• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Israel's UN ambassador calls Jimmy Carter 'a bigot'

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Interesting how easily this word is thrown about by Israel's ambassador just because Jimmy Carter went ahead and tried to negotiate some sort of cease fire with Hamas's leadership.


Israel's UN ambassador calls Jimmy Carter 'a bigot'

By VERENA DOBNIK, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 7 minutes ago

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday called former President Jimmy Carter "a bigot" for meeting with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, "went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands after shaking the hand of Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas," Ambassador Dan Gillerman told a luncheon briefing for reporters.

The diplomat was questioned about problems facing his country during a wide-ranging discussion with reporters lasting more than an hour. The briefing was sponsored by The Israel Project, a Washington-based, media-oriented advocacy group.

The ambassador's harsh words for Carter came days after the ex-president met with Mashaal for seven hours in Damascus to negotiate a cease-fire with Gaza's Hamas rulers. Carter then called Mashaal on Monday to try to get him to agree to a one-month truce without conditions, but the Hamas leader rejected the idea.

The ambassador called last weekend's encounter "a very sad episode in American history."

He said it was "a shame" to see Carter, who had done "good things" as a former president, "turn into what I believe to be a bigot."

Telephone calls by The Associated Press to two Atlanta numbers for Carter were not immediately returned Thursday.

Gillerman said Hamas is armed and trained by Iran, whose president once called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

"The real danger, the real problem is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the real threat is Iran," he said.

Gillerman spoke with reporters from around the world at the Times Square offices of a New York law firm on the day Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was in Washington meeting with President Bush.

The ambassador said he was "quite optimistic" about the chances for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement because Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have met more times than any previous leaders of the two sides.

"I believe they've gone deeper and further than any other Israeli or Palestinian leader, and I believe that there is a very good chance (for a settlement)," he said.

Gillerman also was asked about another topic involving the U.S. government and Israel: the arrest last week in New Jersey of an 84-year-old man accused of passing U.S. weapons program secrets to an Israeli agent a quarter-century ago.

Retired U.S. military engineer Ben-ami Kadish faces charges linking him to the same now-defunct Israeli intelligence agency that used Jonathan Pollard, who is serving a life sentence for spying for Israel.

Gillerman called it "a very old matter."

"It pertains to something that may or may not have happened 25 years ago" and would be decided when Kadish goes to trial, he said.

In the wake of the Pollard case, the ambassador said Israel had made a pledge not to spy on the United States, "and that is something which I know that we have honored completely."

The ambassador declined to comment on U.S. government reports that Syria was building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance before it was bombed by Israeli planes last year.

Gillerman called Syria a "destabilizing influence" in the Middle East.

"You see Syria's hosting, very hospitably and warmly, over 10 terror organizations in Damascus," the ambassador said, adding that the country also supports Hezbollah, an anti-Israeli Shiite group in Lebanon with close ties to Iran and Syria.

"Basically, Syria and Iran, together with Hamas and Hezbollah, are the main axes of terror and evil in the world," the Israeli ambassador said.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
141
116
Laughing at the fact that a major Israeli diplomat is calling a Nobel Peace Prize winner a 'bigot'.

Israel seems to be upping their bullshit for the election season; maybe to shake up the candidates at home? Get their comments on record for the voting Jewish population in the US?

I bet the Hillary comment about obliterating Iran won some brownie points from Jewish voters.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
649
0
0
Jimmy Carter is bigoted against defense contractors, for doing something which could deprive them of their blood money.

I'm sure Gillerman has some money to be made through death and destruction.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,852
14,003
136
Just shows how desperately the Israelis want to avoid an actual settlement, which would involve major concessions on their part, and how anxious they are to deflect attention away from their own actions.

Iran? heh. Why is Iran hostile to Israel? the Palestinian issue, and ongoing Israeli actions in Lebanon and Syria. Very straightforward. Solve that, and the Iranians have no reason for hostility.

As for conversations between Olmert and Abbas, Abbas will figure it out sooner or later- talk is cheap, particularly for the Israelis. They'll talk forever while doing precisely nothing... it's not actual negotiation, just stalling, particularly w/o Hamas in the picture...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,969
3,757
126
The Jews fear being driven into the sea so they will make sure they are. We always actualize what we fear. It's part of the mechanism of self hate.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,991
3,485
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Jews fear being driven into the sea so they will make sure they are. We always actualize what we fear. It's part of the mechanism of self hate.
Your false dilemma is taken as saying their only option is to surrender to the demand of being exterminated. Lest they risk your hostility towards their audacity to resist.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,435
79
91

Gillerman said Hamas is armed and trained by Iran, whose president once called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

"The real danger, the real problem is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the real threat is Iran," he said.
I tend to agree.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,969
3,757
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Jews fear being driven into the sea so they will make sure they are. We always actualize what we fear. It's part of the mechanism of self hate.
Your false dilemma is taken as saying their only option is to surrender to the demand of being exterminated. Lest they risk your hostility towards their audacity to resist.
You can't think in your state of paranoia so you can't see real options. You see the walls of your own cage.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,799
0
0
What's that? You whant me to rehspond to deh rehcent news of deh motherhland's blahtant betrayhal of fghriendship, good whill, and deh shameful sphying on Amehrica?

