GAMLA: NEWS AND VIEWS FROM ISRAEL
Volume 7 Issue 54 Jerusalem, Israel
14 Kislev 5767 December 5, 2006
1. Jimmy Carter: "I oppose a Palestinian State"
2. Teheran's Holocaust Denial Conference
GAMLA HOMEPAGE: http://www.gamla.org.il/english
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS NEWSLETTER : http://www.gamla.org.il/english/sub.htm
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: firstname.lastname@example.org
Jimmy Carter: "I oppose a Palestinian State"
By Jeff Ballabon
"... I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own
judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East,
including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the
Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States
(Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership
Conference, February 25, 1980).
"...we oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The
United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship
of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible
with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of
America's own strategic interests.
We are committed to Israel's security, prosperity, and future as a
land that has so much to offer to the world. A strong Israel and a
strong Egypt serve our own security interests.We are committed to
Israel's right to live in peace with all its neighbors, within secure
and recognized borders, free from terrorism.
We are committed to a Jerusalem that will forever remain undivided
with free access to all faiths to the holy places.
Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and
(Source: First anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli
Peace Treaty / White House joint conference, March 23, 1980).
What has changed in the last 25 years? Not Israel's 1948
independence. Not the 1967 war. Not the cynical, ignominous treatment
of Arab refugees by the Arab world.
So why, 25 years later, is Israel's right to exist a matter of
debate, while Palestine's right to exist is presumed by everyone from
the United Nations to Jimmy Carter to George Bush to Ehud Olmert?
Why, when the Palestinian leaderships - PA and Hamas - the first
imposed and the second popularly elected, demonstrate that their
chief characteristics are, respectively, corrupt thuggery and bloody
holy war, why then is endless-concession-making, negotiating,
retreating, disengaging, humanitarian-aid-giving, appeasing Israel
viewed as the "destabilizing factor?"
Did a massive land-grab by Israel precede Carter's new book? On the
contrary: a massive land-surrender preceded the book. And, in fact,
when it retreats, morally, intellectually, politically, physically,
Israel does become the destabilizing factor - or at least surrenders
its role as the stabilizer of the world's most volatile region.
What has changed is Israel's own resolve. Why should anyone else
fight to support a nation whose political elite takes every
opportunity and advantage we give it and squanders it? Why should
anyone else fight for a nation which sacrifices its soldiers rather
than vanquishes its enemy? Why should anyone else fight for a nation
which has ceased believing in itself? Which cravenly begs forgiveness
on the rare occasions it actually defends its citizens? Why should
anyone fight for a Jewish homeland which seems bent on denying its
Jewishness? Why should anyone care about a state which retreats from
its victories? Which sheds its democratic veneer to brutalize and
displace its most patriotic and committed citizens, its idealists,
its pioneers? Why should anyone care for an Israel that is willing,
even eager, in its quest for a "secular revolution" to declare that
the Jewish heritage is an albatross, that Judea and Samaria are a
burden, and that Jerusalem is negotiable? That the State of Israel
is, in fact, seeking to disengage from the Holy Land?
The turning point, perhaps the catalyst, was Oslo; the Bill
Clinton/Ehud Barak plan to (in Clinton negotiator Dennis Ross'
terminology) dispense with the "mythologies" in order to negotiate.
How very modern and enlightened and liberal and civilized. And how
very destructive and foolish and deadly. The ideas, the principles,
the vision, the morals, the truths which they disdain as mythologies
were and are the very heart of Israel's national aspiration. It was
the vision that kept Jews alive through millenia of diaspora and
dispersion, crusade, expulsion, forced conversion, blood libel and
pogrom, and, finally, Holocaust And the heart may be romanticized as
the seat of emotion, but only the hopelessly deluded excises it and
thinks the body will survive. Only the deluded excises the heart. Or
What has changed, in consequence, is the resolve of Israel's enemies
as well. And, because they are not burdened by the selfish inanity of
modern liberalism, they have not lost their willingness to suffer and
to sacrifice. The suicides they are committing are anything but
deluded; their terror is a winning strategy. Rather than eliciting
disgust and fury, rather than being condemned as unutterably
barbaric, the use of civilians as targets, children as bombs and
grandmothers as bunkers has even brought them the sympathies of the
deluded West. Not only in the corridors of the UN or the salons of
Europe - but even in those enlightened liberal precincts in Israel
where the stubborn, unruly Jewish "mythologies" have long since been
relegated, surrendered, sublimated to an oh-so-superior modern
Israeli multicultural consciousness.
