ed note–not just Carter.
Beginning with Kennedy, and then moving on to Nixon, then Ford, then GHW Bush and then Clinton, every president who has dared tread in that dreaded and dreadful territory of a ‘peace deal’ has paid the price, and now, it is Trump’s turn, which is why the entire world is witness to what is in effect the political assassination of yet another President who has signaled his intention to at least try and rein in Judea, Inc before it destroys and devours the entire world.
Please pay close attention to the following from the piece below–
‘Eizenstat (the author of the book on Carter) cannot be impeached because he is himself part of the lobby. He served as Hillary Clinton’s liaison to the Jewish community during her 2016 campaign, and after meeting with Netanyahu, he pressed Clinton to promise that she would welcome Netanyahu soon after she took office so as to repair the damage Obama had done, and conveyed to the campaign Netanyahu’s advice on fighting the boycott (BDS) movement.’
Let’s repeat that one mo’ time for effect–
Eisenstat served as Hillary Clinton’s liaison to the Jewish community during her 2016 campaign, and after meeting with Netanyahu, he pressed Clinton to promise that she would welcome Netanyahu soon after she took office so as to repair the damage Obama had done…’
And, jes’ ONE MO’ TIME–
EISENSTAT SERVED AS HILLARY CLINTON’S LIASON TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITY DURING HER 2016 CAMPAIGN AND AFTER MEETING WITH NETANYAHU, PRESSED CLINTON TO PROMISE THAT SHE WOULD WELCOME NETANYAHU SOON AFTER SHE TOOK OFFICE…
IN OTHER WORDS, LADIES AND GENTILE-MEN, CLINTON WAS THE ONE WHOM NETANYAHU, AIPAC, AND THE JEWS HAD BET ALL THEIR SHEKELS ON WINNING THE 2016 PRESIDENCY, NOT ‘DRUMPF’ AS SO MANY ‘EXPERTS’ CLAIM.
Let us repeat that one mo’ time for effect, but perhaps in something a lil’ mo’ sottovoce–
Clinton was the one whom Netanyahu, AIPAC and the Jews had bet all their shekels on winning the 2016 Presidency, not Donald J. Trump.
In other words, AIPAC lost, hence why there is all this hysteria over ‘Russian meddling’. Playing the very same game and plying the same tactics which AIPAC has utilized unchallenged for decades, the Russians helped Trump through the use of mass marketing/social media and now that the precedent has been established that AIPAC is not some unbeatable gorilla, d’Joos are in absolute PANIC mode in trying to legislate away the Russians’ ability to affect future elections of not just presidents, but indeed, 500 members of Congress who since that infamous time when a certain president had his head blown off in Dallas Texas, have been a rubber stamp for Israel’s policies and who now–along with the JMSM–are functioning in the capacity of trying to remove Trump before he can get too far with this ‘Ultimate Peace Deal’.
Please make sure to read this extremely important article carefully and then plug in all the parameters that existed during the Carter administration and to its very clear intention to settle the Palestinian situation to what we are all witnessing now and how these same elements are gunning for Trump to either be impeached, removed via the 25th or else so hamstrung with all the daily screeching that he can’t even tie his own shoes.
Mondoweiss
When George H.W. Bush died last year, we revisited the idea that he was a one-term president in part because he vigorously took on the Israel lobby over settlements in 1991, and paid a price. Even Tom Friedman said that was the political lesson of the Bush presidency for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, neither of whom did much to oppose settlements.
And everyone knows that settlements bedeviled the Obama presidency. “It is time for these settlements to stop,” Obama declared in Cairo, till he faced reelection, and reversed course two years later under pressure from Netanyahu and Jewish organizations, and vetoed a settlements resolution at the U.N. And then he reversed course again– and in one of the last acts of his presidency, Obama allowed an anti-settlements resolution to go through in December 2016 (a move that Donald Trump sought to undermine by reaching out to the Russians).
