 Can we have peace in the Holy Land? Is there a plan that will work? What if that plan included dividing Jerusalem and was embraced by our new president? What if that plan is seen as surrender and weakness, and emboldens radical Islam? If Jimmy Carter and his Liberal Left friends succeed by sacrificing America s strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel, to appease Arab rage, it will, in fact, make Jerusalem the center of gravity of the war on terror while unifying radical Islam. The results will be catastrophic for the United States, for Israel and for the world, and will leave no doubt that the Liberal Left will do everything in its power to achieve its objectives. Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing said of Jimmy Carter: He [Carter] was a bastard of conscience, a moralist, who treats with total lightness the fact of abandoning a man [the Shah] that we had supported together. Former Empress of Iran Farah Pahlavi wrote: During the whole of his campaign, Jimmy Carter had proclaimed the theme of human rights, the freedom of the people, which in reality has to be treated with caution, taking the economic and cultural context of each country into account. The Iranian opposition saw an ally in Carter for future struggles... Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos connects the dots and helps you understand how we have come to this crisis, and more importantly, how it can be resolved. This book contains information that has never been revealed by diplomatic sources worldwide. It divulges the agenda of Jimmy Carter and the Liberal Left: they plan to sell America and the Bible Land to the highest bidder. Why does the life and presidency of Jimmy Carter matter in the twenty-first century? Philosopher George Santayana said, Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The United States paid an exceedingly high price for the years Carter practiced being presidential. It is still not too late to learn from the Carter White House; perhaps we can avoid the plethora of mistakes made by the former President. Should we decide to play ostrich, to forget the past, our reward could very well be the whirlwind of destruction. Jimmy Carter: the Liberal Left and World Chaos is the new expose by #1 New York Times Bestselling Author Dr. Mike Evans, who documents these facts that President Jimmy Carter: Provided checks of $150 million each to Khomeini who plotted to kill the Shah of Iran and overthrow his nation. Provided $500 million to the Muslim Brotherhood freedom fighters who became the Taliban and al Qaeda. Wire-transferred $7.9 billion to buy-back the hostages after 444 days of humiliation. On Inauguration day 2009 Jimmy Carter released his Plan for Peace in the Holy Land to persuade President Obama to: Weaken Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. To support terror regimes that have murdered scores of Americans and Israelis, To push to divide Jerusalem, giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority as its Islamic capital.
About the Author Dr. Michael D. Evans is one of America s top experts on Israel and the Middle East. For over two decades he has been a personal confidant to many of Israel s top leaders. Dr. Evans is an award-winning journalist and has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, USA Today, The Washington Times, The Jerusalem Post, and newspapers throughout the world.
He is a member of the National Press Club and has been covering events in the Middle East for decades. Michael Evans is the author of eighteen books, including the #1 New York Times bestseller The Final Move Beyond Iraq, and New York Times bestsellers Beyond Iraq: The Next Move and The American Prophecies. Millions around the world have seen his award-winning television documentaries on Israel based on his books.
Dr. Evans is a top network analyst and is in constant demand. He has appeared on hundreds of network radio and television programs such as Fox, MSNBC, Nightline, Good Morning America, Crossfire,CNN World News, BBC, the Rush Limbaugh show, and others.
Michael D. Evans has spoken to over 4,000 audiences worldwide. In the past decade alone, he has addressed more than one million people per year at public events, from the Kremlin Palace in Moscow to the World Summit on Terrorism in Jerusalem. Mike Evans is a fighter for freedom in a world of darkening and narrowing horizons.
In his devotion to Israel, Mike has consistently demonstrated the moral clarity necessary to defend Israel against the lies and distortions of its enemies. (The Honorable Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel) I have known Mike Evans for more than two decades.
I consider him to be a great friend of Jerusalem and the State of Israel. He has always been there for us in our time of need, speaking out with courage and compassion.
Mike Evans is a true Ambassador to Jerusalem representing millions of Americans. (The Honorable Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel.) 
 The news of the day before Christmas is that former President Jimmy Carter has apologized for anything he has said or done to offend America’s Jewish community and presumably around the world.
The news was welcomed by the national director of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation league, Abraham Foxman, who said that it was “incumbent for us to accept” the apology, but Foxman does not speak for me or for the American Jewish community.
I do not accept the apology and neither should anyone who holds the state of Israel as the fulfillment of a 2,000 year old dream of return to the land in which Judaism took root and flourished through exiles and dispersion.
