Nicholas Kristof, "President Carter, Am I a Christian?": Coffee in Hell With Gandhi

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "President Carter, Am I a Christian?," Nicholas Kristof tells us of a recent "email conversation" with Jimmy Carter. (Which of these two Israel bashers do I despise more?) Kristof asked the former president:

"One of my problems with evangelicalism is that it normally argues that one can be saved only through a personal relationship with Jesus, which seems to consign Gandhi to hell. Do you believe that?"

And Carter answered:

"I do not feel qualified to make a judgment. I am inclined to give him (or others) the benefit of any doubt."

Translation, I'm f*cked.

Which brings me to one of my favorite jokes: A man, who recently died, descends to hell and is met there by Satan. Satan says to the man, "We don't pretend that this is summer camp, but we like to provide choices to those who have come to spend eternity with us. As such, you can pick option number one..." Satan points at millions of hapless souls walking over searing hot coals. "Option number two..." Satan points at millions of sinners whose limbs are being torn apart on the rack. "Or option number three..." Satan points to a multitude of wrongdoers standing waste-deep in excrement and drinking coffee.

The new arrival thinks for a moment and declares, "The smell of that cesspit is overwhelming, but I do like to drink coffee."

"So be it," responds Satan. "A cup of coffee, please, for our friend."

An imp comes running over and pours a cup of coffee for the newcomer, who wades into the sea of sewage, whereupon an announcement is made over the intercom system: "Coffee break over, back on your heads."

Coffee? Yes, at least five cups each day. Mahatma, I'm on my way.

Jimmy Carter, "A Five-Nation Plan to End the Syrian Crisis": Senile Dementia

Tweet

In a self-congratulatory guest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Five-Nation Plan to End the Syrian Crisis," Jimmy Carter would have us know:

"Before the revolution began in March 2011, Syria set a good example of harmonious relations among its many different ethnic and religious groups, including Arabs, Kurds, Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians who were Christians, Jews, Sunnis, Alawites and Shiites. The Assad family had ruled the country since 1970, and was very proud of this relative harmony among these diverse groups."

Excuse me, but why is there no reference here to the February 1982 Hama Massacre in which somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 Sunnis were slaughtered by Hafez al-Assad?

Syria's Kurds? They have experienced decades of oppression.

Jews in Syria? All 50 of them?

Carter continues (my emphasis in red):

"For the past three years, the Carter Center has been working with Syrians across political divides, armed opposition group leaders and diplomats from the United Nations and Europe to find a political path for ending the conflict. This effort has been based on data-driven research about the Syrian catastrophe that the center has conducted, which reveals the location of different factions and clearly shows that neither side in Syria can prevail militarily."

"Neither side"? Sorry, Jimmy, but there are at least a dozen sides battling it out in Syria.

Carter's conclusion:

"The involvement of Russia and Iran is essential. Mr. Assad’s only concession in four years of war was giving up chemical weapons, and he did so only under pressure from Russia and Iran. Similarly, he will not end the war by accepting concessions imposed by the West, but is likely to do so if urged by his allies.

Mr. Assad’s governing authority could then be ended in an orderly process, an acceptable government established in Syria, and a concerted effort could then be made to stamp out the threat of the Islamic State.

The needed concessions are not from the combatants in Syria, but from the proud nations that claim to want peace but refuse to cooperate with one another."

Iran, now sending troops to Syria and hoping to establish a new front against Israel in the Golan Heights, is going to force Assad to abdicate? Not a chance.

Go back to sleep, Jimmy.

Jimmy Carter's Successor Emerges: Obama to Haunt Us for Many Years to Come

Tweet

Jimmy Carter is ill with cancer, but a globetrotting narcissistic successor, steeped in progressive hatred of Israel, is already emerging. In a New York Times article entitled "With High-Profile Help, Obama Plots Life After Presidency," Michael D. Shear and Gardiner Harris inform us:

"Publicly, Mr. Obama betrays little urgency about his future. Privately, he is preparing for his postpresidency with the same fierce discipline and fund-raising ambition that characterized the 2008 campaign that got him to the White House.

The long-running dinner this past February is part of a methodical effort taking place inside and outside the White House as the president, first lady and a cadre of top aides map out a postpresidential infrastructure and endowment they estimate could cost as much as $1 billion."

One billion dollars! Can you even begin to imagine the impact that this amount could have on hunger in America?

But then, what is one billion dollars compared with the $2.5 billion that Hillary plans to spend in order to become America's next president?

May the Lord have mercy on us!

The Washington Post, "Israeli leaders don’t meet with Jimmy Carter during Middle East visit": No Mention of What Carter Said About Khaled Mashaal

In a Washington Post article entitled "Israeli leaders don’t meet with Jimmy Carter during Middle East visit," William Booth writes:

"In East Jerusalem on Saturday, Carter, 90, said that he and his traveling companion, former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, did not ask for a meeting with Netanyahu or his cabinet because they assumed they would be rebuffed as past requests were.

'It would be a waste of time to ask,' Carter said.


. . . .

Carter advocates negotiations with Hamas, a group that the United States and Israel consider a terror organization."

But now have a look at an article entitled "Carter says Hamas leader committed to peace, Netanyahu not" in today's Times of Israel, which reports:

"Carter, who cancelled a planned visit to Gaza on this trip, said Saturday he 'deplored' criminal acts by members of Hamas, but said he was looking to support moderate members of the group, which he said wasn’t a terrorist organization.

'I don’t believe that he’s a terrorist. He’s strongly in favor of the peace process,' Carter said of Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal."

Mashaal, who was responsible for launching 4,000 rockets at Israeli towns and cities during 2014 is not a terrorist and strongly favors the peace process? Yeah, right.

But more to the point, why does The Washington Post make reference to Carter's contempt for Netanyahu, but fail to report Carter's declaration regarding Mashaal in the above-mentioned article? Has this no relevance to the refusal of Israeli leaders to meet with Jimmy?

Let's see what the editors of WaPo have to say in this regard.

