pascasher.blogspot.com: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2007), New York Times Bestseller. Le livre "négationniste" de Jimmy Carter a soulevé l'ire des organisations juives sionistes et mémorielles

Les organisations juives ne pouvaient attaquer l'ouvrage pour son contenu, alors ils l'ont attaqué pour ce qu'il ne contient pas. Ils l'ont affublé de l'étiquette de "négationniste", parce qu'il raconte l'histoire du foyer juif sioniste en Palestine sans mentionner une seule fois l'Holocauste! (Suivant cette logique, les mémoires de guerre de Churchill, de Gaulle, et bien d'autres, sont forcément "négationnistes" eux aussi.) Mais Carter n'a pas écrit un livre sur Israel et le sionisme en Palestine, il a écrit un livre sur la Palestine! Le crime de la pensée de Carter est d'avoir mis la Palestine et pas Israël au centre de son ouvrage!

Rappelons que Carter n'appuie pas le boycott d'Israël mais seulement le boycott des colonies illégales israéliennes—une position en rien différente de celle de tous les présidents des États-Unis, qui ont toujours (du moins jusqu'à récemment) condamné la colonisation illégale et les implantations illégales israéliennes—mais apparemment, pour le lobby juif, juste ça c'est déjà trop. Pour le lobby juif, cela prouve que Carter est antijuif.

PDF - Jimmy Carter - Palestine: Peace not Apartheid

p.4: Historical Chronology :

Jews Suing Jimmy Carter over Palestine book represented by 'Dancing Israelis' Lawyer

Dans The Holocaust in American Life (p.216-224), Peter Novick fait état de la joute en coulisse dans les années 70 entre Jimmy Carter (qui, comme Wiesenthal, voulait élargir la notion d'Holocauste afin d'y inclure au moins 5 millions de victimes non juives—pour un total de 11 millions) et Elie Wiesel (qui tenait catégoriquement à maintenir la spécificité uniquement juive de l'Holocauste). Carter a bien sûr perdu son pari face à Wiesel. Voici un extrait de la lettre que Wiesel a écrite en opposition à Carter:

(WIESEL, Elie. 2010. And the Sea Is Never Full: Memoirs, 1969-...)

Voici un extrait de The Holocaust in American Life, de Peter Novick, sur Elie Wiesel et les 11 millions de Wiesenthal... p.216-226

Before the late seventies, few in the United States had ever heard the figure "eleven million." Wiesenthal's fame in this country had to do with his exploits as a Nazi hunter, not as an interpreter of the Holocaust. This changed in 1977 when, in return for a subsidy for his program of tracking down war criminals, a California rabbi obtained the use of his name for what became a highly visible Holocaust institution, the Simon Wiesenthal Center.27 "Eleven million" was part of the baggage that came with the name."28 Inscribed at the entrance to the center's museum was a tribute to ''six million Jews and to five million of other faiths"; center publications came to speak of "The Holocaustsix million Jews and five million non-Jews."29 Though not originally advanced as such, ''eleven million" had become a new description of the parameters of the Holocaust.

By itself, the use of "eleven million" by the Wiesenthal Center might not have given wide currency to the figure.

What put it on the agendawhat made "eleven million" a slogan for some and fighting words for otherswas the setting in motion, in the spring of 1978, of the process that ultimately led to the creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

That process began with the conventional understanding of the Holocaust. At a ceremony on the White House lawn in honor of Israel's thirtieth birthday, President Jimmy Carter announced that he was setting up a commission to explore creating a national memorial to "the six million who were killed in the Holocaust."30 On this occasion no other definition would have been appropriate, for, as is well known, Carter's initiative was an attempt to placate American Jews, who were increasingly alienated by what they saw as the president's "excessive evenhandedness" in dealing with Israelis and Palestinians.31 If the estrangement continued, it could be devastating for Carter's prospects for reelection, in part because of Jewish votes in key states, and even more because Jews traditionally contributed a substantial portion of national Democratic campaign funds.32 Jewish White House staffers who developed the proposal for the memorial weren't moved solely by political calculations; several seem to have had a genuine commitment to Holocaust commemoration.33 But the potential political payoff was paramount. The final staff discussions of the proposed memorial were conducted amid all the hoopla over NBC's Holocaust. This led one of the aides of domestic policy chief Stuart Eizenstadt to worry that it might look like "a tacky effort to ride the coattails of the show." So it might, replied another, but "our relations with Jewish community need every little boost possible." 34