My reasoning is that Carter has spoken only with the prospect that his grandson, Jason, is anticipated to run for public office in Georgia in a congressional district with what is reported as “a vocal Jewish population.” It’s politics. It’s not a confession of the heart. Jason hailed the apology as a “great step towards reconciliation”, but I suggest that it is deeds, not words, that matter.
The former President is credited with trying to resolve the Palestinian conflict with the Israelis and gained a Nobel Peace Prize along with the terrorist, Yassir Arafat, but that prize has long since been tarnished and discredited for having also been awarded to the charlatan Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and most recently to President Obama who has done nothing of significance to earn it.
It was Carter’s 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” in which he compared Israeli efforts to defend themselves against wars and a campaign of terrorism with South Africa's hateful system. Present attacks have abated only with Israel's action against Hamas in Gaza, a part of Israel from which the Israelis withdrew in yet another effort to achieve a peace that is still rejected.
If the so-called Palestinians and the greater Muslim community throughout the Middle East continue to plan war against Israel, an apology by Carter pales in the face of this reality. If the Jordanians and Egyptians could sign peace agreements with Israel, surely other Middle Eastern nations could do the same.
Carter’s apology is cosmetic. It is a Band-aid that ignores Israel’s claim to statehood and sovereignty. Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE (Before Common Era), a thousand years before the rise of Christianity and 2,000 years before the rise of Islam. Jews have had a continuous presence in Israel for the last 3,300 years.
Jerusalem is mentioned more than 700 times in the Jewish Holy Scriptures, but not once in the Koran. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem. The Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was deliberately built over a site sacred to Jews, deemed the rock where Abraham was commanded by God to spare the life of his son.
Al-Aqsa has twice been destroyed in earthquakes. Jews are forbidden access and restricted to prayers at the Western Wall.
The calumnies and lies about Israel that the former President has lent his name to and the support he has demonstrated for the enemies of Israel cannot be wiped clean by an apology.
A million Christian and Muslim Arabs call Israel home and enjoy full citizenship. They face an Iranian nuclear annihilation with their Jewish neighbors.
It is time for Israel’s enemies to embrace the message of peace on Earth, but a militant Islam forecloses that allusive goal for all mankind and the land where it was first proposed.
 Controversial former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has written a letter to the the Jewish people, asking for forgiveness for stigmas he caused against Israel as a result of his agenda for Arab-Israeli peace. In a letter sent to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) in time for the Christmas season, Carter wrote: "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" (literally "for the sin") is a fundamental component of the Yom Kippur prayer service, in which penitents ask for Divine forgiveness for sins committed against G-d. However, the term could also be used to mean a general plea for pardoning. Carter's position on Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel has been controversial since his presidency. During his term, Carter directed the signing of the Camp David Accords by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, which resulted in the forced expulsion of Jews from the Sinai town of Yamit, as well as the transfer of the giant Sinai region to Egypt. In 2006, Carter authored the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," in which he lauded former PLO chief Yasser Arafat; said modern U.S. administrations have been "submissive" to "powerful political, economic, and religious" pro-Israel advocates; compared Israel's development of Judea and Samaria to South African anti-black apartheid; and called the biblical heartland of Israel "Palestinian land", saying the Jewish state must retreat to the 1949 armistice lines. In June 2009, Carter visited Arab leaders in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, receiving the Palestine International Award for Excellence and Creativity. During the ceremony, he told attendees, "I have been in love with the Palestinian people for many years" and promised to bolster Palestinians "as long as I live, to win your freedom, your independence, your sovereignty and a good life." He also visited with Hamas' leadership in Syria. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), quickly called Carter's missive "welcome", saying it comes from a "significant individual" and would signal "beginning of reconciliation." INN
 Jim Hoft America’s worst president attacked Catholics and Southern Baptists for the abuse of women in a speech he gave in Australia. He even blamed these traditional religious groups for female genital mutilation. Lifesite News reported: In an address to a gathering sponsored by the World Parliament of Religions (PWR) last Friday, former US President Jimmy Carter has once again blamed traditional religion, particularly Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, for “creating an environment where violations against women are justified.” …In opposition to the vast majority of authentic scholars and historians, Carter asserted: “It’s clear that during the early Christian era women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets.” He added: “It wasn’t until the 4th century or the 3rd at the earliest that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant position within the religious hierarchy.” Contrary to the theorizing of Carter, Pope John Paul II taught, “The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.” He added: “the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church; 1577) Carter singled out the Southern Baptist Convention and Roman Catholic Church, claiming that they “view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men.”