Jimmy Carter, "United Palestinian government may provide new opportunities for peace": Another Anti-Israel Harangue

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "United Palestinian government may provide new opportunities for peace" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jimmy-carter-united-palestinian-government-may-provide-new-opportunities-for-peace/2014/05/12/9e36f4a8-d9dd-11e3-b745-87d39690c5c0_story.html?hpid=z2), Jimmy Carter would have us believe that reconciliation between the PLO and Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis) and rejects in absolute terms a negotiated peace solution with Israel, "may provide an opportunity for a new round of peace talks, permitting Israel finally to live in peace with its neighbors." Yeah, right.

Bur before arriving at this conclusion, Carter is swift to blame Israel for the failure of the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which were sponsored by John Kerry. Carter writes:

"With the suspension of U.S.-sponsored peace talks on April 29, dangerous unilateral steps are likely to continue. During the previous nine months of negotiation, 14,000 new Israeli settlement units were approved, more than 3,000 Palestinians were arrested and 50 were killed, provoking troubling examples of Palestinian retaliation, including the deaths of three Israelis."

Re new Israeli settlements, Carter makes certain not to examine the facts. As observed by in a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Israel gets no credit from Obama for a year of moderate settlement construction" by Elliott Abrams and Uri Sadot (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/israel-gets-no-credit-from-obama-for-a-year-of-moderate-settlement-construction/2014/03/13/d2ee1b12-aab8-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html):

"Israel built 2,534 housing units last year in the West Bank. Of these, about a quarter (694) were in two major blocs near Jerusalem, Giv’at Ze’ev and Betar Illit, and 537 were in two other major blocs, Modiin Illit and Ma’ale Adumim, also near Jerusalem. These four, which will remain part of Israel, account for half of last year’s construction. They are not isolated outposts but instead are towns with populations in the tens of thousands, near the Green Line, as the 1949 armistice line and 1967 border are known.

The critical figure to monitor is the number of Israeli houses built outside such blocs in areas intended for the future state of Palestine. What the CBS data tell us on that question is that only 908 units were built last year in Israeli townships of 10,000 residents or fewer. And most of those units were built in settlement towns that are part of the major blocs. Units built in areas that would become part of Palestine number in the hundreds — and likely in the low hundreds. Given that about 90,000 Israelis live in the West Bank outside the blocs, that is approximately the rate of natural growth. So much for [President Obama's] claim of 'aggressive construction.'"

With regard to the arrest of Palestinians, are we to ignore ongoing Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians? Carter doesn't bother to mention that more than 100 rockets and mortar shells have been fired at Israeli towns and cities from Hamas-controlled Gaza since the beginning of 2014.

Moreover, additional examples of Palestinian terrorism directed against Israeli civilians are not lacking. For example, there was the December 22, 2013 bus bombing in Bat Yam, Israel, in which disaster was averted when an alert passenger noticed a suspicious unattended bag. In January, Israel arrested four Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives responsible for the bombing, including a Palestinian Authority police officer.

Fifty Palestinians have been killed during the past nine months? Carter's "unbiased" source for this information is Secretary General of the National Palestinian Initiative, Mustafa Al-Barghouti, who declared that "approximately" 50 Palestinians had been killed (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/10428-50-palestinians-killed-during-current-peace-talks). Regrettably, Carter and Barghouti fail to inform us whether this number includes terrorists killed while firing rockets or terrorists who died in "work place accidents" while preparing bombs.

But why should we be surprised by any of this, given Carter's hatred of Israel? As noted by The Elder of Zion (http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/jimmy-carter-called-hafez-assad-close.html#.U3G-7MKKDct):

"In February, 1982, Syria's president Hafez al-Assad murdered between 30-40,000 people in the city of Hama.

A year later, in March 1983, Jimmy Carter referred to the mass murderer as 'a close personal friend' who he has a 'special relationship' with. He expressed the hope that if Assad would come to the negotiating table, he could be on the same side as the Egyptians, Palestinians, Jordanians, and Americans in pressuring - Israel."

Hafez al-Assad was of course the father of Syria's current leader, mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, responsible for the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Why does WaPo still provide Carter with a platform to vent his thinly disguised anti-Semitism? God only knows.

Jimmy Carter, "The World Now Has a Chance to End War in Syria": A Reserved Room in Hell

Do you remember Jimmy Carter's convivial 2008 meetings in Damascus with his buddy Bashar al-Assad and various leaders of Hamas (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/carter.hamas/)? Well, this narcissist, still seeking the limelight, is back with more advice.

Today, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The world now has a chance to end war in Syria" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jimmy-carter-the-world-now-has-a-chance-to-end-war-in-syria/2013/09/11/d83cdd60-1981-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html?hpid=z3), Carter writes:

"The only way to be assured that Syrian chemical weapons will not be used in the future is not through a military strike but through a successful international effort.

. . . .

If fully implemented in dozens of sites throughout Syria, this effort to secure the chemical weapons would amount to a cease-fire, with a large U.N. peacekeeping force deployed. In the best of circumstances, this could lead to convening the Geneva peace conference, perhaps including Iran, that could end the conflict.

. . . .

Despite the claims and counterclaims that have surrounded the chemical attack near Damascus on Aug. 21 and an unknown number of earlier attacks, the issues are now clearly defined. The main goals of condemning the use of these outlawed weapons and preventing their further use can still be realized by concerted international action."

Does Carter acknowledge that the Assad regime used sarin against civilians? No way. Instead, Carter cites "division among world leaders about who is responsible for the atrocity."

A "successful international effort," "concerted international action," and "convening the Geneva peace conference" to end the conflict and prevent future use of chemical weapons by Assad? Yeah, Russia, China and Iran are sure to see to that.

My understanding is that Satan is reserving a very special place in hell for Jimmy.

Roger Cohen, "Netanyahu the Peacemaker": Cohen's Jaw-Dropping Ignorance

Roger Cohen is again training his "thoughts" on the Middle East, and those familiar with his dazzling intellect, will not be disappointed by this latest display of ignorance and naivete, as Cohen, who declared in 2009 that Iran is "not totalitarian," weighs in on the forthcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington. Cohen, of course, does not speak Hebrew or Arabic and, to the best of my knowledge, has never lived in the region, but that never stopped him from spouting balderdash in the past.