What I did not know till I read the new book, “Jimmy Carter, The White House Years,” by his former top domestic policy adviser Stuart Eizenstat, is that Israeli settlements also bedeviled the Carter administration. From the beginning of his presidency in 1977, Jimmy Carter determined that the settlements were an obstacle to peace because they stood in the way of a Palestinian homeland, which he wished to help establish in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Carter and his secretary of state Cyrus Vance and national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski repeatedly hammered the Israeli government to end Jewish colonization or at least freeze it.
Carter failed miserably in this aim, overwhelmed by a new force he had not accurately reckoned: American Jewish organizations. “I will commit suicide before I abandon Israel,” Carter promised Jewish congressmen when they met with him to express concern about his policy. But Carter could not abandon a parallel commitment to Palestine, and Eizenstat says that Carter believes that taking on Israel and its American lobby cost him his job.
From the New York primary in March 1980 onward, I believe Carter was left with the view that New York Jews had not only defeated him in the primary but were also a factor in his loss in November, Eizenstat writes.
As Eizenstat states bluntly, Israel relies on the lobby as a sort of foreign ministry, a relationship “unique in the annals of diplomacy.” And other politicians heeded Carter’s experience:
‘It is even clearer in the decades since, that progress on these same intractable issues with which Carter was struggling forty years ago can come only with a president willing to take enormous domestic political heat and plow ahead. None have done so since with the same combination of his grit and determination—indeed, perhaps because of the political wounds he suffered.
The story of Carter’s repeated and bitter clashes with Israel and its American Jewish lobby is told with meticulous care by the Washington lawyer. And Eizenstat cannot be impeached because he is himself part of the lobby. He served as Hillary Clinton’s liaison to the Jewish community during her 2016 campaign, and after meeting with Netanyahu, per Wikileaked emails, he pressed Clinton to promise that she would welcome Netanyahu soon after she took office so as to repair the damage Obama had done, and conveyed to the campaign Netanyahu’s advice on fighting the boycott (BDS) movement (“Attack, attack, attack”).
His book came out last April but has gotten no attention for these revelations. Just as the running theme of Ben Rhodes’s White House foreign policy memoir has been ignored: Obama fought the lobby at every turn, to the point of anguish that he was being called an anti-semite for pushing the Iran deal: “Come on… This is aggravating… This isn’t about anti-Semitism… They’re trying to take away our best argument, that it’s this or war.”
Last month in the New York Times, Michelle Alexander wrote that the Israel lobby’s power is “well-documented.” Maybe it is: but only in books like this and transgressive websites. If the mainstream reported on Eizenstat’s book, they would be forced to acknowledge that for 50 years the Israel lobby has nullified American policy on an important Middle East issue, Israeli colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, thus destroying the possibility of a two state solution. The occupation is an American Jewish achievement.
The greatest service I can provide is to pass along Eizenstat’s narrative in depth.
I. The Jewish Community Becomes Alarmed in the First Months of Carter’s Presidency When He Speaks of a Palestinian Homeland
Throughout his presidency Carter had greater sympathy for the Palestinians than the Israelis for the same reason that he expressed sympathy for them in his famous 2006 book: they are the victims. The political outsider and former peanut farmer and Navy officer appeared to like his Arab interlocutors, such as Anwar Sadat, more than Israeli ones, such as Moshe Dayan and Menachem Begin, and he was capable of Biblical commentary about Christ’s killing that left Jews cold.
Eizenstat, a religious Jew and Atlanta lawyer, had signed on to Carter’s campaign and helped him to articulate positions on Israel that would gain him support and funding from the Jewish community. He writes that Carter flipflopped on those promises. After reading a Brookings Institution report on Israel and Palestine that urged a return by Israel to the ’67 borders and political sovereignty for the Palestinians either in a state or as part of Jordan, in exchange for Israel’s recognition by Arab countries, Carter bought into these findings “whole and entire,” even if such plans had to be imposed on the Israelis, Eizenstat says– although these stances “could not have been more different from the campaign positions I had helped craft for him as a candidate.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Carter also bought into Brzezinski’s realist view that the Palestinian problem was hurting the U.S. “[T]he conventional wisdom of American experts on the Middle East was that the central problem of the region was the relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and by extension that normalizing them would resolve many of the region’s disputes.”