However, both Christian faiths hold to the Scriptural truth that God created men and women equal. “Their continuing choice provides a foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world,” said Carter.
Carter goes on to list horrific violations against women such as rape, genital mutilation, abortion of female embryos and spousal battery. Responding to Carter’s nearly identical points in July, John Paul Meenan, Professor of Theology at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy in Barry’s Bay, Ontario characterized Carter’s points as “ridiculous,” noting that there was no evidence of the ordination of women in the early Church. Last I checked it was the Muslims who performed female genital mutilation.
But, Jimmy Carter would never have the guts to single out Muslims like that.
With thanks to Gateway Pundit
 Thailand: Former US President Jimmy Carter said he was pressed by his advisers to attack Iran during the hostage crisis there more than 30 years ago but resisted because he feared 20,000 Iranians could have died. Islamist militants stormed the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, and seized its occupants.
Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Carter said Monday that one proposed option was a military strike on Iran, but he chose to stick with negotiations to prevent bloodshed and bring the hostages home safely. "My main advisers insisted that I should attack Iran," he told reporters in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai, where he was helping build houses for Habitat for Humanity.
"I could have destroyed Iran with my weaponry. But I felt in the process it was likely the hostages' lives would be lost, and I didn't want to kill 20,000 Iranians. So I didn't attack." The hostages were released on January 20, 1981, just minutes after the swearing in of President Ronald Reagan, whose victory over Carter is largely attributed to the crisis. The former president has commented in the past on how military action had been an option but that he feared a death toll in the tens of thousands, according to Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo. More at China Daily
 It was America’s first showdown with radical Islam. On November 4, 1979, radical Islamist students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Initially, it was to be a brief protest against America’s decision to allow the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment.
Instead, the world watched as a 444-day hell began for 52 American hostages. Thirty years later, Iran's unpopular leadership still paints America as the "great Satan," but the younger generations — those Iranians who had nothing to do with the Revolution — showed last spring that they do not always agree with the oppressive regime. And at least two of the Iranian students who were closely involved in the Embassy takeover 30 years ago are now ardent critics of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime—the very same government they supported and helped to establish. VIDEO: Fox News Reports on Iranian Hostage Crisis. In this watershed moment of American history, Fox News Reporting talks to those who were there and goes inside the strategies of the players and the politicians at the epicenter of the Iranian hostage crisis.
Fox News examines how President Jimmy Carter struggled to solve the crisis in an election year, and talks with insiders in the Reagan administration about the negotiations leading to the hostages' eventual release.
We also hear the dramatic stories of four former hostages, including then acting Ambassador, Bruce Laingen. "Fox News Reporting: Americans Held Hostage in Iran" hosted by Greta Van Susteren airs Friday, Nov. 6, at 10 p.m. ET only on Fox News Channel. Source: Foxnews
 Is history repeating itself? Is President Obama reenacting President Carter’s tragic policy blunder toward Iran? Is Mr. Obama going to sacrifice the Iranian people at the altar of a misguided expediency as did Jimmy Carter some three decades ago? To what end?America’s enemies bleat that sacrificing any people to further America’s interests is a standard operating procedure for American administrations – Republican or Democrat. These ill-wishers claim that America is not a democracy, but a plutocracy run by a cabal of big money in collaboration with Zionists. It is true that self-interest is the motivating force for the individual and groups as well as nations. Thus, it is understandable that President Obama is taking serious steps to further America’s interest by negotiating with Iran’s Mullahs in the hope of stopping them from building nuclear weapons.
This is an admirable objective. However, a number of troubling issues immediately come to mind.
For one, stopping the Mullahs from their pursuit of making the bomb is an unlikely possibility. That achievement treats a symptom rather than eliminates the virulent disease of Shi’a’ Islamism.
It is bad enough to have the end-of-the-worlder zany Mullahs’ itchy fingers on the nuclear trigger. The idea brings to mind images of the long-prophesied and dreaded Armageddon. What is worse is to be lulled into believing that the ever-dishonest Mullahs are actually sincere in honoring their commitment to abandon the quest for their nuclear holy grail while they continue to do so and reap the huge side benefits for their “concession.”
What benefits? A great many. Leading the list is giving the Mullahs—wolves masquerading as sheepdogs of Allah—free hand to mercilessly decimate internal opposition. These villains have several millions of equally zany and rabid followers and hired thugs who are regularly unleashed on the secularists in Iran.
For another, the Mullahs are anything if not ambitious. They have their interests also. They are not content with what they are doing to Iran. They have their black heart set on a much bigger prize.