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "Netanyahu the Peacemaker" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/opinion/global/roger-cohen-netanyahu-the-peacemaker.html?_r=0), Cohen quotes at length Jimmy Carter, a man who is ignored by Israel's leadership when he visits Israel. Why? Well maybe it has something to do with Carter's problems reconciling truth with his prejudices. You will recall that Dr. Kenneth W. Stein, a professor at Emory University who was the Mideast Fellow at the Carter Center, resigned from the Carter Center over Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." Explaining his resignation, Dr. Stein wrote (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/12/07/fox-facts-dr-kenneth-w-stein-letter/):

"President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.

Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book.

Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade.

Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary."

Yup, Carter, who chickened out of a debate over "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" with Alan Dershowitz, is just the person for Cohen to quote. As reported by Cohen, Carter is now proclaiming from London that peace should be premised upon the 1967 "borders" (there were no borders in 1967, only armistice lines):

"Carter said a resolution should be based on the 1967 borders, 'with one exception — that is that there can be land swaps very near Jerusalem for the major Israeli settlements, and acre by acre or hectare by hectare the land that’s given by the Palestinians to Israel for these major settlements will be repaid to the Palestinians on an equal basis.'

He said Palestinian return would have to be to the West Bank or Gaza — 'unless it’s a few dozen or something like that' to Israel. He said, 'I have met many, many hours with Hamas leaders, and they have assured me for a long time that they will accept any negotiation that is successful between the P.L.O. and Israel if it is put to the Palestinian people in a referendum.'"

Wonderful! You will recall that in 2007, Carter took pride in his intimate relationship with the Assad family in Syria (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7022490):

"Of course, I began meeting with Hafez al-Assad, who is now deceased as you know, back when I was president. I think back in back in 1977 in May or June. I have forgotten exactly which, but I met with him, trying to get him to support a peace process. On one occasion he invited me to meet with him and his entire family, and I met all his children and got to know them. One of them was a college student who is now the president of Syria."

It never bothered Carter that Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's father, was responsible for the 1982 Hama massacre, which resulted in the deaths of up to 45,000 Syrian civilians.

Now Carter, obviously a wonderful judge of human character, is attesting to the credibility of Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

But what about a Palestinian referendum involving a peace treaty with Israel? Once all the issues are resolved, are Palestinians willing to accept a Jewish Israel? The answer can be found in a recent poll conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah (https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8nov25d4edqlcr/hu130702_Joint_Israeli_Palestinian_Poll.pdf):

"As we do periodically in our joint polls, we asked Israelis and Palestinians about their readiness for a mutual recognition as part of a permanent status agreement and after all issues in the conflict are resolved and a Palestinian State is established. Our current poll shows that 16% of the Israeli public supports such a mutual recognition and 66% opposes it. Among Palestinians, 42% support and 56% oppose this step. In June 2012, 53% of the Israelis supported and 43% opposed this mutual recognition; among Palestinians, the corresponding figures were similar to the current poll(43% support and 55% oppose)."

In short, a majority of Palestinians are not willing to recognize Israel, and this explains the readiness of Hamas to bring any peace agreement to a Palestinian referendum.

What else did Cohen miss?

Not mentioned in Cohen's opinion piece is the fact that on Sunday, Israel's cabinet voted to free Palestinian security prisoners, including persons with "blood on their hands," in order to facilitate the peace talks in Washington. As reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/cabinet-votes-to-release-prisoners-paving-way-for-peace-talks/):

"After a bitter debate lasting several hours, Israeli ministers voted Sunday to gradually release 104 long-term Palestinian prisoners in order to facilitate this week’s resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians.

Thirteen ministers voted for the measure, seven against and two abstained. The vote approved the establishment of a committee to manage the phased process of prisoner releases, and approved the resumption of the talks, which are set to restart after a hiatus of almost three years in Washington on Tuesday."

So why did the Israeli cabinet overwhelmingly support this difficult decision, which is so hard to justify to Israel's long-suffering populace? The question never occurs to would-be Middle East expert Cohen.

The answer? Hint: It might have something to do with Iran's ongoing efforts to build its first atomic weapon.

Enough said.

NBC News, "Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs": Obama Likes to Watch

Back to the movies (How I love 'em!). No doubt you remember the memorable line of Chance the Gardener (Peter Sellers) from "Being There": "I like to watch." Well, the same can be said of President Obama.

NBC News has now informed us (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15706380-syria-loads-chemical-weapons-into-bombs-military-awaits-assads-order?lite):

"The Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting final orders from President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.

The military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs that could be dropped onto the Syrian people from dozens of fighter-bombers, the officials said.

. . . .

U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, one of the officials said, 'there's little the outside world can do to stop it.'"

Nothing the world can do? NATO couldn't possibly consider destroying Assad's planes on the ground?

And here I thought President Obama had warned Bashar al-Assad:

"The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable and if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

Assad, long courted by Obama, was never very stable, and quite honestly there is no way of knowing whether or not he will bomb the rebels with chemical weapons if his grip on Damascus grows even weaker.

Unlike Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Barbara Walters, I have never had the "honor" of meeting this mass murderer, but I would be willing to bet that he will not allow his body and that of his wife to be dragged through the streets of the Syrian capital.

Does Obama's threat, "there will be consequences," remind you of anything? It should. Recall how Obama also told the Iranians regarding his demand that they halt their nuclear weapons development program, "I don't bluff." We all know how seriously the mullahs have regarded Obama's admonition.

"There will be consequences"? "I don't bluff"? In fact, much akin to Chance the Gardener, Obama "likes to watch."