On the day after Carter's announcement of a proposal to commemorate "the six million," one of Eizenstadt's aides suggested to her boss that the new commission might "consider expanding this to eleven million," following the example of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.35 There were various reasons to move in this direction. Carter's initiative had preempted a bill recently introduced in the Senate (with twenty cosponsors) to establish a memorial to the Holocaust's "eleven million innocent victims, of all faiths."36 In congressional discussions after Carter's announcement, senators and representatives who lauded the proposalJews and gentiles alikereferred as often to "eleven'' or ''six plus five" or "six plus millions of others" as they did to "six."37 When the President's Commission on the Holocaust was formally established some months later, with Elie Wiesel as its chairman, it solicited suggestions from numerous sources, including representatives of ethnic groups. The director of the Ukrainian National Information Service wrote that Ukrainians also "met Hitler's criteria for extermination" and were "numerically the second largest group to be destroyed in . . . Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Dachau." He asked that whatever was done "reflect the various nationalities and the numerical proportions of the victims of the Nazi Holocaust."38 Aloysius Mazewski, the president of the Polish-American Congress, insisted that it was Poles, not Ukrainians, who deserved second place to Jews: his total of ten million Holocaust victims was made up of six million Jews, three million Catholic Poles, and one million "other nationalities."39 On the other hand, the president of the Alliance of Poles of America claimed that "more than six million Christians [mostly Poles] . . . lost their lives"; he spoke of "the need to memorialize the sufferings and death of our Polish Catholic brothers and sisters and not only those of Jewish tradition. To do otherwise would make their suffering and death meaningless."40

In April 1979, while the commission was deliberating, the first "Days of Remembrance" of the Holocaust were held in the Capitol Rotunda.41 By this time, for whatever reasons, the White House had changed its definition of "the Holocaust." President Carter spoke of "eleven million innocent victims exterminated six million of them Jews." Vice President Walter Mondale spoke of bearing witness "to the unanswered cries of the eleven million." 42 This redefinition was, of course, deeply offensive to Wiesel. His commission's report, delivered to the president in September 1979, was, above all, a rejoinder to Carter's new characterization. It insisted on the Jewish specificity the Jewish essenceof the Holocaust: ''any attempt to dilute or deny this reality would be to falsify it in the name of misguided universalism." The report contained phrases that Wiesel was to repeat frequently over subsequent yearsacknowledging that Nazism had other targets, but insisting on the temporal as well as the conceptual priority of Jewish victimhood: ''as night descended, millions of other peoples were swept into this net of death"; "Jews might not have remained the final victims of Nazi genocide but they were certainly its first"; "as always, they began with Jews[;] as always they did not stop with Jews alone." There were indeed "other victims," whose existence should be recognized in the museum being recommended, but, the report strongly impliedwithout quite saying sothey were not victims of "the Holocaust."43

The following months saw an intense struggle between Wiesel and Jewish staffers in the White House over how the Holocaust should be describedwho would be included. It was "morally repugnant," said one presidential aide, "to create a category of second-class victims of the Holocaust as Mr. Wiesel would have us do."44 Stuart Eizenstadt urged Carter that in the executive order creating the Holocaust Memorial Council (successor to the presidential commission) he should "make clear the memorial is to honor the memory of all victims of the Holocaustsix million Jews and some five million other peoples."45 This definition, one staff member pointed out, was that of Simon Wiesenthal, "whose Holocaust credentials are as good as anyone else I know."46 At the eleventh hour there was an ingenious proposal from Wiesel and the commission's new director, Monroe Freedman, to resolve the question through punctuation. The White House draft spoke of commemorating "The Holocaust, the systematic, state-sponsored extermination of six million Jews and millions of other victims of Nazism during World War II." The proposed alternative would make a conceptual separation through the use of dashes: "The Holocaust the systematic state-sponsored extermination of six million Jews and the millions of other Nazi victims."47 Eizenstadt, in the end, was willing to give in. "For better or worse," he said, Wiesel had become the symbol of the Holocaust, and if he resigned over the issue, "we simply would not be able to get another prominent Jewish leader to serve as Chairman." While Eastern European ethnic groups would prefer the original wording, the definitional issue was not, for them, "a live or die matter as it is with Wiesel." 48 But an exasperated Carter refused to accept the dashes, and the executive order creating the Holocaust Memorial Council referred to eleven million victims. Wiesel did not resign, and the museum he was charged with creating was officially committed to memorializing "eleven million.''

This was clearly unacceptable to Wiesel and others for whom the "big truth" about the Holocaust was its Jewish specificity. They responded to the expansion of the victims of the Holocaust to eleven million the way devout Christians would respond to the expansion of the victims of the Crucifixion to threethe Son of God and two thieves. Weisel's forces mobilized, both inside and outside the Holocaust Council, to ensure that, despite the executive order, their definition would prevail. Though Jewish survivors of the Holocaust had no role in the initiative that created the museum, they came, under the leadership of Wiesel, to dominate the councilmorally, if not numerically. When one survivor, Sigmund Strochlitz, was sworn in as a council member, he announced that it was "unreasonable and inappropriate to ask survivors to share the term Holocaust . . . to equate our suffering . . . with others."49 At one council meeting, another survivor, Kalman Sultanik, was asked whether Daniel Trocmé, murdered at Maidanek for rescuing Jews and honored at Yad Vashem as a Righteous Gentile, could be remembered in the museum's Hall of Remembrance. "No,'' said Sultanik, because "he didn't die as a Jew. . . . The six million Jews. . . died differently."50