But Carter underestimated the power of the Jewish community. In the ’70s, Jews overcame anti-Semitic discrimination to assume roles in the U.S. power structure; and the 1967 and 1973 wars galvanized American Jews on Israel’s behalf; and the result was that the Israel lobby emerged as an important factor in politics. When the president criticized the Israeli settlements, the lobby swung into action and often echoed Israeli government talking points.
Eizenstat writes that the lobby exercised its power chiefly through the Congress, and serves as a kind of ‘foreign ministry’.
There is a special triangular relationship among Israel, the America Jewish leadership and the Congress… effectively applying pressure on the presidency to modify U.S. policy to Israel’s benefit. This is unique in the annals of diplomacy. There are other countries, such as Britain, that have a favored relationship with the United States but who exert their influence through traditional diplomacy rather than relying heavily on a domestic American constituency and lobbying Congress. For a vulnerable, small country like Israel, surrounded by enemies, perfecting this unusual brand of political diplomacy was essential. While it existed to a limited degree before the Carter administration, it was honed to much greater use during our term in office. Since then it has only grown in dimension and intensity to be one of Washington’s most effective lobbies.
“Carter was to discover this through painful experience,” Eizenstat states.
One delusion the White House had was that because Israel had elected a rightwing Prime Minister in May 1977 — Menachem Begin — Carter would be able to “mobilize on behalf of a settlement a significant portion of the American Jewish community,” as Brzezinski put it.
Eizenstat flatly informed Brzezinski he was wrong: “Jewish groups would rally to Begin’s views as a demonstration of their unyielding support for Israel.”
And Eizenstat was right:
Soon enough the administration’s positions would unite the American Jewish leadership behind Begin.
Eizenstat says that the White House did not appreciate that American Jews had come to feel that loyalty to Israel was a proof of Jewish identity– and vicarious power.
What Carter and Brzezinski did not fully understand was that support for any incumbent Israeli government was the ultimate litmus test of Jewish identity for mainstream Jewish leaders. It remains so, even when sorely tried by Israeli politicians. Many leading American Jews fear that publicly undercutting Israel’s leaders would weaken Israel itself and impair their own ties to the Jewish homeland and the Israeli leadership, which is a symbol of their clout.
Still, Carter stuck by his principles, an “unscripted commitment to a Palestinian homeland.”
In June 1977, Morris Amitay, the head of AIPAC, the leading Israel lobby group (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), met with Eizenstat; Carter’s top political aide, Ham Jordan; and Carter’s liaison to the Jewish community, Mark Siegel. Jordan later typed out a long memo on the “Jewish lobby” to Carter, locking the only copy in his office safe.
Jordan wanted to take the president’s head “out of the clouds” and demonstrate to his boss the political impact of his policy. “Ham began by pointing out that American Jews vote in greater proportion to their size than any other group; they are predominantly Democratic and have remained so despite economic and educational advances that traditionally lead other groups to change parties. And in key states like New York, the influence of Jews in primaries is often decisive,” Eizenstat related.
Jordan went on to point out that Jews were financially very generous: “70 of the 125 members of the Democratic National Council were Jews who constituted more than 60 percent of the large donors to the Democratic Party.” The 2006 book “The Israel Lobby” by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer contains other crucial details from the Jordan memo: Over 60 percent of Nixon’s 1972 campaign funds came from Jewish donors, as well as over 75 percent of Humphrey’s 1968 campaign funds and 90 percent of (neoconservative) Scoop Jackson’s 1976 primary campaign funds. And even though Carter had been a long shot, about 35 percent of his primary funds were from Jewish donors.
