Anti-Israel Democrats

There is a great ideological divide in America between conservatives and liberals over Israel. Despite this, 90% of American Jews support the liberal camp, which is generally hostile to Israel. So Democratic candidates typically play a game of mouthing pro-Israel bromides while undermining Israel in practice. (For a recent example, see Nancy Pelosi's Arab dictator tour, which was hailed by jihadists).

Another ploy is to show their real stripes only after retiring, like Jimmy Carter:
Carter Urges Iowa Voters Not to Back "Knee-Jerk Supporters" of Israel

As long as American politicians are seen as "knee-jerk supporters" of Israel, the country's role as the principal Mideast peace broker will be endangered, former President Jimmy Carter told a crowd Wednesday at the University of Iowa.

Carter told the crowd of 6,000 that he chose Iowa out of the 100 university lecture invitations he received because of the power of Iowa caucus voters to select candidates.

"The main reason I came to Iowa is to make sure you knew you could shape an outcome in the 2008 presidential election. At least you can screen out candidates," he said.

"Make them pledge to you...that they will take a balanced position between Israel and Palestinians."

Another example of a Democrat who only felt comfortable to show his true radical beliefs after leaving office was Lyndon Johnson's Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.

Wonkette is acknowledged as a leading American liberal blogger. This is what she has to say about John Edwards' statement (which he now denies) that "Israel is the greatest threat to world peace," referring to the possibility that it may attack Iran's nuclear program. Edwards now denies the anti-Israel sentiment, which is generally shared throughout the political Left. The reporter stands by the quote.

What happened? According to Bart, Edwards was asked to name the greatest threat to world peace at the moment. Instead of the simple answer, wars, Edwards had to be a smarty jones and say the increasing likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran was the primary current threat. You know, because then Washington would start bombing somebody, and Syria/Lebanon would get involved, and Russia would start threatening everybody, and it would be a nuclear war, etc.

But stating anything so obvious requires taking your lips off Israel?s ass for a few seconds, and that?s fatal for any American politician with presidential ambitions. This isn?t because Jews get upset or Israel?s feelings will get hurt or anything. It?s because of bat?? insane evangelical American Jesus Freaks who have to love and protect Israel so Jesus will come back and destroy it.

While Ahmadinejad continues to announce an impending nuclear Holocaust for the US and Israel, Jimmy Carter performs the equivalent of June Cleaver in the movie Airplane who declared "I speak Jive:"

The distortion that we are about to be destroyed makes us suspicious of those who don't worship the way we do. And our country has no reason to be afraid.

Well, that's a relief. I guess my distorted understanding is based in my literalist tendencies in interpretation.

Newt Gingrich, along with most Republicans, apparently shares my distorted literalism:

Gingrich: Israel Faces Nuclear Holocaust

Literalism is apparently contagious. It has now spread to the most left-wing of Israelis:

This Holocaust will be Different

Seriously, the above article by Benny Morris is a must-read, despite its enervating impact. Unfortunately, the jihad is not as unserious in its thinking about war as Morris has been. Morris makes two naive assumptions: Iran will leave America intact and take credit for annihilating Israel.

Much more likely is that Iran will catalyze the hyperproliferation of nuclear technology, so that its condemnation of the first nuclear attack will paralyze any Western response. If a "previously unknown terror group" takes responsibility, will the West really strike Iran?

Additionally America may be unable to respond if a large number of simultaneous nuclear explosions occur in multiple US cities. Islamists have had a history of detonating large numbers of bombs at once.

Here is an interesting look at the Arab funding of Jimmy Carter. The bin Laden family has been frequently reported as having disowned Osama, but this is not believable. Interestingly, Michael Moore charged that Bush was in league with the bin Laden family.

Did Jimmy Carter do it for the money? That's the question making the rounds about Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, an anti-Israeli screed recently written by the ex-president whose Carter Center has accepted millions in Arab funding....

In recent weeks, a number of articles have noted that Carter's anti-Israeli views coincide with those of some of the center's prime financial backers, including the government of Saudi Arabia and the foundation of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, whose offer of $10 million to New York City just after Sept. 11 was rejected by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani because it came wrapped in the suggestion that America rethink its support of Israel. Other big donors listed in the Carter Center's annual reports include the Sultanate of Oman and the sultan himself; the government of the United Arab Emirates; and a brother of Osama bin Laden, Bakr BinLadin, 'for the Saudi BinLadin Group.'

(The entire article requires subscription.)

Jimmy Carter, unlike most Democratic politicians who have to hide their true beliefs to win elections, is openly anti-Israel and pro-Jihad. Which may earn him an honored position in the world body devoted to promoting evil over good:

As Palestinian Arab rockets struck two Israeli towns yesterday, U.N. bodies prepared to launch no fewer than two overlapping "fact-finding" missions to second-guess Israel's anti-terrorist tactics. President Carter could head one of those missions.

The U.N. General Assembly is expected to convene a special emergency session tomorrow to deal with the November 8 Israel Defense Force artillery strike on the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, which killed 19 civilians. A draft resolution for the assembly session calls on the U.N. secretary-general to establish a fact-finding mission into the event and requests that he report back to the assembly in a month.

And yesterday in Geneva, the U.N. Human Rights Council, which in its five months of existence has failed to pass one resolution on any country other than Israel, concluded its third emergency session on the Jewish state. In the session's resolution, the council called on its president, Ambassador Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, to establish a fact-finding mission to investigate the incident at Beit Hanoun.

A diplomat in Geneva who requested anonymity said the sponsors of the resolution are planning to ask Mr. Carter to head the investigation. Other candidates include the diplomats Martti Ahtisaari of Finland and Sadako Ogata of Japan.

Israel, which is conducting its own investigation into the incident, has yet to decide on its level of cooperation with the U.N. probes.

As usual, Israel will make some public statements of complaint for domestic consumption, but make no substantive efforts to stop this. Olmert and company have bigger concerns.