There were also attempts to mobilize Jewish opinion at large against blurring the distinction between the victimhood of Jews and that of others. Survivor Henry Grynberg even objected to the ancillary role accorded to gentiles in Wiesel's phrase about others being, "as night descended . . . swept into this net of death." This was, Grynberg said, "absolutely false": "Those millions of others would have perished in the war even if the Holocaust had never taken place."51 Children of survivors were often among those who insisted on the distinction between the deaths of gentiles and of Jews. Gentiles, said one, "died a death invented for the Jews . . . victims of a 'solution' designed for others."52 For another child of survivors, dismayed by what he saw as the museum's blurring of the issue, the deaths of gentile victims "were of a different, non-theological order, untouched by the mysteries that reign at the heart of . . . the 'Tremendum.' " 53

Yehuda Bauer enlisted in the battle against what he called the "Wiesenthal-Carter definition." It reflected, he wrote, gentile "envy" of the Jews' experience in the Holocaust, which "would seem to be an unconscious reflection of anti-Semitic attitudes."

The Holocaust created a pro-Jewish reaction among large numbers of non-Jews. . . . A reversion back to "normalcy" regarding Jews requires the destruction of the Holocaust-caused attitude of sympathy. . . . This is achieved by claiming that the Holocaust was . . . something that happened to many millions of others. . . . The Holocaust then becomes lost, flattened out . . . and a "normal" attitude of anti-Jewishness becomes possible again.54

Wiesel and his allies no doubt feared that the logic of the museum's "eleven million" mandate foreshadowed "other victims" receiving five elevenths of the space. In the end, largely as a result of the influence of survivors on the council, "other victims" wound up receiving little more than perfunctory mention in the museum's permanent exhibition.55 Thus, though he had lost in the preliminary skirmish with Carter over the museum's mandate, Wiesel won the war over its content. Carter's "eleven million" never became operational doctrine at the museum, yet there remained a vague commitment to a principle of inclusion, producing endless wrangling over the definition of the Holocaust at meetings of the council. Council member Hyman Bookbinderthe long-time Washington representative of the American Jewish Committeewas frustrated, and after reviewing the various elusive aphoristic formulas that were trotted out, tried to get Wiesel to answer a straightforward question: ''Are the 'other millions' victims of the Holocaust, or in addition to the Holocaust?''56 Wiesel never gave a direct answer, and neither has the museum.57

Clarity was undesirable and imprudent; much better to leave the matter ambiguous.

The same ambiguity, the same confusion and uncertainty, characterize general American discourse about the Holocaust. Americans are exhorted that they must "confront" or "remember" the Holocaust, but what is it that they are to confront or remember? This isn't a matter of different interpretations or different theories but of what event we're talking about. It's a truismPhilosophy 101that we never directly encounter events, only representations of events, which offer different versions of events. The more highly charged the event, the more evocative it is, the greater the incentive to become invested in different versions of it. An illustration. No text from the Holocaust is more often quoted than Martin Niemöller's confession of his moral failure during the 1930s:

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communistso I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democratso I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jewso I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me. 58

Time magazine, Vice President Al Gore, and a speaker at the 1992 Republican Convention follow the example of The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust in moving Jews from last to first place: "First they came for the Jews."59 Time, Gore, and the Republican speaker omitted Communists and Social Democrats; Gore omitted trade unionists as well.

All three added Catholics (not on Niemöller's original list). Catholics are also added to the version of the quotation inscribed on the Holocaust memorial in Boston, a heavily Catholic city.60 The U.S. Holocaust Museum preserves the list and order intact except for prudently omitting Communists.61 Other versions include homosexuals on Niemöller's list.62 (The quotation has been invoked for causes ranging from Jewish settlement in the West Bank to freedom of the insurance industry from government regulation.)63

This brief survey of the various creative editings of the Niemöller quotation has the merit of underlining the centrality of questions of inclusion and exclusion, but it is in some ways a bad example of what we're looking at. It involves, at least in some cases, deliberate misrepresentation, and it doesn't address the core issue of what it is we're talking about when we talk of "the Holocaust." There is no misrepresentation, deliberate or otherwise, on the part of either those who speak of six or those who speak of eleven. They're talking about different things. But except for those like Henryk Grynberg, who would dig a moat around the six million and raise the drawbridge, these different things are never sharply defined. Even Elie Wiesel, as we saw, preferred ambiguous aphorisms to clear delineation of boundaries.64

While many insist upon six and only six, many others (though rather less insistently) routinely talk of eleven in all sorts of contexts.