Thomas Friedman, "Why Not in Vegas?": How About a Little Honesty, Tom?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Not in Vegas?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/opinion/friedman-why-not-in-vegas.html), Thomas Friedman attacks Romney for pandering to AIPAC and Israel. Friedman begins by observing:

"I’ll make this quick. I have one question and one observation about Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel. The question is this: Since the whole trip was not about learning anything but about how to satisfy the political whims of the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu, American Jewish casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, why didn’t they just do the whole thing in Las Vegas? I mean, it was all about money anyway — how much Romney would abase himself by saying whatever the Israeli right wanted to hear and how big a jackpot of donations Adelson would shower on the Romney campaign in return. Really, Vegas would have been so much more appropriate than Jerusalem. They could have constructed a plastic Wailing Wall and saved so much on gas."

Obama today believes that the US should not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Did it ever occur to Obama and his foreign policy advisers, including Samantha Power, who advocated sending US troops to protect Palestinians from Israel (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdt6fjdHQw), that his refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital adds credibility to Arab attacks on Israel's legitimacy?

It should come as no surprise that Friedman showers praise in this opinion piece on Jimmy Carter, who accused Israel of apartheid, yet cowardly refused to debate Alan Dershowitz on the issue; Henry Kissinger, who infamously told Nixon during the War of Atonement, "Let them [the Israelis] bleed a little"; and James Baker, who was quoted as saying, "Fuck the Jews - they didn't vote for us anyway."

Yes, I find Friedman revolting. Enough said.

New York Times Editorial, "The Killing in Syria Goes On": No Mention of Obama's Culpability

In "The Killing in Syria Goes On" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/the-killing-in-syria-goes-on.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), the editorial board of The New York Times demands that the Arab League "impose muscular penalties for Mr. Assad’s brutality." It is despicable how far behind the curve the Times has fallen, and I am sickened by the extreme lengths being taken by the Times to shield Obama and friends, i.e. Hillary, Samantha Power, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Jimmy Carter and others, from even partial responsibility for this human tragedy.

Obama rode into the Oval Office determined to demonstrate that the countries comprising the Bush administration's "axis of evil" were merely misunderstood and could be won over with tolerance and a kindly outreach program. More specifically, he believed that Israel was the fount of all tensions in the Middle East, and if a peace agreement could be imposed upon a purportedly intransigent Israel, tranquility would prevail throughout the region.

In keeping with this sea change in foreign policy, Obama promptly sent new year's ("Nowruz") greetings to Iran's theocratic leadership in March 2009, referring to the "true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization" and making clear that the US did not seek regime change. Moreover, Obama sat on the sidelines as Iran's population rose in revolt and was slaughtered in the streets following the country's fraudulent June 2009 presidential election.

Regarding Syria, after repeated visits by Senator John Kerry with Assad, Obama appointed a new ambassador, Robert Ford, to Damascus, without Senate confirmation, for the first time since 2005, when Lebanese Prime Minister Rafi Hariri, a friend of the West, was murdered by Hezbollah at the behest of Assad. Obama barely said a word when earlier this year Assad mowed down protesters, but grew uneasy when the number of dead spiraled over 2,000 (now closer to 3,500) and the number of missing also moved into the thousands.

There were embarrassingly belated denunciations from Obama, again "leading from behind," regarding Assad's atrocities, and both the US and the EU were delinquent in imposing sanctions upon the purchase of oil from Syria. Even the Times acknowledged that it had taken Obama too long to call for Assad to step down (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/opinion/truth-about-syria.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).

Those who read this blog know:

• In December 2010, I denounced Obama's appointment of Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/12/like-thief-in-night-obama-appoints.html).

• In April 2011, I asked that the US ambassador to Damascus be recalled (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/recall-us-ambassador-to-syria-now-shame.html). Regrettably, Obama waited until October before removing him (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45013668/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-pulls-out-ambassador-syria-over-safety-fears/).

• In June 2011, I predicted that there would be a savage civil war in Syria (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/07/syria-beginning-of-savage-civil-war.html).

• In July 2011, I predicted that elements of the Syrian army will defect and that Assad will abandon Syria with his family. I also questioned whether Syria's Sunnis will be intent upon inflicting revenge upon the ruling Alawite minority (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/syria-butchery-ignored-by-arab.html).

I hope that those who read my blog in Arlington agree that I have not been far off the mark. Although it is not clear where Assad and his family will ultimately seek asylum, it is not his intention to die in the same manner as Libya's Qaddafi.

What will be the consequences of Assad's departure? This will certainly complicate efforts by Iran to supply Hezbollah, its proxy in Lebanon, with weaponry. Also, with Syria, soon to be ruled by its Sunni majority, no longer supporting Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon, there will again be a reshuffling of power among Lebanon's Shiites, Sunnis, Christians and Druze.

Watch for the next move of Walid Jumblatt, leader of Lebanon's Druze, who has always sought to ally himself with those who on the ascendancy and who for many years has served as a reliable weather vane.

Hamas, which rules Gaza, but has headquarters in Damascus, will need to find a new home. Its close association with Assad, an Alawite responsible for the murder of thousands of Syrian Sunnis (Palestinians are also Sunnis), is proving an embarrassment.

Assad's departure will be a mixed blessing for Israel. While supportive of Hezbollah's provocations across the Lebanese border with Israel, Assad has always sought to avoid a direct conflict with Israel. It will take years before calm is restored in Syria, and during the interim period when the Sunnis consolidate power, their ability to initiate hostilities against Israel will be limited. Ultimately, however, all good things come to an end.

David Brooks, "The Depravity Factor"

Bless you, David Brooks!

I am usually critical of almost everything that finds its way onto the op-ed page of The New York Times; however, Brooks's "The Depravity Factor" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) was a startling exception.

Brooks tells us that there won’t be peace so long as depraved regimes, such as Syria and Libya, and depraved organizations, such as Hamas, are "part of the picture." He tells us "to focus on the nature of regimes, not only the boundaries between them." And he concludes that the "Arab reform process," rather than negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, "is the peace process."

Brooks begins:

"By now you have probably heard about Hamza Ali al-Khateeb. He was the 13-year-old Syrian boy who tagged along at an antigovernment protest in the town of Saida on April 29. He was arrested that day, and the police returned his mutilated body to his family a month later. While in custody, he had apparently been burned, beaten, lacerated and given electroshocks. His jaw and kneecaps were shattered. He was shot in both arms. When his father saw the state of Hamza’s body, he passed out."