First, they have the Middle East, and then the entire world in their crosshairs. And they have the foot-soldiers and mules to do their bidding both internally and worldwide.
Recall that not long ago the Mullahs called for volunteer suicide bombers. Read more here,,,,
 Many Egyptians had fallen in love with the new young American president with an Arabic middle name. Some even picked up the "Yes we can" slogan. His appeal was fueled by an almost unanimous dislike for his predecessor, George W. Bush, widely perceived in the region as a Christian fundamentalist leading an anti-Muslim crusade. But that was then.
Euphoria has a short shelf life in the Middle East, and Barack Obama is not exempt.
To gauge reaction among Egyptian intellectuals to the news, I called Hisham Qassim, a democracy and human rights activist I've known for many years. He was perplexed at the news from Norway. President Obama, he said, "is stumbling in the Middle East. He hasn't achieved any of his promises, and the Arab-Israeli conflict appears to be getting even nastier." In short, he said, "nothing is working." One winner of the Nobel peace prize Egyptians continue to admire is former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002. After personally overseeing prolonged and painstaking negotiations between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Carter brokered the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords. It was the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country, and one a majority of Egyptians still believe was a major landmark in their long history. Egyptians contrast Carter's intensive involvement in peace efforts with Obama's stab at peace-making between Israel and the Palestinians. After initially demanding Israel halt all settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Obama administration softened its stand after running into a concrete wall of opposition from hard-line Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Obama administration is seen, not only in Egypt but also across the Arab world, as following in the footsteps of so many previous American administrations, caving in to Israeli intransigence. It hardly augurs well for peace in the Middle East, especially at a time when tensions are simmering in Jerusalem, with some wondering if a third Palestinian intifada is in the making. Read more here,,,, Source: CNN
 Jimmy Carter is making more money selling integrity than peanuts.
I have known Jimmy Carter for more than 30 years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a hand written letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice.
I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign.
Shortly thereafter, my former student Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.
When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East.
Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that the was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.
Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia , had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity.
When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, an d kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it.How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?
And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source.
Initially I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School Rachael Lea Fish -- showed me the facts.
They were staggering. I was amazed that in the 21st century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up - a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable."
(They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not. Read more here ...
Jimmy Carter
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 by Maayana Miskin Former United States President Jimmy Carter played an active role in the Israel-Hamas exchange last week in which Israel released 20 female terrorists in exchange for a short video of hostage soldier Gilad Shalit. Carter's involvement was revealed by senior Hamas terrorist Mahmoud A-Zahar in an interview with the Arab-language daily Al-Kuds al-Arabi. While current U.S. politicians do not speak to Hamas, which is recognized internationally as a terrorist group, Carter has had frequent contact with the group as a private citizen. He has met with Hamas's Gaza head, Ismail Haniyeh, and its foreign leader, Khaled Mashaal. In December of 2008 Carter met with Mashaal and advised him on the price to demand in exchange for Shalit. Carter has also met with Shalit's family, and in a visit during June 2009, reported that he had delivered a letter from them to Hamas to give to the captive soldier. Carter has pushed Israel to open direct negotiations with Hamas, and during his June visit, expressed disappointment in Israel's lack of empathy for Hamas's aims.
“Unfortunately, Israelis don't remember that there are 11,700 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails... They don't understand Hamas's aim to bring about the release of at least some of these prisoners,” he said in a meeting with members of Gush Shalom. Carter expressed sympathy with Palestinian Authority terrorists held in Israel, telling Gush Shalom members that they fared worse than Shalit during their incarceration. Also Involved: Germany
A-Zahar also credited German mediators with bringing about the swap of terrorists for video footage. The swap proves that German involvement in the Shalit affair could bring about results, he said. Source: INN H/T: Atlas
 THE widow of the Shah of Iran, Empress Farah Pahlavi, is still around to remind us how bad Jimmy Carter was as president -- long before his recent Israel-bashing and his calling Obama detractors racist.
If Carter hadn't let the Shah be overthrown in 1979, "there wouldn't be this problem in Afghanistan, nor would there have been the Iran-Iraq war," Pahlavi tells Avenue magazine.
"Iraq would never have dared to even send a plane over our country. The Gulf War wouldn't have happened, nor would any of the problems of the past 30 years, including the exporting of religious fanaticism."