The executive director of the Chicago Board of Rabbis finds it "unconscionable" to compare abortion with "the eleven million human beings who were deliberate targets of Hitler's death machine." 65 A spokesman for a campus Hillel organization explains Yom Hashoah to a reporter as "a day of remembering . . . the eleven million people six million of them Jewswho were killed in the Holocaust.''66 (In a way, the young man is right: Yom Hashoah is as Yom Hashoah does; in dozens of cities the annual ceremonies do indeed commemorate "eleven million.'') The executive director of the Baltimore Jewish Council hopes that the renovated Holocaust memorial in that city will be more welcoming to visitors "interested in remembering the eleven million victims of the Third Reich."67 In the Detroit Holocaust Museum, which opened many years ago and prides itself on being the first such institution in the United States, the memorial flame "burns for the six million Jews and five million non-Jews murdered in the Holocaust."68 The Tampa Bay Holocaust Memorial Museum in Florida is, as of this writing, the most recent to open. Elie Wiesel spoke at its inauguration. According to the account in the local newspaper, he delivered his remarks "against a background of eleven eternal flames, representing eleven million victims of the Holocaust." He also performed the ceremonial ribbon-cutting. The ribbon was multicolored: "yellow for Jews, red for political prisoners, black for social outcasts, pink for homosexuals, brown for Gypsies, purple for Jehovah's Witnesses and green for professional criminals."69 Wiesel's private thoughts concerning the iconography were not reported.

The examples in the previous paragraph could be multiplied. The reader will have noted that they come not from gentileswith a conscious or an unconscious anti-Semitic agenda, as Yehuda Bauer would have itbut from Jews.

And they are by no means only highly assimilated Jews; many survivors (and children of survivors) also speak of "eleven."70

Has it been a question of bowing to the pressure of other victimized groups who want in? It is true that among the considerations weighed by the Carter White House, as they moved to "eleven," were requests for inclusion by representatives of Polish American and Ukrainian American organizations. But these were solicited, not spontaneous, expressions of opinion. From World War II to the collapse of the Communist bloc, these groups saw themselves not as victims of Nazism but as members of the family of captive nations, groaning under Soviet tyranny. On the whole, they didn't want to get into talk of the Holocaust, they wanted to get out from under it.

Most popular depictions of the Holocaust had portrayed Poles as guilty bystanders, or worse. Thus there was the frequent assertion, by Wiesel among others, that it was "not an accident" that the Germans had located the murder camps in Poland; they had sought a congenial anti-Semitic environment. 71 (Strip mines aren't located in West Virginia because of the local residents' failure to appreciate the beauty of unspoiled landscapes; that's where the coal is, as Poland was where most of the Jews were.) Ukrainians were regularly portrayed as Nazi auxiliarieswhich, of course, a certain number (a small minority) had been. Insofar as Poles, Ukrainians, and other Eastern European groups participated in Holocaust commemoration, as they very occasionally did, that participation was primarily defensive. Their claim (true enough) that many Poles and Ukrainians had been victims of the Nazi regime was made to offset assertions (sometimes true, sometimes false, and often much too sweeping) that they had been allies of that regime. In any case, except, in a few instances, on the local level, they never had the political, cultural, or financial resources to press their case. This was even more true of Gypsies, whose proportional losses to the Nazi murder program approximated that of Jews. And there were no lobbyists for former Soviet prisoners of the Germans, whose losses through deliberate starvation, disease, and execution ran into the millions.

Paradoxically, the one group that has actively, and successfully, lobbied for inclusion in the ranks of the "eleven million" is the group whose losses contributed the least to that total. Claims by gay activists and their supporters for the number of homosexuals killed by the Third Reich reach as high as one million, and assertions that it was a quarter of a million or half a million are common.72 The actual number of gays who died or were killed in the camps appears to be around five thousand, conceivably as high as ten thousand.73 But unlike other groups that wanted to be recognized as victims of the Holocaust, gays do have political and cultural resources, and they don't face the same hostility to inclusion, based on prewar and wartime experience, encountered by Poles and Ukrainians. Their inclusion, moreover, could be seen as a contribution to the cause of combating homophobia. And many of their spokesmen, who press for inclusion, are Jewish.

If it's not the result of a conscious or an unconscious anti-Semitic agenda, and it's not, with the exception just noted, the result of lobbying by otherwise excluded groups, what does account for the fact that so many have chosen to speak ofto engrave in marble"eleven million"? We ought, in the first place, to note that it's not a matter of either-or. Often "six" and "eleven'' coexist. Thus the New England Holocaust Memorial consists of six striking glass columns on a site in downtown Boston, while the descriptive text on a granite panel at its entrance tells of the murder of "as many as eleven million men, women and children. Six million of them were Jews.'' 74 When one does make a choice to use "eleven" instead of "six," or vice versa, what kind of choice is it? A midwestern schoolteacher, trying, in a class on the Holocaust, to get his students to grasp the enormity of the number "six million," set them to collecting six million pop tops (the tabs you pull off cans of soda). The kids collected enthusiastically and surpassed the original goal, which was therefore recalculated. They would now grasp, or try to grasp, "eleven million."75 When looking at discussions of the Holocaust in the media, the use of six or eleven often seems haphazard. Is the line of type too long to fit? Change eleven to six. Is it too short? Change six to eleven.