Here is a link to the video that the boy's family placed on the Internet and to which Brooks refers. THE PICTURES OF THE DEAD BOY ARE GRAPHIC AND HORRIFYING, AND DO NOT VIEW THIS VIDEO, WHICH UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE SEEN BY CHILDREN, IF IT IS APT TO CAUSE YOU MENTAL DISTRESS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7flXwSv9aQ0

I would add that this is far from the only graphic evidence of the brutality of the Assad regime (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/assad-hillarys-reformer.html), and I have been calling upon the Obama administration to recall the U.S. ambassador to Syria for the past two months, but to no avail (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/recall-us-ambassador-to-syria-now-shame.html). Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010, and Obama is reluctant to acknowledge his mistake (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html).

Brooks states:

"World leaders have tried sweet-talking Syria, calling Bashar al-Assad a friend (Nancy Pelosi) or a reformer (Hillary Clinton)."

But among Americans, Pelosi and Clinton are not the only ones who should be ashamed. Consider the conduct of Senator John Kerry, whose special relationship with Assad was scrutinized by The Boston Globe (http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-28/news/29483723_1_assad-senator-john-kerry-damascus):

"Kerry, a leading proponent of the Obama administration’s controversial attempt to improve relations with Syria, has publicly warned Assad not to kill his own people. But Kerry has not called for him to step down, as he did with embattled leaders in Egypt and Libya."

Kerry wants to be the next secretary of state?

And what about Jimmy Carter, who has often met with Assad and bragged that he has known the Syrian leader since he was a college student (see Peggy Shapiro's "Assad: Fooled us twice, shame on us": http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html).

Today, I am expecting a bloodbath in Syria when Syrians leave the mosques and confront Assad's security forces, which are being assisted by thugs from Hezbollah and counterinsurgency experts from Iran. As I have stated in the past, Assad's days are numbered, notwithstanding the indifference of the Obama administration to this human tragedy.

[To my "friends" from Assad's security apparatus in Damascus who regularly read this blog: Time to start packing your bags, boys.]

Nathan Thrall's "Hurting Moderates, Helping Militants": Hamas Is Now Moderate?

On Tuesday, we were treated to Jimmy Carter's Washington Post guest opinion piece entitled "Support the Palestinian unity government" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/support-the-palestinian-unity-government/2011/05/03/AFSbd6iF_print.html), in which he advised the United States to support a Palestinian unity government to be created by Hamas and Fatah. Ignoring recent outrages perpetrated by Hamas against civilians in southern Israel, Carter warned that if the Quartet did not support the unity government, Israel could face "a new round of violence" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/05/jimmy-carters-support-palestinian-unity.html).

In the same vein and equally inane was Nathan Thrall's contributor op-ed entitled "Hurting Moderates, Helping Militants" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05Thrall.html?ref=opinion) in Wednesday's New York Times, in which Thrall, who we are told is "a Middle East analyst at the International Crisis Group", would have us believe that if Israel doesn't negotiate with Hamas, something worse could come along:

"There [in the Gaza Strip], several years of isolation have led not to the weakening of Hamas but to the strengthening of even more uncompromising enemies of the Jewish state.

. . . .

On Monday, Hamas self-defeatingly sought to bolster its flagging Islamist credentials by mourning the death of Osama bin Laden and praising him as an Arab holy warrior — just days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ominously warned that 'Israel would not recognize any government in the world that included members from Al Qaeda.'

In reality, the likelihood of such a government is slight, but if Israel continues to oppose Palestinian reconciliation, Mr. Netanyahu’s nightmare may become less of a fantasy.

Repeating the mistakes of the past will only strengthen Hamas’s Salafi jihadi challengers, who proliferated the last time Palestinians were penalized for their votes and could one day pose an even greater threat to Israel."

Indeed, five years of isolation have not dislodged Hamas. On the other hand, there have been almost no suicide bombings in Israel since Hamas has been isolated. Nathan chooses to ignore, for example, how "moderates" from Hamas perpetrated the Park Hotel Passover massacre, which killed 30 Israeli civilians exactly nine years ago, and wounded another 140.

Whereas it may be easy for Nathan, who holds an M.A. in political science from Columbia University and lives in New York, to ignore the Park Hotel massacre and paint Hamas as "moderate", I, on the other hand, have three children and live some 10 miles away from the Park Hotel. No, I don't have a degree in political science from Columbia that permits me to determine that Hamas is moderate. Quite the contrary, my experience combating terror is non-academic, including, inter alia, some 30 years in the regular army and the reserves, witnessing from up close the "moderation" of Hamas.

True, the Park Hotel massacre happened nine years ago, but the firing by Hamas of a Kornet anti-tank missile at a yellow Israeli school bus occurred only one month ago, as did a barrage of 120 mortar shells, rockets and missiles fired by Hamas at civilian targets in southern Israel over a single weekend.

Needless to say, Nathan fails to observe that the Hamas charter calls for the murder of all Jews (you can't get more moderate than that, right, Nathan?) and rejects a negotiated solution to the conflict with Israel. Thus, the organization's ongoing refusal to renounce violence as the means to its ultimate end, the destruction of Israel, should come as no surprise (see, most recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/middleeast/06palestinians.html?_r=1).

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stated in December:

"We said it five years ago and we say it now ... we will never, we will never, we will never recognize Israel."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/14/us-palestinians-hamas-idUSTRE6BD2XW20101214

In short, thanks for the thought provoking "analysis", Nathan; however, this is one instance where I take Ismail Haniyeh at his word.

Jimmy Carter's "Support the Palestinian unity government": Jimmy Struggles to Remain Relevant

In a Washington Post guest opinion piece entitled "Support the Palestinian unity government" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/support-the-palestinian-unity-government/2011/05/03/AFSbd6iF_print.html) on Tuesday, an ever narcissistic Jimmy Carter, struggling to remain relevant, advises that the United States support a Palestinian unity government to be created by Hamas and Fatah. Carter writes:

"This is a decisive moment. Under the auspices of the Egyptian government, Palestine’s two major political movements — Fatah and Hamas — are signing a reconciliation agreement on Wednesday that will permit both to contest elections for the presidency and legislature within a year. If the United States and the international community support this effort, they can help Palestinian democracy and establish the basis for a unified Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza that can make a secure peace with Israel. If they remain aloof or undermine the agreement, the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory may deteriorate with a new round of violence against Israel."