It often has been said that the Jews are the canary in the coalmine.
Pay close attention, for what is playing out in Israel today is the
future of the West.
Teheran's Holocaust Denial Conference (World's Sympathy With Jews Has Expired Alert)
Frontpagemag.com P. David Hornik
Posted on 12/05/2006 1:24:08 AM PST by goldstategop
Iran, which has often proclaimed its intent to carry out a second
Holocaust, this time against the Jews concentrated in Israel, will be
holding a Holocaust-denial conference on December 11-12.
A certain illogic is evident: if you yourself find Jews so loathsome
that you seek to exterminate them, why is it implausible that someone
else should have had the same idea and acted on it, especially when
so many people including all reputable historians say that is exactly
what happened just six decades ago?
The illogic is compounded by the fact that just last August Teheran
held an international Holocaust-cartoon contest in which the
allegedly fictitious event served as material for the cartoonists'
Nevertheless, the website of Iran's Foreign Ministry announces that
the conference, to be called "Study of Holocaust: A Global
Perspective," aims to "create opportunities...for a suitable
scientific research so the hidden and unhidden angles of this most
important political issue of the 20th century become more
transparent." The ministry's Institute for Political and
International Studies is organizing the conference and calling on
"researchers" to participate.
Topics will include "anti-Semitism, Nazism and Zionism: collaboration
or animosity; the concept of Holocaust and its roots; views of
revisionists; denial or admittance of gas chambers" as well as "the
laws against those who deny Holocaust and killing of the
A psychological issue is whether the seekers of a new Holocaust
really disbelieve in the old one or just want to divest today's Jews
of the moral, political, and financial power they think the old
Holocaust confers on them. On a more emotional level, the Iranian
(and other) Holocaust deniers could be motivated by aggression toward
the victims of Hitler's Holocaust, seeking both to "murder" them a
second time by denying their deaths while also mocking those deaths
in cartoons and the like. This sense of aggression toward long-dead
victims would only underline the severity of the hatred toward the
still-living, somewhat-militarily-powerful Jews of Israel.
Teheran may now be the epicenter of such attitudes, but they radiate
extensively from it to the Arab and Muslim worlds and beyond. In
Europe, where Holocaust denial is still mostly considered in poor
taste, the impatience with Israel's continued existence is very much
in vogue as seen, for instance, in a recent BBC symposium on whether
Israel will continue to exist in fifty years, or in the poll of EU
countries three years ago that ranked Israel "the greatest danger to
world peace." In America, prestigious scholars and former top
officials push the view that Israel is (with its supporters) the crux
of America's foreign policy problems and the cause of the world jihad
In such a climate, it is no surprise that neither Teheran's cartoon
contest in August nor its upcoming denial convocation have drawn much
attention. It also makes sense that the current leading
second-Holocaust proponent, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has
not only not been charged or penalized for his repeated calls for
politicide and genocideâ€”manifestly illegal under the UN Charterâ€”but
was received as an honored guest at the UN itself and the Council on
Foreign Relations and granted a chummy Mike Wallace interview by CBS.
After not-quite six decades, the world, apart from still-substantial
support in America and a few pockets of it elsewhere, has pretty much
had it with the Jewish State and is content to trade or endlessly
negotiate with Iran as it quite openly and brazenly pursues that
state's destruction. The depth of such animosity lies beyond