Still, "six" long predated "eleven," and we should at least try to account for the increasing frequency with which we encounter eleven, even if all we can do is speculate. In 1980 Senator William Proxmire told his colleagues of the groundbreaking for the Baltimore Holocaust Memorial, and of how it had been held up by a disagreement between the partisans of "six" and of "eleven," with the latter ultimately being chosen. The decision, said Proxmire, "was a wise and thoughtful one. Genocide is not, as many persons erroneously believe, simply a Jewish issue."76 The following year Representative Henry Waxman told his fellow members of the House about the decision of the Jewish community of Denver to share its Holocaust memorialwhich focused on Babi Yarwith local Ukrainian Americans: "While it is true that the majority of victims were Jews damned by the Germans for the 'Final Solution,' many people of other backgrounds also died there. I salute the Babi Yar Foundation for recognizing the suffering and martyrdom of Ukrainians and other Slavs both at the time of the Babi Yar massacre and throughout the period of World War II."77

The values invoked by Proxmire and Waxman are opposition to "parochialism" together with that even more primal value, which both gentile and Jewish children learn in kindergarten"sharing." They suggestthough neither would have used these wordsthat it was wrong for Jews to be possessive or exclusive about the Holocaust, that it was desirable for them to transcend particularism. Those who resisted these appeals, who insisted on the irreducible Jewish specificity of the Holocaust, had powerful arguments on their side. But the appeal of sharing was also powerful. The pervasive discourse of multiculturalism generated not just "neo-particularism" but also sentiment for overcoming particularism. It's been argued that as a condition of getting along in a pluralist American society, all of the three major religions have had to, if not abandon, at least fudge key particularist elements in their traditions. For the Protestants," [only] Jesus saves"; for the Catholics, "no salvation outside the [one true] Church''; for the Jews, "the chosen people." 78 The argument can be pushed too far, but it underlines a real and strong drive in American society toward accommodation. Before World War II, it was common to hear America described as a Christian countrystatistically, a most defensible designation. After the war, the leaders of a no-less-overwhelmingly Christian society had accommodated Jews by coming to speak of our ''Judeo-Christian traditions"; they elevated the 3 percent of American society that was Jewish to symbolic parity with vastly larger groups by speaking of "Protestant-Catholic-Jew." For Jews to make room for others in an "expanded" Holocaust may well have seemed to many. I'm just guessing simply returning the favor.

And, in the end, how much did this whole six-versus-eleven business matter? To some, of course, a great deal. Particularly for those Jews for whom the Holocaust was a holy eventthe deaths of the Nazis' Jewish victims sacred, those of their gentile victims profane the issue was not negotiable. The same was true of those for whom the "big truth" about the Holocaust was its Zionist lessonthat Jewish life in the Diaspora was untenable. For those, including myself, who value precision of expression, "six" describes something specific and determinate; "eleven," even apart from being invented and arbitrary, is unacceptably mushy. (Wiesenthal's invented number may not have been completely arbitrary, since it combines maximum inclusiveness with the preservation of a Jewish majority.) But if we're concerned, as we are in this chapter, with the images and perceptions of the American public at large, these distinctions may not be all that consequential. Even in talk of "eleven," Jews are always taken to be at the center, others at the periphery. Is it then that different from speaking of six million Jewish victims of "the Holocaust, properly speaking," surrounded by a penumbra of other victims of Nazism? In practice, even Holocaust museums formally committed to the memory of "eleven million victims" devote practically all of their exhibit space to the agony of European Jewry; others figure very marginally, sometimes not at all. How many books, movies, or television programs have there been that focused on "other victims"? During the period when Wiesel was wrangling with the Carter White House over the definition of the Holocaust, he gave voice to his anxiety. Survivors, he said, spoke of six million Jewish victims. ''Then some friends . . . began reminding us, 'true, but after all, there were others as well.' It's true; there were others as well. So they said eleven million, six of whom are Jews . . . and in a couple of years, they won't even speak of the six. They will speak only of eleven million." 79

It hasn't (with unimportant exceptions) happened yet, and there are no signs that it's about to happen. But it could.

Michael Collins Piper, The Golem

Chapter Thirteen

Jimmy Carter's "Jewish Problem":
The Not-So-Secret Long-Time War Against Jimmy Carter
by Israel and its Powerful Lobby in Washington

John F. Kennedy was not the only American president to face the wrath of the Israeli lobby in America. As president, and in the years following his four years in the White House (particularly in recent times), JFK's fellow Democrat, Jimmy Carter, has also been a target of Israel and its powerful advocates on American soil. And now, the Israeli lobby is mad at Jimmy Carter—yet again. The former president—a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize—is under fire from the Israeli lobby for comments he made in a new book focusing on the Palestine problem.