A "new round of violence against Israel"? Excuse me, Jimmy, but what were those 120 mortar shells, rockets and missiles fired by Hamas from Gaza at civilian targets in southern Israel over a single weekend last month? Perhaps Carter also thinks that the firing of a Kornet anti-tank missile by Hamas at a yellow school bus in southern Israel in April was something other than an act of violence (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/war-that-wasnt-netanyahu-demonstrates.html).

Carter continues:

"I have observed three elections in the Palestinian territory, and these institutions have already administered elections that all international observers found to be free, fair, honest and free of violence."

Yes, Jimmy, but what came afterwards? As I recall, there was a nasty little civil war in Gaza in June 2007 between Hamas and Fatah that left 118 Palestinians dead. In fact, it was literally "raining men" when Hamas and Fatah threw their opponents off highrise buildings (see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1913292.ece). Subsequent democratic elections in Gaza or the West Bank? Not a chance, but a round of applause nevertheless for the "free, fair, honest and free of violence" elections that brought Hamas to power!

Carter adds:

"I urged Hamas’s leaders to stop launching rockets, and they attempted to negotiate a lasting mutual cease-fire."

Hamas "attempted to negotiate a lasting mutual cease-fire" at Carter's urging? Excuse me, but was this before or after Hamas declared bin Laden an "Arab holy warrior"?

Carter next brags about his discussions with Khaled Meshal in Damascus:

"In my talks with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, he said Hamas would accept a two-state agreement that is approved in a Palestinian referendum."

Yeah, and Jimmy was stupid enough to believe him. Funny how Carter is no longer telling us about his special relationship with Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad, whom Carter is proud to have known since he was a college student (see: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/how_wrong_can_you_get.html). Even at age 86, Carter has yet to realize that lying is endemic to the Muslim Middle East (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/taqiyya-when-lying-is-ordained-from.html), but what the heck -- as long as The Washington Post is still willing to provide this narcissist with a pulpit, the sun continues to shine for Jimmy.

Assad's Tanks Firing on Daraa in Syria: Another Hama Massacre?

In February 1982, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria destroyed much of the town of Hama, killing anywhere between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians, in order to quash a revolt by its Sunni Muslim inhabitants.

Today, Hafez al-Assad's son, Bashar al-Assad, is sending his tanks against the southern Syrian town of Daraa, and the bodies of civilians are again lying in the street (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/25/us-syria-idUSLDE73N02P20110425).

Why has Obama not recalled the ambassador he appointed to Syria in December without U.S. Senate confirmation (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/recall-us-ambassador-to-syria-now-shame.html)?

Where is Hillary Clinton, who referred to Bashar al-Assad as a "reformer"? Where is John Kerry, who, together with his wife, repeatedly enjoyed the hospitality of Assad in Damascus? And where is Nancy Pelosi, who labeled Assad a "model Arab leader"?

We do know the whereabouts of Jimmy Carter, who has often met with Assad and bragged that he has known the Syrian leader since he was a college student. Carter and his traveling troupe, "The Elders", is now off to North Korea, although he doesn't know whom he will be meeting there (see: http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=217784).

Instead of Pyongyang, how about another trip to Damascus, Jimmy, to meet with your good friend Bashar? You might even ask him to stop killing his countrymen.

You Think You Know When Someone Is Lying? John Kerry Couldn't Read Assad

So you think you know when someone is lying?

Watch Bashar al-Assad's one-hour interview with Charlie Rose, albeit five years old (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/484). Pay particular attention when Assad claims that he had no part in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Do you see any body language suggesting that Assad is prevaricating? The truth is that Assad is a "professional liar", or stated otherwise, a psychopath, and it should have come as no surprise that the Syrian tyrant is willing to arrest, torture and murder those who in recent weeks have taken to the streets in opposition to his regime.

Assad has managed to fool many Westerners into believing that he is a paragon of decency, which in turn prompted Hillary's recent inane declaration: "There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml).

As observed by Peggy Shapiro in an American Thinker article entitled "Assad: Fooled us twice, shame on us" (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html), among those noteworthy persons who have come away from meetings with Assad thinking he's a great guy are:

• Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The U.S. and Syria have a shared interest in stability in the region."

• Nancy Pelosi: Assad is a "model Arab leader."

• Jimmy Carter: "In all my conversations with President Assad, whom I've known since he was a college student, I was impressed with [his] eagerness to complete the agreement on the Golan Heights."

• John Kerry: "I remain absolutely convinced there is an opportunity to have a different relationship with Syria."

It is reported that John Kerry is seeking to become Secretary of State when Hillary abandons ship (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/02/04/kerrys_sharp_eye_on_the_secretary_spot/), and, needless to say, Kerry is now backing away from his congenial relationship with the Syrian tyrant. As stated by Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/john_kerrys_message_to_syria/2011/03/04/AFZm9rwB_blog.html?wprss=rss_homepage):

"In an interview Tuesday, Kerry told me that he had contacted senior Syrian officials to demand an end to the killing. 'I delivered as strong a message as I can that they have to avoid violence and listen to their people and respond,' he said. 'Obviously the way the government has behaved is unacceptable. Sixty-one people killed is terrible, its abhorrant behavior.'”

In my opinion, notwithstanding this belated attempt to make amends, Kerry displayed a horrifying lack of good judgment when cuddling up to Assad in Damascus five times over the past two years, and Kerry should be disqualified from any position involving the future negotiation of U.S. overseas interests.

Israel, Apartheid, E. Coli and Jimmy Carter

With all the turmoil currently enveloping the Middle East, perhaps you happened to notice the one country in the region where Arabs are not rioting and seeking to overthrow the government. Which country? Surprise, we're talking about Israel.

