Jimmy Carter announces he has cancer

[jj1000]

3. Just curious, what are you referring to specifically when you say you disagree with decisions of the Israeli government

I think one can write a megilla on that. No?

[Ergel]

I'm just curious what he's referring to specifically. He's clearly referring to things within the Arab Israeli conflict (I assume) that are relevant to this conversation. I'm curious what

[Ergel]

Don't many in the west believe it is because the US supports Israel?

I'm sure many do

[aygart]

Other than some who have been condoning violence and wishing death upon people I think the views of many here can best be explained thusly.

SOmeone who is an anti-semite will be anti-Israel due to his anti-semitism. WHen someone criticizes Israel or disagrees, sometimes strongly, with Israel and even possibly feels that the current state of Israel should not really be there does not have tomean that it due to anti semitism. The best test will be when someone will feel that Israel can do nothing right as well. Someone who will deny Israel any right to defend itself also can only be due to anti semitism. Even someone who feels that Israel really does not have the right to exist cannot consider defense of its citizen automatically a war crime. Any singlingout of Israel as racist and aparthied etc. while turning a blind eye to seriously bigoted and oppressive states will also show that it is due to bigotry.

The question now becomes exactly where to draw the line and how to classify some who are clearly fit into these guidelines. Many who are bigoted can either nuance themselves well enough or not be outspoken enough to be clearly seen as such. THose who are more attuned or sensitive to this bigotry will see it sooner. Many consider Jimmy Carter to have crossed these lines in his support of the Arabs.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Many consider Jimmy Carter to have crossed these lines in his support of the Arabs.

The problem is Carter thinks he is the champion for the underdogs. It does not seem to matter to him if the underdogs are the ones causing all the problems.

[aygart]

The problem is Carter thinks he is the champion for the underdogs. It does not seem to matter to him if the underdogs are the ones causing all the problems.

One can support the Arab political position without crossing the line. His just supporting them does is not what them consider him to have crossed the line.

[Dan]

Other than some who have been condoning violence and wishing death upon people I think the views of many here can best be explained thusly.

SOmeone who is an anti-semite will be anti-Israel due to his anti-semitism. WHen someone criticizes Israel or disagrees, sometimes strongly, with Israel and even possibly feels that the current state of Israel should not really be there does not have tomean that it due to anti semitism. The best test will be when someone will feel that Israel can do nothing right as well. Someone who will deny Israel any right to defend itself also can only be due to anti semitism. Even someone who feels that Israel really does not have the right to exist cannot consider defense of its citizen automatically a war crime. Any singlingout of Israel as racist and aparthied etc. while turning a blind eye to seriously bigoted and oppressive states will also show that it is due to bigotry.

The question now becomes exactly where to draw the line and how to classify some who are clearly fit into these guidelines. Many who are bigoted can either nuance themselves well enough or not be outspoken enough to be clearly seen as such. THose who are more attuned or sensitive to this bigotry will see it sooner. Many consider Jimmy Carter to have crossed these lines in his support of the Arabs.

Yup

[Aj3042]

Other than some who have been condoning violence and wishing death upon people I think the views of many here can best be explained thusly.

SOmeone who is an anti-semite will be anti-Israel due to his anti-semitism. WHen someone criticizes Israel or disagrees, sometimes strongly, with Israel and even possibly feels that the current state of Israel should not really be there does not have tomean that it due to anti semitism. The best test will be when someone will feel that Israel can do nothing right as well. Someone who will deny Israel any right to defend itself also can only be due to anti semitism. Even someone who feels that Israel really does not have the right to exist cannot consider defense of its citizen automatically a war crime. Any singlingout of Israel as racist and aparthied etc. while turning a blind eye to seriously bigoted and oppressive states will also show that it is due to bigotry.

The question now becomes exactly where to draw the line and how to classify some who are clearly fit into these guidelines. Many who are bigoted can either nuance themselves well enough or not be outspoken enough to be clearly seen as such. THose who are more attuned or sensitive to this bigotry will see it sooner. Many consider Jimmy Carter to have crossed these lines in his support of the Arabs.