In the intro to the interview, Bob Colacello talks about his and Andy Warhol's 1976 visit to Iran: "The fact that the empress would invite Andy Warhol, fresh from Studio 54, to the Imperial Palace . . . showed just how open-minded, not to say hip, Her Imperial Highness was." Unlike, say, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
 By Aaron Klein Carter adviser suggested U.S. shoot down Jewish state's aircraft if they attack Iran
JERUSALEM – Both the Israeli government and the military here refused to respond to comments by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser during the administration of President Jimmy Carter, who said the U.S. should confront Israeli jets if that nation chooses to take military action against Iran's nuclear installations. "We will not dignify Brzezinski with a response," a source in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office told WND. Netanyahu's spokesmen and the Israel Defense Forces refused to provide an official reply. Discussing the possibility of an Israeli airstrike against Iran, Brzezinski declared in an interview with the Daily Beast website, "We are not exactly impotent little babies." "Are we just going to sit there and watch?" Brzezinski asked. He said the U.S. has to be "serious" about denying Israel the right to fly over U.S.-patrolled airspace in Iraq to attack Iran "That means a denial where you aren't just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not," he said. "No one wishes for this, but it could be a Liberty in reverse," he said. The Liberty was a U.S. ship in international waters in the Middle East during the Six-Day War in 1967 that was hit by Israeli gunfire. Brzezinski advised Carter on confrontations in Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East during Carter's White House tenure. He said the Obama administration also already should have developed "a clearer position on what we are prepared to do to promote a Palestinian-Israeli peace." "Simply giving a frequent-traveler ticket to George Mitchell is not the same thing as policy. It took a long time to get going on Iran, but there is an excuse there, the Iranian domestic mess. And we are now eight months into the administration, and I would have thought by now we could have formulated a strategy that we would have considered 'our' strategy for dealing with Iran and Pakistan," he said. "For example, the Carter administration, which is sometimes mocked, by now had in motion a policy of disarmament with the Russians, which the Russians didn't like, but eventually bought; it had started a policy of normalization with the Chinese; it rammed through the Panama Canal treaty; and it was moving very, very openly toward an Israeli-Arab political peace initiative," he said. Source: WND
 By Elliott Abrams In an op-ed on Sunday ["The Elders' View of the Middle East"], former president Jimmy Carter, speaking on behalf of a self-appointed group of "Elders," described a rapacious Israel facing long-suffering, blameless Palestinians, who are contemplating a "nonviolent civil rights struggle" in which "their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela." As with most of Carter's recent statements about Israel and the Palestinians, instead of facts we get vignettes from recent Carter travels. And while he finds "a growing sense of concern and despair" among "increasingly desperate" Palestinians, polls do not sustain this view. The most recent survey by the leading Palestinian pollster, Khalil Shikaki (done in August, the same month Carter visited), shows "considerable improvement in public perception of personal and family security and safety in the West Bank and a noticeable decrease in public perception of the existence of corruption in [Palestinian Authority] institutions." This does not sound like despair. In fact, positive views of personal and family safety and security in the West Bank stood at 25 percent four years ago, 35 percent two years ago and 43 percent a year ago, and they have risen to 58 percent in the past year, Shikaki reports. There are other ways to measure quality of life in the West Bank: The International Monetary Fund recently stated that "macroeconomic conditions in the West Bank have improved" largely because "Israeli restrictions on internal trade and the passage of people have been relaxed significantly." Read more here ... Source: Washington PostH/T: GH
 By KHALED ABU TOAMEH The leader of an al-Qaida-inspired group in the Gaza Strip revealed on Sunday that his men recently tried to assassinate former US president Jimmy Carter and Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair. Mahmoud Taleb, a former commander of Hamas's armed wing, Izzadin Kassam, also threatened that his supporters were planning to launch attacks on Hamas. Taleb, who is wanted by Hamas's security forces, has been in hiding for more than two years. Several attempts by Hamas to arrest him have failed, prompting the movement to detain many of his friends and relatives. A veteran journalist in the Gaza Strip described Taleb as the Palestinian Osama bin Laden. The journalist said that Taleb's group was seeking to establish an Islamic "emirate" in the Gaza Strip. Last month, Hamas's security forces killed Abdel Latif Moussa, founder and head of a similar fundamentalist group called Jund Ansar Allah. Moussa was killed along with 30 other Palestinians, most of them his supporters, during a standoff in the southern city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip. Hamas officials believe that Taleb's group, which is called Jaljalat (Thunder), was behind last week's bomb explosions outside two government-controlled security institutions in Gaza City. The attacks, they said, were apparently designed to avenge the crackdown on Jund Ansar Allah. Gaza Strip sources said that Jaljalat consists of dozens of former Hamas militiamen who left because of their movement's move toward "moderation." Read more here,,,, Source: JPost
 by Alan M. Dershowitz A group of hard left filmmakers and writers from around the world have been using their celebrity to try to coerce the Toronto International Film Festival into banning Israeli films. Their petition, which is filled with misstatement of facts and rewriting of history, describes Israel as “an Apartheid regime.” It focuses not so much on Israel’s occupation of the West Bank since 1967 but rather on Israel’s very existence since 1948.
