Wednesday, December 05, 2012

Jimmy Carter's Dissing Israel Again

Nadene Goldfoot
88 year old Jimmy Carter is slandering Israel again with so many lies, and USA Today thinks being an ex-president, that he is beyond fact-checking.  None of his allegations are true.

The facts are that Netanyahu has endorsed a 2 state solution.  You heard him beg Abbas in the UN meeting to join him in a peace talk.  Only Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 have made peace with Israel.  Building in E-1 doesn't cut the "West Bank in two or separates east Jerusalem from the West Bank.  The West Bank will still be 9 miles wide at its narrowest point.  Israel in the pre-1967 armistice is only 9 miles wide just north of Tel Aviv and 4 miles wide just west of Jerusalem.

Jewish villages and town make up less than 5% of the disputed West Bank.  After the UN's vote to make Palestine a state observer over the USA and Israel's warnings, Israel announced their   plans to go ahead with them, which were announced in 2010,  for housing in existing communities and with the E-1 project next to Jerusalem.  This is not "rapidly confiscating Palestinian territory."

 Legally, none of it was ever Palestinian territory.  Jordan had grabbed it illegally in the first place.  Israel won the 1967 War and it was then under Israel's domain.  Remember, it was Judea and Samaria, Jewish land in the first place.

Too bad Carter doesn't read history books written by historians.  For a religious man, he is "bearing false witness, "  and he was a Baptist Sunday School teacher.  What he does besides prevaricate, is put in errors, omits important facts which are misleading and tries to undermine legitimate Israeli positions and Jewish rights. He favors Hamas, a terrorist organization, evidently.  Camera calls him a shill for Hamas.   It's a Shunda!  He was a religious Southern  President of the USA who has turned against USA's only friend in the Middle East.  He was not reelected because of how he handled problems in the first term.

Added: 8:25pm: Israel's Building No Obstacle to Peace - Jonathan S. Tobin (Commentary) from daily alert
  • It is argued that by allowing building in the E1 development area that connects Jerusalem's Ma'ale Adumim suburb to the city, Israel will be foreclosing the possibility of a two-state solution since this would effectively cut the West Bank in half and forestall its viability as an independent Palestinian state. Yet highways and tunnels could easily be constructed to allow access between Arab areas to the north and south of Jerusalem.
  • If the Palestinians did want a two-state solution, the new project as well as others announced for more houses to be built in 40-year-old Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem wouldn't stop it. Jewish housing in the disputed areas is no more of an obstacle to peace than the far greater Arab housing boom in other parts of Jerusalem.
  • Everyone knows that proposed land swaps would have to account for the Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem, including Ma'ale Adumim and the other towns in the vicinity that are already inside the security fence. The notion that Israeli building - in areas that everyone knows they would keep if there was a deal in place - is stopping peace from breaking out is ludicrous.
  • The argument about the West Bank is not solely about pitting rights of Palestinians against Israel's security needs. The West Bank is, after all, part of the area designated by the League of Nations for Jewish settlement under the Mandate of Palestine. It is also the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland to which Jews have historical, legal and religious ties that cannot be erased by a century of Arab hatred.
  • Throughout the last 20 years, Israel has been in engaged in peace talks or attempts to revive them, during the course of which it has made numerous concessions about territory to the Palestinians. For its pains, Israel has been subjected to even greater vituperation and delegitimization during this period than before.
  • So long as it does not speak of its rights, Israel will always be treated as a thief who must return stolen property rather than as a party to a conflict with its own justified claims. 

Post a Comment