I'm afghraid I cahnnot comhent.

...

Ghay look, ight's Jihmmy Carhter deh ghuge bighot wight deh blooghdy dhands!
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
703
0
71
OHH that is funny. Israel doesn't want to settle? Didn't they pull out of the Gaza Strip for a peace settlement and then proceeded to get rocket attacks from Gaza? How much land have they given up for peace only to have the peace broken by hamas with homicide bombers. Didn't Bill Clinton try to get Yassir Arafat to agree to peace with Israel--with Israel giving up lots of land? What did Arafat say, oh that's right-- he said NO!!

The only thing straight forward is that most middle east countries want Israel wiped off the map--regardless of any concession.

Jimmy Carter is naive to think that talking to hamas is going to do anything. You can't get far when the hamas salute is remarkably like that of Germany in 1939.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,799
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
You can't get far when the hamas salute is remarkably like that of Germany in 1939.
OHH, that IS funny.

You should spend less time analyzing salutes, and more time reading about the history on the topic.

I can't get anywhere with you people.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
703
0
71
Originally posted by: fallout man
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
You can't get far when the hamas salute is remarkably like that of Germany in 1939.
OHH, that IS funny.

You should spend less time analyzing salutes, and more time reading about the history on the topic.

I can't get anywhere with you people.

Straight from the Hamas charter from Wikipedia

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad,"
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
OHH that is funny. Israel doesn't want to settle? Didn't they pull out of the Gaza Strip for a peace settlement and then proceeded to get rocket attacks from Gaza?
Actually, they unalaterally pulled out of Gaza while rejecting any attempt at peace agreement in favor of expanding their colinzation of the West Bank
.
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Didn't Bill Clinton try to get Yassir Arafat to agree to peace with Israel--with Israel giving up lots of land?
That proposal and every other one Israel has presented didn't even have Israel widrawing to their internationally reconginised boarders, let alone give up any land to Palestine. concession. Rather, it would have had Arafat ceding the Palestinians right to anything resembling a sovergin nation, nothing more than a collection of cantons.

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Straight from the Hamas charter from Wikipedia

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad,"
Can you name an instance where anything else ever got the Palestinians anywhere with Israel?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Sinsear

Gillerman said Hamas is armed and trained by Iran, whose president once called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

"The real danger, the real problem is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the real threat is Iran," he said.
I tend to agree.
No, he's trying to side-step the real issue. The Israeli-Palestinian issue was there even when Israel was on good terms with Iran. Iran is not the problem.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Sinsear

Gillerman said Hamas is armed and trained by Iran, whose president once called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

"The real danger, the real problem is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the real threat is Iran," he said.
I tend to agree.
No, he's trying to side-step the real issue. The Israeli-Palestinian issue was there even when Israel was on good terms with Iran. Iran is not the problem.
Prior to Iran, the Palestinian militants had other sponsors.

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,991
3,485
126
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Straight from the Hamas charter from Wikipedia

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad,"
Can you name an instance where anything else ever got the Palestinians anywhere with Israel?
If we're going to argue that war is Palestine?s legitimate method of getting what it wants, then it is war that needs to be waged against Palestine. War begets war, unless we?re picking sides here in favor of the Palestinian?s violence against Israel. Why do we have the audacity to suggest Israel should not respond in kind, thereby winning the war and achieving a peaceful solution through the surrender of the Palestinian fighters?

Why is the surrender of Palestine never an option that Americans will consider and support? Why do we send Carter over there to try and enforce the Palestinian demands achieved through violence?
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
Make a long line of bulldozers and then start moving forward. End of the problem.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,064
0
0
Didn't you know? We're supposed to want to kill islamics, this is a holy war! Get on the bandwagon! /sarcasm
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Doesn't qualify his accusations with anything, just the requisite "if you aren't 100% pro-Israel on all matters then you hate the jews" strawman that AIPAC weaklings like to throw out there.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Just shows how desperately the Israelis want to avoid an actual settlement, which would involve major concessions on their part, and how anxious they are to deflect attention away from their own actions.
Right, because when there's only a few million of your people left on the planet, you'd rather continue to have them die in conflict than achieve a peaceful resolution with your neighbors if that were at all possible. Get a clue.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Sirjonk says---Right, because when there's only a few million of your people left on the planet, you'd rather continue to have them die in conflict than achieve a peaceful resolution with your neighbors if that were at all possible. Get a clue.