Everything you write here is blatantly obvious. However, some on this thread are a few steps ahead of you-we know all this and we maintain that Carter is an evil Jew hater. We didn't have to write what you wrote because we assumed that everyone already knew it and didn't want to state the obvious. But apparently not everyone gets even this so thanks for making clear what should've been obvious to anyone with any modicum of intelligence.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Everything you write here is blatantly obvious.

But apparently not everyone gets even this so thanks for making clear what should've been obvious to anyone with any modicum of intelligence.

WHen someone criticizes Israel or disagrees, sometimes strongly, with Israel and even possibly feels that the current state of Israel should not really be there does not have to mean that it due to anti semitism.

[aygart]

Not everyone pays the same amount of attention to everything anyone says about Israel. I myself do not really pay attention to what JC has to say about anything and therefore was not and will not have or give my own opinion until I see examples. I do not consider hugging Arafat to be crossing the line. Other than that I have not seen anyone here bring any clear reason to believe that he did. THat does not mean that it is not true, but you need to realize that what may be obvious to someone paying attention may not be to someone who is not. As such,much of thisthread will look utterly ridiculous to the typical gentile viewing it. Here you and others have expressed delight in his suffering claiming that he is antisemitic but have yet to provide an example. Just because it seems obvious to you doesn't mean that it does to everyone. Couple this with a seeming general extremism on the part of you and others the reaction can be well understood.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Couple this with a seeming general extremism on the part of you and others the reaction can be well understood.

Bingo!

[aygart]

Bingo!

I will say that I have heard this opinion of Carter from many who can in no way be considered to be extreme. That was likely the point they were making by quoting Dershowitz. If anything the radically liberal views he has espoused only strengthens this point.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I will say that I have heard this opinion of Carter from many who can in no way be considered to be extreme.

In this thread?

[yuneeq]

The problem is Carter thinks he is the champion for the underdogs. It does not seem to matter to him if the underdogs are the ones causing all the problems.

So either carter is an antisemite or a raving lunatic with too much influence that has harmed too many people for no good reason.

Either way, while a painful death might not be nice to wish upon him, maybe a quick one would be?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Some of what Carter believes.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.

"It's not Israel. The book has nothing to do with what's going on inside Israel which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews who are Israelis have the same privileges about Israel. That's been most of the controversy because people assume it's about Israel. It's not. "I've never alleged that the framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all, and that what does exist in the West Bank is based on trying to take Palestinian land and not on racism. So it was a very clear distinction.

[aygart]

In this thread?

In general. I did not keep track of who said it in this this thread.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

So either carter is an antisemite or a raving lunatic with too much influence that has harmed too many people for no good reason.

I guess I am missing something. What influence does Carter have at this point?

[ShlockDoc]

Some of what Carter believes.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.

"It's not Israel. The book has nothing to do with what's going on inside Israel which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews who are Israelis have the same privileges about Israel. That's been most of the controversy because people assume it's about Israel. It's not. "I've never alleged that the framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all, and that what does exist in the West Bank is based on trying to take Palestinian land and not on racism. So it was a very clear distinction.

Can you please stop bringing facts and sources into this conversation?  It's much easier to hate someone if we just make up how he feels based on what we read on theblaze. 

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Can you please stop bringing facts and sources into this conversation?  It's much easier to hate someone if we just make up how he feels based on what we read on theblaze.

AFAIK those are his words. Still try to find quotes where he hates Jews/Israel or things like Israel does not have a right to exist or defend itself.

[Aj3042]

Can you please stop bringing facts and sources into this conversation?  It's much easier to hate someone if we just make up how he feels based on what we read on theblaze.

How foolish. He doesn't hate Jews because he said so? Do you know Eichmann said the same thing at his trial (as well as countless other Nazis in Nuremberg)? What the judges respond? "Your actions don't support your claims of your beliefs".
Seriously this is bordering on insanity already. You want me to believe they a guy who's done so much bad is in fact good BECAUSE HE WROTE SO HIMSELF? Don't you see how ludicrous that sounds?