Posted on 12/26/2006 5:31:55 AM PST by maica
Several prominent scholars have taken issue with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," cataloguing its historical inaccuracies and lamenting its lack of balance.
---snip---
Whether in its secular and/or observant manifestations, Israel clearly discomfits Mr. Carter, a man who, even as president, considered himself in "full-time Christian service." Yet, in revealing his unease with the idea of Jewish statehood, Mr. Carter sets himself apart from many U.S. presidents before and after him, as well as from nearly 400 years of American Christian thought.
Generations of Christians in this country, representing a variety of dominations, laymen and clergy alike, have embraced the concept of renewed Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. The passion was already evident in 1620, when William Bradford alighted on Plymouth Rock and exclaimed, "Come, let us declare the word of God in Zion." Bradford was a leader of the Puritans, dissenting Protestants who, in their search for an unsullied religion and the strength to resist state oppression, turned to the Old Testament. There, they found a God who spoke directly to his people, who promised to deliver them from bondage and return them to their ancestral homeland. Appropriating this narrative, the Puritans fashioned themselves as the New Jews and America as their New Promised Land. They gave their children Hebrew names--David, Benjamin, Sarah, Rebecca--and called over 1,000 of their towns after Biblical places, including Bethlehem, Bethel and, of course, New Canaan.
---snip---
Such sentiments played a crucial role in gaining international recognition for Zionist claims to Palestine during World War I, when the British government sought American approval for designating that area as the Jewish national home.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
More about previous presidents:
Though his closest counselors warned him against endorsing the move, Woodrow Wilson, the son and grandson of Presbyterian preachers, rejected their advice. "To think that I the son of the manse [parsonage] should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people," he explained. With Wilson's imprimatur, Britain issued the declaration that became the basis of its League of Nations mandate in Palestine, and as the precursor to the 1947 U.N. Partition Resolution creating the Jewish state.
The question of whether or not to recognize that state fell to Harry S. Truman. Raised in a Baptist household where he learned much of the Bible by heart, Truman had been a member of the pro-Zionist American Christian Palestine Committee and an advocate of the right of Jews--particularly Holocaust survivors--to immigrate to Palestine. He was naturally inclined to acknowledge the nascent state but encountered fervid opposition from the entire foreign policy establishment. If America sided with the Zionists, officials in the State and Defense departments cautioned, the Arabs would cut off oil supplies to the West, undermine America's economy, and expose Europe to Soviet invasion. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would have to be sent to Palestine to save its Jews from massacre.
Truman listened carefully to these warnings and then, at 6:11 on the evening of May 14, he announced that the U.S. would be the first nation to recognize the newly declared State of Israel. While the decision may have stemmed in part from domestic political considerations, it is difficult to conceive that any politician, much less one of Truman's character, would have risked global catastrophe by recognizing a frail and miniscule country. More likely, the dramatic démarche reflected Truman's religious background and his commitment to the restorationist creed. Introduced a few weeks later to an American Jewish delegation as the president who had helped create Israel, Truman took umbrage and snapped, "What you mean 'helped create'? I am Cyrus"--a reference to the Persian king who returned the Jews from exile--"I am Cyrus!"
Our problems with Iran are his fault.
What would he do if he were President again? Smash helicopters over Israel?
If Jimmy Carter were running for President today as a Democrat 75% of jews would vote for him.
What would he do if he were President again?
&&&&
He would probably hang out with Kofi and other 'world leaders' and stop any support of Israel that would be within his reach.
Amazingly, that is so true!
It is very hard to see what JCarter "knows." The man is twisted.
Yes, because they are Marxist JINOs.
In his dotage, Carter is proving once again that he is as malicious and mean-spirited a public figure as he is historically ignorant. And for all his sanctimonious Christian veneer, and fly-fishing, ‘aw shucks blue-jeans image, he can’t hide an essentially ungracious and unkind soul."
And then there's this from Oct. 25, 1976...
Though he has plainly bottomed out after his September slump, Jimmy Carter remains Jimmy Carter's most formidable foe, fully capable of again blowing a lead by new gaffes or by continuing displays of a mean streak that seems strangely at odds with his repeated professions of love and compassion. CBS Commentator Eric Sevareid last week noted Carter's "instinct for the deliberate insult, the loaded phrase and the broad innuendo."Source:Time
I think we need to bear in mind that Jimmy Carter no longer has the sense to write a book. Some of his underlings put this piece of nonsense together for him. And underlings of today never learned much history.
The arrogance of Jimmah is totally un-Christian.
"Whosoever blesses the Jews, him shall I also bless; but whosoever curses the Jews, him shall I surely curse!"
Why not post the article below it "A Palestinian One"?
Carter continues to polish his legacy while one wonders about his mental capacity.
The floor's yours. Why don't you post it?
Wow - that 1976 quote proves that he has not changed but remained the same disgusting fraud.
?
Why not explain what you mean?
Amen!!
At leat, when he first ran I didn't vote for him. I knew Ford was no friend of Israel, but Carter struck me as so obnoxiously phony.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.