It characterizes Tel Aviv, a city built by the sweat of Jews largely on baron coast land, as illegitimate. It never mentions the fact that the Palestinians were offered and rejected statehood in 1938, 1948, 1967 and 2000-2001. It fails to mention that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, the result was rockets being fired at Israeli schoolchildren and other civilians. They claim that the inspiration for their censorship effort includes “former President Jimmy Carter,” who they say has characterized Israel as an “Apartheid regime.” Jimmy Carter has said many nasty things about Israel but he has expressly disclaimed any allegation that the Israeli regime itself is Apartheid. He acknowledges that Israel is a multicultural democracy in which Arabs vote, serve in the Knesset, serve on the Supreme Court and teach in Israeli universities. Many even volunteered to serve in the Israeli Army. His use—misuse in my view—of the word “Apartheid” was limited to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. As Rhoda Kadalie and Julia Bertelsmann, two black South African women whose families were active in the anti-Apartheid movement, wrote recently, Israel is not an apartheid state. . . . Arab citizens of Israel can vote and serve in the Knesset; black South Africans could not vote until 1994. There are no laws in Israel that discriminate against Arab citizens or separate them from Jews. . . . South Africa had a job reservation policy for white people; Israel has adopted pro-Arab affirmative action measures in some sectors. Israeli schools, universities and hospitals make no distinction between Jews and Arabs. An Arab citizen who brings a case before an Israeli court will have that case decided on the basis of merit, not ethnicity. This was never the case for blacks under apartheid.
 Remember how Jimmy Carter was horrified at Hezbollah's lack of anti-aircraft missiles? The Lebanese Hezbollah terrorist organization lacks missiles to "defend" itself from Israeli aircraft, former President Jimmy Carter claimed upon returning from a trip last week to Lebanon. "The general showed us a graph of the many flights of Israeli planes over all parts of Lebanon, averaging about a dozen each day. Neither Hezbollah nor the Lebanese Armed Forces have any anti-aircraft weapons for defense," wrote Carter in a first-person report posted on his Carter Center website... "At one site near the border, two different Israeli tanks came about 70 yards from us to observe our group," Carter wrote, before claiming Hezbollah lacks anti-aircraft weapons for "defense" against Israeli over flights. He can apparently rest easy: Hezbollah said it has a right to acquire and use antiaircraft weaponry against Israeli warplanes, in a ceremony commemorating assassinated leaders of the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militant group. "We have the right to possess any weapons including air defense arms, and we have all the right to use these arms if we wished to," Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah said to crowds in the southern suburb of Beirut, which is the group's stronghold. Nasrallah did not confirm or deny whether the group had acquired antiaircarft missiles but said that Hezbollah has built its successes on the "basis of surprises." Elder has a different translation of Nasrallah's speech, where "not confirm or deny" appears to be more confirm and less deny. Source: Mere RhetoricDhimmi Carter
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Daniel Greenfield | July 01 Talk of colonialism and imperialism is all the rage when academic leftists sit down to critique the problems of terrorism and the clash of civilizations. But where a century ago terms such as colonialism and imperialism were easy enough to define, back when European governments held actual colonies and protectorates in Africa, Asia and the Middle East-- what do the terms actually mean today?
 There are no European colonies today. And the lands that are at the center of the controversy are themselves non-Muslim. When Muslims attack Europe, America or Israel... it may very well be imperialism and colonialism, but it is no longer European imperialism and colonialism, but Islamic imperialism and colonialism.
It is Islamic ideologies and nations that seek Lebensraum, that work to expand their way across borders and even oceans, to create colonies on foreign soil, spread their religion at the expense of native beliefs and hold governing power abroad.
Today it is no longer the European who sails to foreign countries to spread the faith and "civilize the savages", it is the Muslim. The new Cecil Rhodes' and William Walker's are a lot more likely to be based out of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Their oppression and ruthless is equally directed at Europeans, as at Africans, Jews, Filipinos and any number of native peoples who stand in their way.