Then Jordan “described the importance of AIPAC” — “a strong but paranoid lobby,” Jordan wrote, “concentrating the political force of all major Jewish organizations on Congress in defense of Israeli interests.”
“Their collective mobilizing ability is unsurpassed in terms of the quality and quantity of political communications that can be triggered on specific issues perceived to be critical to Israel [and without a] political counterforce that opposes the specific goals of the Jewish lobby.” He also ranked the one hundred members of the Senate according to their support for Israel—only three were “generally negative.”
You will notice that there is not a word here about Christian Zionists. They are not a factor on the Democratic side– weren’t then, and aren’t now.
Jordan also told Carter he had used words like “homeland for the Palestinians” without “reassuring elaborations.”
“The cumulative effect of your statements on the Middle East and the various bilateral meetings with the heads of state has been generally pleasing to the Arabs and displeasing to the Israelis and the American Jewish community.”
Carter accepted Jordan’s Rx: to do outreach to the Jewish press and Congress and Jewish leaders.
“The problem was that the policy did not change, and there was no real effort to take into account American Jewish concerns,” Eizenstat says. “I sensed that Brzezinski, Vance, and to a degree Carter himself saw domestic outreach as a nuisance, and felt that foreign policy in general, and the Middle East in particular, should be insulated from domestic politics. … And the president’s lack of political sensitivity was sometimes breathtaking.”
Israeli leaders were able to rally and script American Jews. Begin’s emissary and former Irgun comrade Shmuel Katz came to the States and in a meeting with Reform Jewish leaders said that the pressure to leave the West Bank was a recipe for war and: “We are confident that the Jewish community in America will stand out courageously and challenge its government if it becomes necessary.”
Eizenstat says, “he was right.”
II. Mondale Tries to Put on the Brakes
Even as some in the administration, including the politically-sensitive vice president, Walter Mondale, “tried to calm the Jewish community, it was not clear that the president had fully internalized the domestic political dangers,” Eizenstat writes.
Mondale called Eizenstat to his office in June 1977. Unlike Vance, Carter and Brzezinski, “the vice president believed that foreign policy and domestic politics could not be separated, because the former required support of the latter to be effective.” Mondale poured out his frustrations, Eizenstat writes. “Stu, we will be in bad shape politically if he gets on the outs with the Jewish community, which is about to blow up over the president’s positions on Israel.”
Mondale felt Carter “hadn’t brought along the Jewish community.”
But Carter didn’t see it the same way. In a prefiguring of George H.W. Bush’s 1991 complaint that he was one lonely guy taking on 1000 lobbyists over settlements, Carter was “angered by what he saw as the Jewish leadership’s ‘irrational lobbying.’”
Eizenstat then tried to get a letter signed by senators supporting Carter. But that died “after Humphrey withdrew as a signatory to the proposed letter; AIPAC’s lobbying had succeeded.”
Jordan was panicked. “We have galvanized public opinion in Israel against us and – I am afraid—alienated in a permanent way the American Jewish community.”
And all of this just through declarations of policy! The fear was that the United States was trying to impose a plan that would force Israel back to its 1967 boundaries to create a separate state for the Palestinians on the West Bank.
III. Carter Blindsides Israel by Announcing an International Peace Conference to Give Palestinians a Voice.
In July 1977, the White House convened an important meeting with Jewish leaders, about 50 from across the nation, led by Rabbi Alex Shindler of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Mondale, Vance, and Brzezinski sought to assure the leaders that nothing would be imposed on Israel.
“The Jewish leaders responded by accusing us of being too lax in our definition of peace with the Arabs… Mondale retorted with great conviction that the administration did not expect Israel to withdraw from the territories it acquired in the 1967 war without assurances of real peace. … Shindler remained unpersuaded and complained that Israel had little room for negotiation.”
Carter came in for the second hour of the gathering so as to “assuage the apprehensions that he was working against Israel’s interests.” He said he would work with Begin, work to strengthen Israel’s esteem for Begin, and promised that he would not dictate a plan.
“But in words no other president has used before or since, he described the problems of the Palestinians as ‘a cancer which needs to be healed. They need a home and a redress of wrongs.’”
Shindler was dubious. “Your words are not perceived as you intended them to be… We are nervous; this leads to a toughening of the Israeli backbone.”
The Jewish leaders were followed that month by Begin himself, on his first visit to the U.S. as prime minister. Meeting Carter and other officials in the Cabinet Room, he “launched into an historical tutorial unlike anything that any Israeli leader had given to a U.S. president. It was a detailed history of grievances.”
Shades of Netanyahu lecturing Obama 34 years later, Begin went on for a half hour, pulling out a map of the country to show the “perilous geography” and lecturing about European discrimination against Jews, the British conduct in Palestine, Arab attacks, and the heroic defense by Israelis “as if he were addressing a class of uneducated students.”
Carter cited UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) as the basis for negotiation. He saw them as a path to a Palestinian homeland linked to Jordan “rather than … an independent state.” He sought Israeli withdrawal from West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan “with minor modifications,” conditioned by security not settlements.
But Begin dug his heels in on the idea of leaving the West Bank. Eizenstat says Carter was prescient in “bluntly telling Begin: ‘New settlements on the West Bank might prevent the peace conference itself, as it will foreclose negotiations in the future.’”
Begin cited Jabotinsky. “We cannot prevent Jews from building on land in the original land of Israel of the Bible.”
Carter begged for a freeze as a sign of good faith. But Begin refused.
The encounter left Carter annoyed and exasperated. He spoke to Eizenstat in August 1977 and said of Israelis: “They do not want peace.” He also said that Israel had “misled” him on relations with South Africa and the nuclear program, a collaboration that he knew from “intelligence data.” That alliance has since been amply documented.
The president continued to butt heads with Israeli officials over the coming months. Carter wanted to give Palestinians “a voice in their own future.” But Israelis were deadset against such a thing. Ambassador Ephraim “Eppie” Evron and Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan met Carter and didn’t like him. Evron commented on his “very artificial smile.” Dayan rejected Carter’s plans “as possibly leading to an independent Palestinian state.”
The Israelis cited several private written commitments by previous administrations to Israel, including a promise by Nixon to Golda Meir in 1970 that there would be no Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories till there was total peace with Arab countries and Nixon and Gerald Ford assuring Israel that it would get “advance consultations” before the US made “any major decision.”
Then on October 1, 1977, the U.S. blindsided Israel. The White House and the Soviet Union announced a Geneva conference on the Middle East with the obvious intention of declaring a superpowers’ plan for peace.
Some staff rebelled. Jordan was enraged. Mark Siegel almost swerved off the road he was so shocked to hear the news.
“A firestorm arose, orchestrated by Dayan. The American Jewish leadership went into open war against the president in ways rarely seen before or since…. The casus belli was not just the lack of prior consultation with Israel but an elevation of the interest of the Palestinians into ‘legitimate rights’…”
The Conference of Presidents sent a telegram to Vance decrying “an abandonment of America’s historic commitment to the security and survival of Israel.” While AIPAC warned that “the U.S. is devaluing commitments to Israel” and it organized a letter-writing offensive in Congress.
Mark Siegel told Eizenstat in an interview that the announcement drove “Jimmy Carter’s stock in the American Jewish community substantially below any U.S. president since the creation of the state of Israel, and I’m including… Eisenhower’s stock.” He reminded Jordan of the number of states Carter won with strong Jewish support and concluded, “The talk in the American Jewish community is getting very ugly. The word ‘betrayal’ is being used more and more.”
Carter did not understand the reaction. He had a meeting with two Jewish aides, Eizenstat and White House counsel Bob Lipshutz, to ask why Jews were so upset. Eizenstat said he shared the concern that Palestinian participation in the conference “could be seen as a precursor to an independent Palestinian state on Israel’s border.”
Carter had to meet with Jewish congressmen on October 6. He said he should have briefed Congress in advance but said, “I will commit suicide before I abandon Israel.”
IV. A Superpower Caves to the demands of a Small State
“What happened next represented an embarrassing U-turn by the president,” Eizenstat writes. “One of the world’s two superpowers bowed to unprecedented domestic pressure reflecting the views and interests of a small state that was dependent upon the United States for military, political, and diplomatic support. This reflects the unusual relationship that existed for decades and continues today between the world’s strongest democracy and one of its smallest, if sturdiest, dependent states, and we were about to get a painful demonstration of how that worked.”
On October 4, Carter went to the UN Plaza Hotel and was “ambushed at the helipad” by Ed Koch, then a congressman, soon to become New York’s mayor, angrily protesting the joint declaration. Carter then went to an all-night negotiation at the presidential suite of the hotel with Vance, Brzezinski, and Dayan. As the president walked in, Dayan said, “I think you have a problem on your hands, Mr. President. And I can perhaps help you out with it.” (As the policy aide/scholar William Quandt later told Eizenstat.)
Carter said, “What do you mean?”
Dayan said, “Well, obviously many people are upset by the October 1 statement. Many of our friends are upset by it…’” . But if they were to release a statement amending the original statement, “[I think] that I could help you politically.”
Eizenstat is honest about what hubris Dayan’s comments represented.
This was an amazing intrusion into domestic politics by a foreign minister, even from a friendly country. But it had clearly been based on Israel’s assiduous cultivation of American Jewish groups and Congress, and left no doubt how closely Middle East policy is intertwined with domestic politics…
It is difficult to imagine the foreign minister of any country being as blunt to the leader of its major benefactor, and the president bristled at this threat. He said Israel’s case could be damaged in the U.S. by such actions, leaving Israel “isolated” and would “cause a cleavage that might be serious.”
Carter said Israel was “by far the most obstinate and difficult” of countries the U.S. had to deal with in the Middle East. Still: “Dayan did not yield.”
But early the next morning, Dayan got his wish. Jody Powell released a statement on behalf of Carter and Dayan saying UN Security Council Resolutions 338 and 242 remained the basis for resumption of the Geneva conference “and that all the understandings and agreements” between the US and Israel remained in force; we won’t do anything without consulting you.
“The fact remained that the president of the United States had reversed himself under intense pressure, hurting his credibility with both Israel and the Arab states… “
Eizenstat reflects that Carter had had to “tie himself into knots to reassure Jewish members of Congress.” Including that suicide comment. “Nevertheless we knew we were in deep political trouble.” Jordan was in despair over the “deteriorating relationship with the Jewish community,” and Mondale blasted Brzezinski’s role.
Carter compounded the problem when he sought to support an Egyptian resolution in the UN General Assembly condemning settlements as an obstacle to peace. Ham Jordan and Mondale were against it “on the basis of domestic politics.” Several aides “weighed in against the public condemnation of Israel” in a meeting with Carter in late October, proposing an abstention. Eizenstat says that the only vote against Israel at the UN by the US was during the ‘56 invasion. But Carter wanted to do so again:
“The president was so adamant that they were illegal, and so determined to show Egypt and the Arab world that he was not in Israel’s pocket, that he was willing to take the political heat at home and risk further straining relations with Israel.”
That, says Eizenstat, was the quintessential Jimmy Carter, wanting to do the right thing no matter what. But ultimately the aides prevailed. The U.S. abstained.
V. Even Alan Dershowitz Fears the Consequences of the Lobby’s Over-Reach
The biggest foreign policy achievement of the Carter administration was the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt signed in 1979. As Egyptian President Anwar Sadat launched that process with gestures toward Israel, and at last flew to the country in November 1977, Carter insisted that Palestinian autonomy must be part of a deal.
Menachem Begin’s vision of Palestinian autonomy “involved a kind of amputated Palestinian entity,” Sadat’s minister of state Boutros Boutros-Ghali wrote of initial meetings between the Egyptian and Israeli leaders. Walter Mondale cracked that you couldn’t even sell that in D.C. to people who sought home rule. But forty years later, of course, Israeli leaders are still talking about amputated Palestine and American leaders take them seriously.
What never changed in the administration, Eizenstat observes, was Carter’s “willingness to stake out positions that opposed Israeli policies.” Carter assured Sadat he favored Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories “completely” “with minor adjustments” and “self-determination of the Palestinians short of an independent nation.”
In January 1978, Carter sent Begin a strong message criticizing settlement expansion as “an obstacle to peace.” And later that year when he gave a speech to the Jewish community to assure them of his commitment to Israel’s security and “opposition to a Palestinian state,” Eizenstat writes, the speech only created trouble when Carter referred to the “legitimate rights” of the Palestinians.
Sadat was willing to compromise and thereby help Carter with American Jews. The president wrote in his White House diaries that when he met Sadat at Camp David in February 1978, Sadat said he had “decided in one fell swoop to accomplish all these Israeli desires and get the U.S. Jew lobby (as he referred to it) off my shoulders.”
But Begin didn’t budge. He didn’t have to; he had the lobby. Compromise by Begin, Eizenstat says, “was made even more difficult by Israeli pressure that was exerted through American Jewish leaders.”
The administration sent repeated messages to the Israelis that they should stop settlements. Israeli Ambassador Simcha Dinitz quoted Brzezinski in a cable back to Israel: “ISRAEL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT.”
Eizenstat relates that there “probably has not been a more confrontational meeting” between friends as the one in the Cabinet Room on March 22, 1978 at which Carter, Mondale, Brzezinski, Vance and Eizenstat met with Begin, Dayan, and Dinitz.
Carter said Israel was refusing to adhere to 242. And the U.S. sought “a voice for the Palestinians in their political future.” In a pointed echo of the Arab League’s three No’s in Khartoum in 1967, Carter cited Israel’s six No’s, all involving the refusal to countenance Palestinian self-government and a halt to settlements.
Begin countered, “We won’t agree to halt settlements during the negotiations, we have the right to settle there.”
Amazingly, even Alan Dershowitz was alarmed by the Israeli stiffneckedness and the American Jewish support. He called Eizenstat and warned, “We’re creating the wrong [American] Jewish leadership, who are knee-jerk for whatever the government of Israel does.”
The mistrust was building, Eizenstat writes:
I explained to Carter that American Jews’ nervousness about our Middle East policy was rooted in the bitter memory of American inaction while millions of Eastern European Jews were murdered during World War II, and he made it clear that he understood. But it was also difficult for American Jews to understand Carter’s strategy of enhancing Israel’s security by trying to build bridges to moderate Arabs and the Palestinians.
P.S. It was during his visit with Begin that Carter announced a commission to establish an American memorial to the Holocaust.
VI. Camp David Accords Between Egypt and Israel Leave Palestinians Out in the Cold
At this time, the Carter administration further alienated American Jews by having a pitched battle with AIPAC over selling fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Siegel quit over the F15 fighter sales, while the good cop in the administration, Fritz Mondale, went to Jerusalem at the end of June 1978 with US Jewish leaders, shmoozing them on the flight by serving lox, bagels and blintzes.
In a story that would anticipate Obama’s struggles with the American Jewish community, the LA Times reported that Carter’s policies were “having a corrosive impact on American Jewish opinion… A prominent Jewish businessman and campaign supporter of the president warned the White House that unless conditions changed for the better by 1980, ‘Jewish resources would be used to support a challenge to the President’s nomination.’“ That happened to Carter, but not Obama.
Carter hired a former AIPAC president, Ed Sanders, as an adviser on the Middle East, and meantime put all his personal and political capital on the line to convene Camp David talks, out of a sense of personal obligation to Sadat. Carter feared another war, and Sadat had told Carter he would have to have a war “to bring the Israelis back to the negotiating table.”
