Vous avez bien deviné si vous avez répondu le président Jimmy Carter. Celui-ci a tenu ces propos dans une discussion privée, la veille de ses élections de second mandat, en 1980.
In private, it’s another story. Running for re-election in 1980, President Jimmy Carter told close colleagues that « If I get back in, I’m going to fuck the Jews. » He lost, but the following year his successor, Ronald Reagan, tried to win Congressional approval for an aircraft sale to Saudi Arabia despite Israeli objections. An earlier president, Gerald Ford, once said to a senator: « Are we going to let the fucking Jews run American foreign policy? » Ten years later, President George Bush’s Secretary of State, James Baker, said to a colleague: « Fuck the Jews. They don’t vote for us anyway, » words said in private which became public and were blazoned as a headline in an Israeli paper. (The Independent)
Jimmy Carter est également un grand comique. Voici sa blague peu connue:
« Some people within our administration had dual interests, and they considered it proper to leak secrets if it would further their special goals. Much later, in January 2009, when Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and I met with President-elect Barack Obama, we all laughingly agreed that there wasno way to prevent any secrets being shared withIsraelif they were known by more than two people in the White House, State or Defense Departments. » (Jimmy Carter, White House Diary, quoted in The Washington Report)
Il est à noter que Carter s’est fait de puissants ennemis dans la communauté juive. Plus spécialement depuis qu’il a révélé publiquement, en 2008, qu’Israël compte un arsenal nucléaire d’au moins 150 têtes nucléaires.
Son ouvrage Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid lui a valu l’étiquette de « négationniste »: il y a de quoi en effet, car il ne mentionne l’Holocauste nulle part dans le livre!
Dans The Holocaust in American Life (p.216-224), Peter Novick fait état de la joute très rude qui s’est jouée en coulisse dans les années 70 entre Jimmy Carter, qui 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 juive de l’Holocauste. Carter a bien sûr perdu son pari et le monde entier est pris dans les rets de Wiesel. Voici un extrait de la lettre que Wiesel a écrite en opposition à Carter:
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?
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).
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. »