The title of Carter's book alone inflamed friends of Israel. Carter's use of the term "apartheid" in the title Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid effectively compares Israel's ongoing treatment of the Christian and Muslim Palestinian Arabs to the former policy of racial separation (known as "apartheid") in South Africa, long since dismantled.

And as anyone who has followed the mass media at any given time during the last 50 years knows full well, the concept of "apartheid" has never had a favorable review. So Carter's use of the term to describe Israel's policies is a pointed one and it sparked heated frenzy in pro-Israel circles.

In his book, the ex-president also pointed a finger at the influence of the Israeli lobby, saying, "Because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned." This comment alone was angrily condemned by Zionist voices as reflecting an old-fashioned "anti-Semitic-conspiracy theory."

Carter also riled supporters of Israel by suggesting that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land."

Speaking on behalf of a high-level clique of Democratic Party fundraisers focus on generating Jewish campaign contributions to the party's coffers, U.S. Congressman Steven J. Israel, a glib New Yorker with presidential aspirations, denounced Carter, attacked the Palestinians and added that the Nobel Peace Prize winner's concerns don't reflect the direction of the Democratic Party. "It reflects the opinion of one man," asserted Israel.

This is not the first time that the former president has come under fire for his criticisms of Israel. Following the most recent Israeli assault on Lebanon, Carter upset Israel's partisans when he said, "I don't think Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon."

But the truth is that Carter's problems with Israel and its American lobby go back to virtually the earliest days of his presidency—a point that many Americans have never really understood. In fact, as far back as March 2, 1978, little more than a year after Carter was sworn in as president, The Wall Street Journal was already noting that even though Carter had just won 75% of the Jewish vote in the presidential election, "various events and occurrences" in Carter's administration had "disturbed Jews." The Journal pointed out that many key leaders in the American Jewish community were "rethinking their commitment to Jimmy Carter" and that some were even "talk[ing] privately about a betrayal' [of Israel by Carter]." The article in the Journal was titled, quite directly, "Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem."

The American Zionists were disturbed that Carter had put pressure on Israel to stop colonizing occupied Arab territories and had made the decision to sell advanced warplanes to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Carter had also dared to use the term "homeland" in reference to Palestinian aspirations—something that, in those days (and even still)—was considered a major offense to Israel's geopolitical demands upon the world.

Citing the harsh words about Carter by several top Jewish Democrats, the Journal said that this criticism "could mean a great deal," pointing out that San Francisco developer Walter Shorenstein, one of the Democratic Party's major fundraisers—and a well-known supporter of Israel—had gone so far as to ask: "Is Israel being sold down the river by [the Carter] administration?"

These questions were being raised as early as 1978, as noted, and by the spring of 1980, when Carter was seeking renomination and re-election, the war against Carter by Israel and its partisans was well under way. Things were so bad, from Carter's perspective, that—according to veteran journalists Andrew and Leslie Cockburn—Carter was heard to tell senior political advisors in a private meeting in the family quarters of the White House that "If I get back in, I'm going to fuck the Jews."

According to the Cockburns, writing in a little-noticed passage in their 1991 book, Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Carter's anger at Israel and its American supporters stemmed not only from increasing attacks on Carter from that corner, but, in particular, from the fact that Carter had discovered—through intercepts made available to him by the National Security Agency—that Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was interfering in American domestic political affairs. Begin had been overheard advising New York Mayor Ed Koch on how to undermine Carter's reelection hopes.

In fact, Koch later went on to endorse Carter's Republican challenger, former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, whose own early rise in both the entertainment industry (and later the political arena) came as a consequence of his close relationship with financial forces and organized crime interests who were prime movers behind the Israeli lobby in America. For more on Reagan's little-known criminal Zionist connections— something not discussed in the mass media—see the shocking new book, Supermob, by investigative journalist Gus Russo.

In addition, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger—who became a key advisor to the Reagan campaign (and later the Reagan White House, just as he advises George W. Bush today)—was huddling with the Israeli ambassador to the United States, urging Israel to "organize forces in the U.S. and Israel" against Carter.

In the end, with Israeli lobby forces and financial contributors coalescing at the highest levels around Reagan, Carter was dislodged from the White House. Since then, Carter has won many accolades for his frank talk about the Middle East, defying the mass media and the Israeli lobby in the process.

As a consequence of his forthright criticisms of Israel, Carter has even been branded a "Holocaust denier."Yes, that's the formal word from a professor of religion touted by the mass media as the world's leading authority on "who's a Holocaust denier and who isn't." No less than Deborah Lipstadt—a hard-looking, mean-tongued agitator ensconced at Emory University in Georgia—announced in a commentary in the Jan. 20, 2007 issue of The Washington Post that the former president was guilty of Holocaust denial.

Let it be noted, though, that Lipstadt didn't say directly that "Jimmy Carter is a Holocaust denier," but she did accuse him, in her specific words, of "almost ignoring the Holocaust," and noted that this was "minimalization of the Holocaust," which, she asserted, "gives inadvertent comfort to those who deny its importance or even its historical reality, in part because it helps them deny Israel's right to exist."