Sirjonk might have a point if Israel gave a peaceful resolution option to the Palestinians. But there is no such option out there as the Annapolis peace conference shows. Israel offers nothing while they continue to build on disputed land.

Right now Israel is only kept alive by US aid and US public opinion.

And when a noble Prize winning President starts to be less than totally pro Israeli, its time to call him a bigot.

And so it goes, 60 years of tensions and violence unresolved, no reason not to expect 120 years more at least. Meanwhile Israel just killed a Reuters Camera man, foolish fellow, does he not know that being among Palestinians
civilians means he is vermin to be shot on sight. He might have been Hamas, and that is all the reason necessary. Israeli might always makes right.

One cannot talk to the enemy, that humanizes them, and then suddenly they might quit being vermin to be shot on sight. Or at least they get to tell their side of the story and definitely we can't have that.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Straight from the Hamas charter from Wikipedia

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad,"
Can you name an instance where anything else ever got the Palestinians anywhere with Israel?
If we're going to argue that war is Palestine?s legitimate method of getting what it wants, then it is war that needs to be waged against Palestine. War begets war, unless we?re picking sides here in favor of the Palestinian?s violence against Israel. Why do we have the audacity to suggest Israel should not respond in kind, thereby winning the war and achieving a peaceful solution through the surrender of the Palestinian fighters?

Why is the surrender of Palestine never an option that Americans will consider and support? Why do we send Carter over there to try and enforce the Palestinian demands achieved through violence?
"Finally, we should not forget that the Zionists used terrorism when they were in a similarly weak position and trying to obtain their on state. Between 1944 and 1947, several Zionist
organizations used terrorist bombings to drive the British from Palestine, and took the lives of many innocent civilians along the way.56 Israeli terrorists also murdered U.N. mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948, because they opposed his proposal to internationalize Jerusalem.57 Nor were the perpetrators of these acts isolated extremists: the leaders of the murder plot were eventually granted amnesty by the Israeli government and one of them was elected to the Knsset. Another terrorist leader, who approved the murder but was not tried, was future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Indeed, Shamir openly argued that ?neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.? Rather, terrorism had ?a great part to play ? in our war against the occupier [Britain].?58 If the Palestinians? use of terrorism is morally reprehensible today, so was Israel?s reliance upon it in the past, and thus one cannot justify U.S. support for Israel on the grounds that its past conduct was morally superior.59"

Text

Giving Israel the moral high ground 100% of the time just makes me cringe.

If the Israeli's consider terrorism a means to an end when fighting for what they believe, then the same test must be applied to the Palestinians.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,991
3,485
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sirjonk says---Right, because when there's only a few million of your people left on the planet, you'd rather continue to have them die in conflict than achieve a peaceful resolution with your neighbors if that were at all possible. Get a clue.


Sirjonk might have a point if Israel gave a peaceful resolution option to the Palestinians. But there is no such option out there as the Annapolis peace conference shows. Israel offers nothing while they continue to build on disputed land.
Maybe if the Palestinians gave a peaceful resolution option to the Israelis. But there is no such option out there as rockets continue to shoot off and every concession Israel gives leads to continued violence without relent.

Right now Israel is only kept alive by US aid and US public opinion.
Islamic Supremacists are our common enemy and your quote here is all the more reason to continue to support Israel against them. Unlike our past, current, and future administrations who provide money and lip service but then condemn any action that would resolve the war through Palestinian surrender.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,991
3,485
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Giving Israel the moral high ground 100% of the time just makes me cringe.

If the Israeli's consider terrorism a means to an end when fighting for what they believe, then the same test must be applied to the Palestinians.
It can be applied to the Palestinians, but anyone who wages war against us MUST have war waged against them. They must be forced into surrendering so that they end their violence against us.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: ayabe
Giving Israel the moral high ground 100% of the time just makes me cringe.

If the Israeli's consider terrorism a means to an end when fighting for what they believe, then the same test must be applied to the Palestinians.
It can be applied to the Palestinians, but anyone who wages war against us MUST have war waged against them. They must be forced into surrendering so that they end their violence against us.
Yet amazingly despite some brutal beat downs at the hands of the Israeli's, the terrorists aren't really losing any ground.

Despite Israel killing ~3.4 Palestinians for every Israeli killed in a terror attack(It's greater than 5 to 1 if you look at children killed), they just keep coming.

Do they just need to up their game? Or is perhaps killing innocents not the best way to combat terror?

Either way, what they're rolling with isn't getting the job done.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY