips | 12.27.09 @ 12:45AM
Martin, I am most certainly a non-interventionist because I am a conservative and that is THE ONLY authentic conservative position. Call me an isolationist if you will. And I am most certainly a supporter of Ron Paul although I hope I am a "follower" only of Jesus Christ. Because Ron Paul is the only true Constitutionalist in Washington and from his Constitutionalism flows his non-interventionism. The Founders debated whether to even have a standing army. You want the US to police the world and make policy based on what is good for a country other than our own.
victor| 12.27.09 @ 9:48PM
"That Arabs in America have sympathy for the Palestinians is likewise entirely natural."
They have more than "sympathy" in mind, they are aiding and abetting terrorists and acts of terrorism.
Holy Land Foundation for one.
"The point is that the US GOVERNMENT should be neutral."
From the beginning the first presidents basic aim was to ensure our independence, because we were both a weak and a new nation, was to avoid, whenever possible, involvement in the military, political and economic business of the Europeon Nations while we were expanding our trade and commerce as a means of building our economic interests.
victor| 12.27.09 @ 10:43PM
"The important point is that the US should be officially NEUTRAL on the issue as George Washington advised us."
Washington never said anything of the sort.
What he did say was that we should avoid "permanent Alliances" and "artificial ties".
Nothing about "neutrality", but everything about all encompassing alliances that were common in Europe then, the events that led to WW I and those to this day in the EU.
zman| 12.26.09 @ 8:37PM
I've seen dimmer bulbs pop up on this site from time to time, but not many. You want to inject some truth into your Carter apologia? How about this: If the Arabs/Muslims put down their weapons, there would be peace. If the Israelis did, there would be another Holocaust. You okay with that? You want to take a neutral stance in wanton killing, where the odds are 20-1 in favor of the Arabs/Muslims? Thanks, but we've already seen the Neville Chamberlain show. It ended rather poorly, don't you think?
Red Phillips | 12.27.09 @ 12:52AM
You interventionists really need to come up with some new arguments because playing the Neville Chamberlain card withing the first two to three posts is getting really old. I've got an idea. Why don't you find me a quote from a Founding Father suggesting that it is the responsibility of America to police the world. Or perhaps find me the Article and section of the Constitution that authorizes that. You do care what the Founders thought and what the Constitution authorizes don't you? You are "conservatives" right?
victor| 12.27.09 @ 9:57PM
The Founders, while avoiding the so-called entangling alliances, were not "isolationists"
Washington had no problem with signing treaties to foster aid and commerce with Prussia.
And Jefferson sent the military to fight the pirates in Tripoli thereby protecting our commercial interests and aiding Napoleon by buying the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.
Washington was partial to the British and Jefferson was a Francophile.
These instances do not in any way support yours or others here that the Founders were "isolationists".
BTW John Quincy Adams, while sec'y of State, negotiated many treaties and formulated the Monroe Doctrine.
Seems to me that you need to bone up on the Founders.
The war of 1812 would be a good place to start.
Red Phillips | 12.27.09 @ 11:35PM
Victor, not a single Founder had in mind the US as world policeman. Not one. The idea that many interventionist here have of the US military as defender and exporter of freedom everywhere is NOWHERE to be found among them. That is Jacobin. It is not the Founders. As I mentioned above, the fact that it was seriously debated whether we would even have a standing army is completely irreconcilable with the idea that the Founders had such Jacobin revolutionary world policing nonsense in mind.
The Barbary Pirates was an act of defense. And yes Washington did argue for neutrality. “Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all… In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others…” This is EXACTLY what modern day non-interventionists argue for. And nothing better describes our “special relationship” with Israel than a “passionate attachment.” If George Washington gave the same speech today he would be accused of anti-Semitism, and you know it’s true.
And it was John Quincy Adams who said we are "well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." And that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Again this is a perfect expression of modern day non-interventionism.
You are better off playing the progressive card and claiming the Founders are no longer relevant to our modern world, than trying to revise history and make them into a bunch of budding neocons.
Bruce | 12.25.09 @ 2:01PM
Carter would be well served by remembering the old saying "better to keep your mouth closed and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
Stick to building houses, Jimmuh, and otherwise STFU!
Pingback| 12.25.09 @ 5:20PM
Carter’s mea culpa | anti_commi.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 12.25.09 @ 6:17PM
Red Phillips:
The problem is the Koran tells these Arab/Moslem crazies that Jews are to be killed, just because. Since most of their "countries" have as a stated goal either internally or through the Arab League or other organizations that Israel shouldn't exist, supporting Israel in mere survival is not something we, as the sponsors for their existence and Independence, should shirk. Washington preferred being aloof but understood that we are not, after all, an island. He understood that to prosper that we'd have to join with other nations in some fashion despite his stated preference.
Red Phillips | 12.25.09 @ 9:41PM
Why are we "the sponsors for their existence and Independence?" Where is that in the Constitution?
People make statements like that and then complain when others point out that American foreign policy is too influenced by Israel. It is not our fight. It is not our problem. The US should be neutral.
Margie| 12.26.09 @ 3:49PM
Neutral? Oh you mean like Switzerland and Sweden were during the Holocaust?
There IS no neutral.
You are living in fantasy land.
No one can serve 2 masters.
Red Phillips | 12.27.09 @ 12:55AM
"You are living in fantasy land."
Yeah that fantasy land where conservatives actually support limited government instead of believing that they do all the while cheer leading for the US military to be globocop.