In fact, the most cursory review of Lipstadt's book, Denying the Holocaust—in which she defines "Holocaust denial"—indicates that, in Lipstadt's definition, "minimalizing the Holocaust" is indeed a key facet of Holocaust denial. So Lipstadt was saying that Carter was indeed a "Holocaust denier."

The record shows that Lipstadt not only includes questioning the numbers of Jews who died in World War II to be a form of "Holocaust denial," but she also even includes questioning whether Germany bore primary guilt for instigating World War I—that's the first world war, not World War II—to be a form of denying the Holocaust. Now Carter has been thrown in the briar patch for his literary indiscretion of not having given the Holocaust the recognition Lipstadt claims it is due.

Lipstadt—like many in the leadership of the organized Jewish groups in America—was angry about Carter's aforementioned book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and in her commentary in the The Washington Post, Lipstadt let loose with her rantings against Carter.

Among other things, Lipstadt alleged that Carter "has relied on anti-Semitic stereotypes in defense" of his book and in his responses to his critics and that Carter had "repeatedly fallen back on traditional anti-Semitic canards." Lipstadt noted that Carter "reflexively fell back on this kind of innuendo about Jewish control of the media and government," although, Lipstadt added gratuitously, as if to sound "objective," that perhaps it was "inadvertent" on the part of the former president.

Before Lipstadt added her two cents, Carter had (as we have seen) already been repeatedly tarred as an "anti-Semite" who was promoting "anti-Jewish conspiracy theories," but it was Lipstadt who introduced the "H" word into the angry frenzy over Carter's book, which—despite the opposition, or perhaps precisely because of it—ended up on The New York Times best-seller list for weeks.

Lipstadt was not the only big name hitting Carter. Abe Foxman, chief of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith—the powerful lobby for Israel and a de facto arm of Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad— slammed what he called Carter's "anti-Israel bias."

The ADL published full-page advertisements accusing Carter of "propagating myths about Jewish power." Foxman said that it is "particularly disturbing and dangerous that someone like Jimmy Carter" is contributing to an atmosphere in which, Foxman contended, "anti-Jewish conspiracy theories" were rampant. Carter's remarks, in defense of his book from attacks by Jewish organizations, according to Foxman, were "playing with fire."

Amazingly, despite Carter's efforts to assure the Jewish community that he was not a Jew-hater, including a public address at Brandeis University where he said that he had erred in using language in his book suggesting that he believed the Palestinians were justified in using terrorism to strike back at Israel for its misdeeds, the Jewish Telegraph Agency reported to Jewish readers all across America and around the world that Carter "did little to assuage many of the critics."

To add insult to injury, high-powered international political consultant Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi—founder of the Israel Project and a longtime figure in the Zionist Organization of America—published a blistering attack on Carter saying that he practiced "reverse discrimination" because he favors the darker-skinned Christian and Muslim Palestinians over the "light-skinned" Jews of Israel. Mizrahi even complained that Carter had supported—as she described him—"the dark-skinned President Hugo Chavez"—for president of Venezuela over "a better-qualified and more experienced light-skinned candidate."

According to this Zionist spokeswoman—who has been hailed by Forward, a distinguished Jewish newspaper, as one of the 50 most powerful Jewish Americans—Carter was supposedly practicing this "reverse discrimination," as a way to " [purge] himself before his God from the racist sins of his youth."

The very idea that a Zionist leader would accuse Carter of anti-white racism demonstrates how hysterical Carter's critics have become. And the truth is that the ranks of eminent Jewish Americans who have added Carter to their enemies list continues to grow day by day.

The irony is that Carter's book is hardly the anti-Semitic screed those critics suggest. If anything, Carter is only saying what he has been saying—and what millions upon millions of well-meaning people have been saying—for years: that Israel should stop oppressing and discriminating against the Muslim and Christian Palestinians and that Israel should return to its official pre-1967 borders. And that is hardly calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, as many of Carter's critics are implicitly suggesting he advocates.

That a former United States president—who remains highly regarded internationally and who is admired by many Americans for his candor—is now speaking out so forcefully regarding Israel's misdeeds (and of its malign influence, through its American lobby, on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy making) is a positive development indeed.

However—like JFK before him—Jimmy Carter faces strong opposition. And it is worth noting, too, for the historical record, that yet another Democratic president (no less than Bill Clinton) very clearly ran afoul of Israel during his presidency. In the chapter which follows we will examine Bill Clinton's own "secret war with Israel."[END OF CHAPTER]

Michael Collins Piper

The Caiaphas Complex : An unsettling, unexpurgated exploration of the dark side of the power structure that misrules America and our world today... (2012)

Carter se dit d'accord pour le droit au retour des juifs en Palestine, mais demande: à quand un droit égal accordé aux Palestiniens de revenir sur les territoires d'où ils ont été chassés par Israël?