How can this be? Why haven't Israel's Arabs taken to the streets, hurling rocks and demanding independence? Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter tells anyone ready to listen that Israel is apartheid, yet if this is true, why aren't we witnessing unrest or some sort of demonstration?

Is Carter wrong concerning his allegations of apartheid? Wary of making an utter fool of himself, Carter avoided debating the topic with Alan Dershowitz, who would have unraveled Carter's falsehoods and hardwired racism with facts and figures. I make a point of reading Mr. Dershowitz's columns, and I could never rival his scholarship and dialectic skills, but perhaps I can still contribute to this discussion on a different, more intimate level.

Some of you noticed that my blog recently went idle for more than a week. Sometimes I am overwhelmed with work and have no time to write a new entry. Sometimes I am busy traveling and cannot attend to the blog. Last week, however, I was sick and ended up in the hospital for six days.

Although rarely ill, I had developed a high fever and decided to visit my health fund doctor for the first time in several years. Whereas I suspected flu, my doctor, who is a remarkable medical practitioner, instantly diagnosed a bacterial infection, sent me for blood and urine tests, and started me on antibiotics. The next morning he called me on my cell phone: the blood tests had come back, my leucocytes had reached an astronomical level, and I needed to go to the hospital immediately.

I had never stayed in a hospital before, and I was hoping that the emergency room would decide that my health fund doctor was being overly cautious; however, they also quickly saw the danger – in addition to the leucocytes, various components of my blood were now out of balance owing to dehydration – and I was sent to a room in the urology wing, where I was immediately administered intravenous antibiotics and fluids.

However, this blog entry is not about Israeli medicine or my brush with death owing to an e. coli infection, which, had it been left untreated, would have resulted in sepsis within hours. Rather, this blog entry is about the room, consisting of four beds, which I shared over the course of my hospital stay with Israeli Arabs, a young Ethiopian Jew, a Russian immigrant, and a "sabra" with a knitted kippa (a native born religious Jew).

There were no beds reserved for one religion or another, there was no discrimination based upon skin color, the bathroom facilities were not segregated, and the medical care, administered by both Arabs and Jews, was the same for all patients.

I shared food and conversation with everyone in the room, and the other patients' families, when passing my bed, always smiled and wished me a swift recovery. We talked about business and aspirations: Among the Israeli Arabs, one was anxious to expand his "door" business; another was busy around the clock with his family construction company; a third sought to create a community center in his village celebrating its heritage. Several days after the man working with doors was released, he returned to the urology wing to visit and see if I was on the mend.

Although Israel is far from perfect and suffers from societal tension and discrimination – how could it be otherwise given its brief tumultuous history and numerous wars - it is not apartheid. Rioting among Israeli Arabs? Sorry, but they are too busy living their lives, pursuing their education and careers, and raising their families. Moreover, there is an understanding and respect among most Israeli Arabs and Jews that interlopers such as Carter and his ilk could never understand.

Advice to Carter? Why should he take my advice? Following this brush with mortality, which ultimately catches up with all of us, I was asked to relay the following message to the former American president:

"Jimmy, a warm reception is being readied for you in a new, rapidly expanding enclave of hell that is reserved for narcissists. See you soon!"

An Honor Killing a Mere Mile Away

Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels wrote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

And so, when Jimmy Carter wrote a book entitled "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid", the closet anti-Semites from the Left howled with approval. And when Roger Cohen or the editorial board of The New York Times writes anything concerning Israel, that same canard, "Israeli is apartheid", appears at least a dozen times in the readers' comments posted by the Grey Lady, which lost its moral compass long ago.

So how does someone like myself, from Israel's hoi polloi, disprove this fabrication? Perhaps if Carter and his ilk could accompany me on my journey to the Gan Shmuel Shopping Center, five miles to the east, where I will be buying groceries later this afternoon, they would see things otherwise. At the shopping center they would witness Jewish and Arab shoppers and sales persons mingling freely, no sign whatsoever of segregation or any form of discrimination. But Carter and friends would never join me, enthralled by the big lie and the happiness which it engenders.

Which is not to say that there are no variations of apartheid in Israel. Indeed, there is gender apartheid within certain segments of Israel's Arab community, which exposes its ugly face in the form of "honor killings". This past week, such an honor killing occurred a mere mile away from my home in the Arab village of Jisr a-Zarka:

"The body of a 30-year-old woman from Jisr a-Zarka was found lifeless in her bed by her mother Friday morning. Magen David Adom Sharon crews confirmed the woman's death on arrival.

The body of Tanya Amash was discovered by her mother as she attempted to wake her and noticed she was not breathing and was unconscious. MDA crews initiated a prolonged resuscitation but a doctor ultimately pronounced her death.

According to initial investigations and bruises on the Amash's body, police suspect internal family violence. After investigating the family members, police discovered that the Amash's 22-year-old brother, Anise Amash was last with her.

Police say the brother arrived in the morning and after an argument broke out between him and his sister, a physical altercation ensued in which he allegedly choked the 30-year-old.

Police were searching the area for the suspect after he left the family's home."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=193246

This was no isolated incident in Israel or the Muslim world. In Israel, honor killings account for the majority of homicides among its Arab citizens. In neighboring Gaza and the West Bank, four women die each month at the hands of male relatives. Throughout the Muslim Middle East, Turkey and Pakistan, thousands of women are murdered each year by their grandfathers, fathers and brothers, and this horrifying practice has recently been exported to the U.S. and Canada (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/04/honor-killings-in-muslim-world.html).

The response of The New York Times, its columnists, and the Left as a whole to this horrifying practice? Silence. After all, they enjoy too much the intoxication which comes from excoriating Israel and its hateful Jews and the resultant exhilaration deriving from this ancient prejudice.

Jimmy Carter's Narcissism Gone Wild; Bill Clinton Not Far Behind

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams for purposes of promoting his twenty-fifth book, "White House Diary", former President Jimmy Carter, whose arrogance is only exceeded by his fatuity, sought to place himself on a higher pedestal than other former presidents:

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents. Primarily because of the activism and the injection of working at the Carter Center and in international affairs, and to some degree, domestic affairs, on energy conservation, on environment, and things of that kind. We're right in the midst of the constant daily debate.