Long before the sun stared without setting down on the British Empire, Islamic Empires had been carved with brutal unyielding force across the face of the globe. Long before the American South saw a single slave, Muslim slave traders were moving human cargo back and forth, kidnapping and seizing slaves from Africa to the English coastline.
Islamic imperialism and colonialism was there long ago until recent times. The current clash of civilizations is the product of the Islamic attempt to revive those ancient empires they consider to have been wrongly taken from them.
To argue as the left does, that Islamic terrorism is the product of oppression, is as absurd and false as describing Nazi violence as the product of oppression. Any honest academic should have as much sympathy for Bedouin Muslim territorial claims to Israel or Spain, as he would for French claims to Algeria. Yet the academic double standard treats European colonialism as illegitimate, and Islamic colonialism as legitimate.
This brings us to the obscene charade in which the world denounces one of the Middle East's native peoples for managing to form their own country and defend its narrow borders against its former Bedouin Muslim conquerors. Only the ugliest forms of historical revisionism could paint the Jews as foreign interlopers with no rights to a piece of land that is recognized as theirs by three of the world's major religions... and the Muslim Bedouin hordes who overran the land, wiping out native religions and cultures as the "oppressed peoples".
This sort of obscene political farce goes on all over the world. Muslims today hold equal rights in Europe, America, Israel and Australia. By contrast Europeans, Americans and Jews are inferior under the law throughout the Muslim world. Muslims have free access to Jerusalem and Rome. Jews and Europeans have no access to Mecca, despite the fact that it had a substantial Jewish presence, before being massacred and enslaved by the murderous warlord, Mohammed, who is also considered by Muslims to be their ultimate prophet.
When the likes of Jimmy Carter bellow that Israel is guilty of Apartheid, while ignoring that his Saudi sponsors have actual Apartheid, not simply for non-Muslims, but even for Muslim women-- they perpetuate the agenda of Islamic Imperialism. Read more here....
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
The president has to choose between the regime and the people in the streets. President Barack Obama did not "lose" Iran. This is not a Jimmy Carter moment. But the foreign-policy education of America's 44th president has just begun. Hitherto, he had been cavalier about other lands, he had trusted in his own biography as a bridge to distant peoples, he had believed he could talk rogues and ideologues out of deeply held beliefs. His predecessor had drawn lines in the sand. He would look past them. Thus a man who had been uneasy with his middle name (Hussein) during the presidential campaign would descend on Ankara and Cairo, inserting himself in a raging civil war over Islam itself. An Iranian theocratic regime had launched a bid for dominion in its region; Mr. Obama offered it an olive branch and waited for it to "unclench" its fist. ![[Obama's Persian Tutorial]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AJ704_ajami_D_20090621114707.jpg) Iranians continue to protest. It was an odd, deeply conflicted message from Mr. Obama. He was at once a herald of change yet a practitioner of realpolitik. He would entice the crowds, yet assure the autocrats that the "diplomacy of freedom" that unsettled them during the presidency of George W. Bush is dead and buried. Grant the rulers in Tehran and Damascus their due: They were quick to take the measure of the new steward of American power. He had come to "engage" them. Gone was the hope of transforming these regimes or making them pay for their transgressions. The theocracy was said to be waiting on an American opening, and this new president would put an end to three decades of estrangement between the United States and Iran. But in truth Iran had never wanted an opening to the U.S. For the length of three decades, the custodians of the theocracy have had precisely the level of enmity toward the U.S. they have wanted -- just enough to be an ideological glue for the regime but not enough to be a threat to their power. Iran's rulers have made their way in the world with relative ease. No White Army gathered to restore the dominion of the Pahlavis. The Cold War and oil bailed them out. So did the false hope that the revolution would mellow and make its peace with the world. Mr. Obama may believe that his offer to Iran is a break with a hard-line American policy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In 1989, in his inaugural, George H.W. Bush extended an offer to Iran: "Good will begets good will," he said. A decade later, in a typically Clintonian spirit of penance and contrition, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright came forth with a full apology for America's role in the 1953 coup that ousted nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Iran's rulers scoffed. They had inherited a world, and they were in no need of opening it to outsiders. They were able to fly under the radar. Selective, targeted deeds of terror, and oil income, enabled them to hold their regime intact. There is a Persian pride and a Persian solitude, and the impact of three decades of zeal and indoctrination.