Jimmy Carter: Netanyahu has Abandoned Two-state Solution in Favor of Greater Israel
Jimmy Carter says Netanyahu has turned his back on peace
Jimmy Carter Blames Netanyahu for 'Zero Chance' of Two-State Solution

En fait Carter est très conciliant lorsqu'il demande à Israël de revenir à ses frontières de 1967, car cela leur laisserait une portion de territoire considérable. Mais pour Israël, ce sont les "frontières d'Auschwitz"--c'est l'Inconcevable qui menace de se reproduire encore une fois! ("Never Again!")

Bibi: the 1967 lines are ‘Auschwitz Borders’ By Frank Dimant CEO, B’nai Brith Canada
Once again, the United States is applying significant pressure on Israel to advance the Middle East peace process. Not satisfied with Israel’s freeing of over a hundred Palestinian terrorists with blood on their hands, Israel is called upon, once again, to accept the 1967 armistice lines, better known to informed Mideast observers as the “Auschwitz Lines”, as the basis for a starting point to the peace talks.

Ceux que le PDG de la B'nai Brith appelle "des observateurs informés", c-à-d ceux qui qualifient les vieilles frontières israéliennes de 1967 de "frontières d'Auschwitz", ce sont LES POLITICIENS ET ANALYSTES SIONISTES ISRAÉLIENS LES PLUS EXTÉMISTES! C'est connu dans la société israélienne que ceux qui tiennent ce discours en Israël ce sont les politiciens les plus à droite (incluant également plusieurs analystes qui se disent "de gauche" mais qui suivent quand même les idées radicales pro-colonisation normalisées par la droite).

Jimmy Carter condamne Israël et appelle Washington à reconnaître Hamas

Recognize Hamas as legitimate ‘political actor’: Jimmy Carter (JNS.org) – The United States and the European Union should recognize that the Hamas terrorist organization “is not just a military but also a political force,” former US president Jimmy Carter wrote in article published by Foreign Policy magazine last Tuesday.
“Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise. Only by recognizing its legitimacy as a political actor – one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people – can the West begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons,” Carter stated in an opinion piece co-written with former Irish president Mary Robinson.
While the authors acknowledged Hamas’s “indiscriminate targetting” of Israelis, they focussed their criticism on Israel during the latest conflict.
“There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israel Defence Forces are conducting this war,” they wrote. “Israeli bombs, missiles and artillery have pulverized large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools, and hospitals.”
Carter has been criticized by many in the Jewish community for his 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which criticizes Israel’s presence in the West Bank. Carter has also been criticized for meeting with Hamas officials and calling for an end to the blockade of Gaza.

President Carter: Israel – Not Hamas – Is to Blame for War Says Failure to Recognize Hamas Is the Core Problem

"Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem."

Jimmy Carter: 'Being Called Worst President Is a Compliment Coming from Warmonger McCain'

Obama's real problem with Netanyahu The White House views Netanyahu as a foot soldier in the service of the extreme-right branch of the Republican Party. They long ago came to the conclusion that Sheldon Adelson - the casino magnate who blew $100 million on his efforts to oust Obama - does not work for Netanyahu, but rather Netanyahu works for Adelson. (...) The problem is that Netanyahu has become a domestic political enemy of the president and his party. This is a misstep of historical proportions, as it places Israel outside of the American consensus for the first time since the 1950s. This is also a problem in practical terms. Supposing the Democrats hold on to Senate control - the White House will remember where the Israeli government had positioned itself in this battle. Supposing the Democrats cede control of the Senate – the president would lose his grip on domestic issues, and focus on foreign affairs, as many of his predecessors have done. Thus Israel would meet Obama again, this time as wounded president. After all, it has happened to us in the past, with a certain Jimmy Carter.

JPOST-'Jimmy Carter's cancer is God's punishment for his behavior toward Jews

CAMERA: Praise for Carter Ignores Ex-President's Anti-Israel Obsession

Jew-Hater Jimmy Carter Announces ‘Cancer Spread to My Brain’ and Then Attacks Israel Again, By Shlomo

"Cancer punishes those who support Palestinians"

NEWSMAX - Jimmy Carter: From Nobel Prize to 'Terrorist' Ties

Who is Jimmy Carter but a thorn in Israel’s side? Now that you see Jimmy Carter’s close association with the United Nations, would you feel comfortable inviting him into your own home? Would you trust his “wisdom” and his ideas for “peace?” For a man of God to associate with such Godless an entity as the United Nations, an entity designed to govern Henry Kissinger’s description of the coming new “World Order,” is troubling indeed and down right scary. May God bless Israel. May God bless Benjamin Netanyahu for his strength and courage for standing against evil.

Selon certains commentateurs juifs israéliens néocons, comme Earl Cox (JPOST), partisan de Bibi Netanyahou, Carter ferait partie du grand "complot unusien"! Voilà un cas patent d'inversion typique du complotismes néocon, obsédés par l'Onu et l'islamogauchisme.