And the Carter Center has decided, under my leadership, to fill the vacuums in the world. When the United States won't deal with troubled areas, we go there and we meet with leaders who can bring an end to a conflict, or an end to human rights abuse, and so forth. So I feel that we have an advantage over many other former presidents in being involved in daily affairs that have shaped the policies of our nation and the world."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG-XXHS2BH0

Carter, however, was correct in one regard: The Obama administration has indeed created a foreign affairs vacuum, which has allowed Jimmy to freely exchange niceties with rogue states, e.g., North Korea and Syria, and terrorist organizations, e.g., Hamas. When will someone in the Obama administration screw up the courage to inform this "narcissist gone wild" that his perambulations, discourse with tyrants and self-serving flatulence are an embarrassment to the United States?

Given this foreign affairs vacuum and not to be outdone, Bill Clinton also managed to stick his foot in his mouth in a roundtable discussion with reporters on Tuesday:

"'An increasing number of the young people in the IDF are the children of Russians and settlers, the hardest-core people against a division of the land. This presents a staggering problem,' Clinton said. 'It's a different Israel. 16 percent of Israelis speak Russian.'

According to Clinton, the Russian immigrant population in Israel is the group least interested in striking a peace deal with the Palestinians. 'They've just got there, it's their country, they've made a commitment to the future there,' Clinton said. 'They can't imagine any historical or other claims that would justify dividing it.'

. . . .

Before pontificating on the peace process, Clinton seemed to realize he was stepping into some sensitive territory, but decided to proceed nonetheless.

'I wouldn't say too much about this if Hillary weren't Secretary of State and in charge of these negotiations, so I'm darned sure not going to say too much now,' he said, before going in depth on the issue for over 10 minutes."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/21/bill_clinton_russian_immigrants_and_settlers_obstacles_to_mideast_peace

Thanks, Bill, for your insipid commentary. No mention by Clinton of Israel's miraculous absorption of some one million penniless, oppressed persons from the former Soviet Union, who are today fully integrated into Israeli society. Their contribution to Israeli science, industry and culture is profound. They are represented in all leading Israeli political parties, they have served proudly in the IDF, and many have fallen in Israel's wars. Who is Bill Clinton to say that their perspectives and insights are mistaken or less valid than those of other Israelis, native born or otherwise?

May Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton find other, less damaging outlets for their narcissism and allow the world to make do without their arrogance.

"North Korea Wants to Make a Deal": Jimmy Carter, North Korea and the Magnificent Carnac

In today's New York Times, Jimmy Carter has written a guest op-ed entitled "North Korea Wants to Make a Deal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/opinion/16carter.html?hp), in which he refers to his August meetings with North Korean government officials and concludes:

"A settlement on the Korean Peninsula is crucial to peace and stability in Asia, and it is long overdue. These positive messages from North Korea should be pursued aggressively and without delay, with each step in the process carefully and thoroughly confirmed."

Carter can't help but observe:

"In July, North Korean officials invited me to come to Pyongyang to meet with Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader, and other officials to secure the release of Mr. Gomes. Those who invited me said that no one else’s request for the prisoner’s release would be honored."

Gomes was released, and now Carter is seeking a negotiated rapprochement with this horrifyingly aggressive dictatorship, yet fails to mention the sinking of a South Korean Pohang-class corvette in March 2010 with the loss of 46 sailors. Thanks, Jimmy.

This call for a renewal of relations with North Korea brings to mind the three New York Times op-eds written by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett calling for a renewal of relations with Iran (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-letter-to-andrew-rosenthal-yet.html), and the recent release by Iran of hiker Sarah Shourd. Apparently The New York Times places a premium on upgrading the status of rogue regimes which threaten its neighbors with nuclear annihilation and kidnap Americans.

At the bottom of the op-ed, it is written:

"Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize."

Actually, when I think of Jimmy Carter, I think of Johnny Carson. During "The Tonight Show", Carson would occasionally impersonate the swami Carnac the Magnificent: holding to his forehead a sealed envelope containing a question, he would then divine the appropriate answer before opening the envelope and reading the question. In the episode that I remember so well, Johnny held up the envelope, and, after a moment of solemn reflection, declared: "Breaking and entering". Tearing open the envelope, he then revealed the question: "What is the only way Jimmy Carter will ever again enter the White House?"

My nightmare almost 30 years later: One-term president Carter will ultimately fade from the scene, notwithstanding his monumental ego, and one-term president Obama, freed of constraints, will pick up Carter's radical mantle.

Effectuating the Obama Doctrine: New U.S. Ambassador to Syria

Obama has decided to appoint a new ambassador to Syria for the first time following the 2005 murder by Syria of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/02/lebanese-prime-minister-hariri-sides.html). According to Philip J. Crowley, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs:

"The decision reflects our growing interest in working constructively with Syria and the leaders of that country."

Further pursuit of the "Obama Doctrine" of appeasing enemies and enfeebling friends? Or just possibly, an attempt to wean Syria away from Iran? Regardless, it is not going to make the Palestinian Authority happy, given the historic designs of Damascus upon Palestine and Lebanon, which are deemed part of "Greater Syria". "Work constructively" with Assad's savage regime? Good luck to the Obami.

Meanwhile, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has proposed a deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which would involve a trade of Arab towns in northern Israel for Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The proposal was vehemently protested by Israeli Arab parliament member Ahmed Tibi:

"Israeli Arab MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al chairman) responded to Ayalon's remarks, saying they reflect a 'complete defect in the understanding of the basic values of democracy and civil rights.'

'We are not chess pieces,' said Tibi. 'We did not arrive in this country on planes and we did not immigrate here. We do not want to expel anyone from the borders of this country, but if someone wants to expel us, I will say this: He who got here last leaves first. That way, there will be fewer fascists in Israel.'"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1149435.html

How peculiar that Tibi so vociferously opposes this proposal given the claims of Jimmy Carter and the New Left concerning the existence of apartheid in Israel . . .