Margie| 12.27.09 @ 11:15AM
Yes Red,
I believe what conservatives believe: Limited government AND a STRONG Military Defense.
Leftists believe in fortress America, and are also anti-Semites. I've never met a Leftist yet who isn't.
Red Phillips | 12.27.09 @ 6:24PM
Military "defense" Margie. That means for the purpose of defending. Not policing the world. Policing the world is not defense.
victor| 12.27.09 @ 10:07PM
From our earliest days we were neither isolated or isolationist.
We involved ourselves with the world, but did seek to pursue our interests unilaterally, but not by forging lasting ties or by entering formal alliances.
By aiding Israel, we are pursuing our interests.
We don't have to support them on everything, but we can give them aid and assistance.
Pingback| 12.25.09 @ 7:15PM
UK pound hits 2 month low against strong US Dollar | Currency News | US Dollar Curren links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
MT | 12.25.09 @ 7:27PM
The people who think that Pali and Israel are moral equivalents are the ones who should not lecture anyone else on any question of morals.
Pingback| 12.26.09 @ 1:44AM
Outdoor News: How To Enjoy The Outdoors: SOUTH CAROLINA MOBILITY … | Hunting Leisure links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 12.26.09 @ 6:51PM
MT:
Agreed.
Red: Because we're the United States and Harry Truman and the country felt we had a moral obligation to do this act to save these people from further slaughter. It's called the moral imperative and if you don't understand I am truly sorry for you.
victor| 12.27.09 @ 11:32PM
It's also called the Truman Doctrine:
The United States, as "leader of the free world", must support democracy worldwide and fight against communism and authoritarianism.
By not helping out our friends and allies, we are helping their, and soon to be our, enemies.
Red Phillips | 12.27.09 @ 11:41PM
"The United States, as "leader of the free world", must support democracy worldwide and fight against communism and authoritarianism."
Thanks for stating it so explicitly Victor. I rest my case. You are not arguing for conservatism. You are arguing for Jacobinism.
victor| 12.28.09 @ 12:18AM
You need to cite your source for the definition of "Jacobinism".
It was used by the opponents of the Democratic-Republicans to describe Jefferson and his comrades.
It is now used to describe those extremists who demand ideological purity.
Since I am a Jeffersonian, that may describe me.
Since you are demanding ideological purity of me, then that would apply to you.
Which is it and who of us are it?
Red Phillips | 12.28.09 @ 6:35PM
Victor, you want America to be an ideological nation dedicated to bringing about and enforcing world-wide ideological hegemony. This is not conservative. This is revolutionary. It resembles the USSR more than it does the Old Republic. Authentic conservatives want America to be a blood and soil nation like all others dedicated to preservation and advancing her own interests. Neocons embrace the ideological nation that they imagine America to be and eschew the traditional understanding of a nation as dirty if not racist.
Here is what I mean by Jacobin.
http://members.cox.net/wcampbell14/2006natryn.htm
Pingback| 12.27.09 @ 11:02AM
Jimmy Carter Apologizes to Jews | Conservative Heritage Times links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pimpernel| 12.27.09 @ 6:33PM
Richard Baker: Where is it in the Constitution? Truman didn't have the authority. You want to save these people (a wealthy democracy already armed with nuclear weapons) from further slaughter (and I'm guessing you don't mean the slaughter "these people" are visiting on their own natives), go to town! Just don't involve the U.S. taxpayers (all of whom might not agree with you).
victor| 12.27.09 @ 11:37PM
Truman had just as much authority as the Founders did when they went after pirates, british invaders and pursued commercial interests.
The Founders, while avoiding the so-called entangling alliances, were not "isolationists"
Washington had no problem with signing treaties to foster aid and commerce with Prussia.
And Jefferson sent the military to fight the pirates in Tripoli thereby protecting our commercial interests and aiding Napoleon by buying the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.
Washington was partial to the British and Jefferson was a Francophile.
These instances do not in any way support yours or others here that the Founders were "isolationists".
BTW John Quincy Adams, while sec'y of State, negotiated many treaties and formulated the Monroe Doctrine.
Seems to me that you need to bone up on the Founders.
The war of 1812 would be a good place to start.
If it was good enough for Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Monroe it should be good enough for Truman as well. Or any president who wants to aid and assist our allies.
Red Phillips | 12.27.09 @ 11:46PM
Going after pirates who are attacking our ships is not the same thing as declaring the US military the defender of the free world. Find that in the Constitution for me please.
coach sneaker | 12.28.09 @ 4:07AM
The best we American people can do currently is to try to keep this damn disguised Global Empire from mucking you up.
Matt Weber| 12.28.09 @ 6:12PM
Red Phillips is right; the American government should be neutral with respect to Israel vs. Palestine. Frankly, as long as Israel insists on occupying these territories then Palestinian terrorism is an internal problem that Israel is just going to have to deal with. As long as the Israelis insist on building these settlements, then they should expect a few rockets in the face every now and then. It shouldn't be anti-semitism to note these obvious realities. If we want to form a treaty with Israel to issue them a security guarantee in the event of an overwhelming, existence threatening invasion then I am not opposed to that, but the continued provision of weapons to Israel to fight her internal battles needs to stop.
Pingback| 1.3.10 @ 9:38PM
Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest January 3, 2010 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
racking | 1.4.10 @ 11:15PM
http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com
as a whole contractor for cold store equipment, design, manufacturing, installation.
professional racking & shelving manufacturer, pallet racking, drive in racking,
cantilever racking, longspan shelving, dexion racking,