The drama of Barack Obama's election was not an affair of Iran. They had an election of their own to stage. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- a son of the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary order, a man from the brigades of the regime, austere and indifferent to outsiders, an Iranian Everyman with badly fitting clothes and white socks -- was up for re-election. The upper orders of his country loathed him and bristled under the system of controls that the mullahs and the military and the revolutionary brigades had put in place, but he had the power and the money and the organs of the state arrayed on his side. There was a discernible fault line in Iran.
There were Iranians yearning for liberty, but we should not underestimate the power and the determination of those moved by the yearning for piety. Ahmadinejad's message of populism at home and defiance abroad, his assertion that the country's nuclear quest is a "closed file," settled and beyond discussion, have a resonance on Iranian soil. His challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a generation older, could not compete with him on that terrain. On the ruins of the ancien régime, the Iranian revolutionaries, it has to be conceded, have built a formidable state. The men who emerged out of a cruel and bloody struggle over their country's identity and spoils are a tenacious, merciless breed. Their capacity for repression is fearsome. We must rein in the modernist conceit that the bloggers, and the force of Twitter and Facebook, could win in the streets against the squads of the regime. That fight would be an Iranian drama, all outsiders mere spectators. That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to "cheat" -- an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers' cynicism and utter disregard for their people's intelligence and common sense -- and we were caught at it. Mr. Obama's statement that "the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised" put on cruel display the administration's incoherence. For once, there was an acknowledgment by this young president of history's burden: "Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons." No Wilsonianism on offer here. Mr. Obama will have to acknowledge the "foreignness" of foreign lands. His breezy self-assurance has been put on notice. The Obama administration believed its own rhetoric that the pro-Western March 14 coalition in Lebanon had ridden Mr. Obama's coattails to an electoral victory. (It had given every indication that it expected similar vindication in Iran.) But the claim about Lebanon was hollow and reflected little understanding of the forces at play in Lebanon's politics. That contest was settled by Lebanese rules, and by the push and pull of Saudi and Syrian and Iranian interests in Lebanon. Mr. Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo did not reshape the Islamic landscape. I was in Saudi Arabia when Mr. Obama traveled to Riyadh and Cairo. The earth did not move, life went on as usual. There were countless people puzzled by the presumption of the entire exercise, an outsider walking into sacred matters of their faith. In Saudi Arabia, and in the Arabic commentaries of other lands, there was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease and haste. Days into his presidency, it should be recalled, Mr. Obama had spoken of his desire to restore to America's relation with the Muslim world the respect and mutual interest that had existed 30 or 20 years earlier. It so happened that he was speaking, almost to the day, on the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution -- and that the time span he was referring to, his golden age, covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the American standoff with Libya, the fall of Beirut to the forces of terror, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Liberal opinion would have howled had this history been offered by George W. Bush, but Barack Obama was granted a waiver. Little more than three decades ago, Jimmy Carter, another American president convinced that what had come before him could be annulled and wished away, called on the nation to shed its "inordinate fear of communism," and to put aside its concern with "traditional issues of war and peace" in favor of "new global issues of justice, equity and human rights." We had betrayed our principles in the course of the Cold War, he said, "fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is quenched with water." The Soviet answer to that brave, new world was the invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979. Mr. Carter would try an atonement in the last year of his presidency. He would pose as a born-again hawk. It was too late in the hour for such redemption. It would take another standard-bearer, Ronald Reagan, to see that great struggle to victory. Iran's ordeal and its ways shattered the Carter presidency. President Obama's Persian tutorial has just begun. Mr. Ajami, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq (Free Press, 2007). Source: Wall Street Journal
 Can someone who has been so thoroughly inculcated with Palestinian propaganda ever renounce falsehood for the truth?By Melanie Phillips Ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter is a prominent enemy of Israel, whose history of action as President and subsequent writings have consistently displayed a deep animus matched only by a staggering level of ignorance. So this report in the Jerusalem Post of his visit a few days ago to the heart of the dreaded Israeli settlements, Gush Etzion, is fascinating – and poignant: ...A casual browsing of the Carter Center Web site reveals that as recently as 2007 Carter gave an address at Brandeis University in which he demonstrated extreme and total ignorance about the geography, demographics and even traffic patterns of the area, when he said about Judea and Samaria, “...their choice hilltops, vital water resources and productive land have been occupied, confiscated and then colonized by Israeli settlers. Like a spider web, the connecting roads that join more than 200 settlements in the West Bank, often for the exclusive use of Israelis, Palestinians are not permitted to get on those roads... This divides this area into small bantustans, isolated cantonments.” Read more ... Source: FSMDhimmi Carter
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