Sadat was willing to compromise even on Jerusalem to get a deal. Begin wanted one city indivisible, the capital of Israel. Begin ultimately allowed the US to fudge, saying that the American position on Jerusalem remained the same as the one previously set forth by US ambassadors to the U.N. but without spelling that out. Though UN resolutions said Jerusalem was occupied territory.
Carter pressed forward for promises of Palestinian autonomy, including passports in the name of Palestine and elections about the Palestinian future with all Palestinians voting from West Bank and abroad. Carter was encouraged by Vance, of whom Eizenstat said in contemporary notes, “Vance was very pro-Arab. Vance was impossible on this issue.” But other members of the administration stymied the president’s vision of autonomy. “It will be a disaster,” the vice president said.
Begin alienated Carter with what the president saw as bad faith. In draft language of the agreement, Palestinian “autonomy” was to be negotiated over 5 years and there was to be a settlement freeze during that period. But Begin ultimately interpreted the freeze as being for only 3 months— the period of negotiation for the Egyptian portion of the talks.
The misunderstanding would sour the relationship between Begin and Carter for the balance of Carter’s term as president and, I believe, colored his relationship with Israel for the rest of his life…
“[H]e broke his promise,” Carter said.
Eizenstat acknowledges that Palestinians “were the biggest losers” of the accord. Egyptian officials rebelled over Sadat’s compromises, and one resigned; but Egyptian ambassador Abdel Raouf El Reedy told Eizenstat in a 2013 interview that Sadat washed his hands, saying: “We have done for Palestine all that we could, but this problem will never be solved.”
Meantime, Israel demanded $3.3 billion from the U.S. to help it relocate a military base from the Sinai to Israel. Eizsentat never saw Carter hit the table with fury as he saw him do so now. He said he would not “allow Israel to ‘buy peace’” and he felt Israel was trying to “extort money” from the U.S.
VII. Egyptians and Israelis Sign a Deal as Begin Jokes About Blowing Up the King David Hotel.
Carter acknowledged that “we’ve done nothing but lose politically” by opposing settlements, but he continued to pressure Begin to the point that Begin feared “a total break with Washington” over the settlements and Palestinians.
Still, the Israeli government expanded settlements in the West Bank even as negotiations on an Egyptian accord continued.
“Israel’s West Bank settlements became the third rail of Middle East diplomacy. It is possible that Carter could have resolved the dispute if he had been elected to a second term, but he was not. Ronald Reagan did not engage himself in the Middle East.”
Carter then extended himself by going to Israel in March 1979. In a meeting in the Presidential Suite of the King David Hotel, Begin bragged to Carter about blowing it up in 1946. “I’ve always liked the King David Hotel. You know, I blew it up once, using explosives in milk canisters.” He enjoyed the joke, smiling as he concluded, “Don’t worry, I’m not going to do it again.”
The emerging deal with Egypt included an energy agreement giving Israel access to U.S. oil at market prices if Israel could not meet its demands in the international markets, “a pledge the United States had never made before (or since) to any other country.” And Carter wanted to announce it before the election because “his Jewish support [was] lagging,” Eizenstat writes.
VIII. Carter Loses the 1980 Election.
Carter lost in a “landslide, in the process garnering only 40 percent of the Jewish vote, the lowest percentage of any Democratic president in modern times.” How did that happen? Carter seemed “somewhat alien to his Jewish supporters” and managed to have a “series of botched diplomatic decisions about U.N. resolutions on Israel” that made matters worse, Eizenstat writes.
There was also the controversy ending Andrew Young’s tenure as Carter’s ambassador to the U.N.
Young had been elected to Congress in 1972. With Eizenstat’s help, Young had “developed a strong position on Israel that appealed to the influential Jewish community in Atlanta, and he carried this with him to Congress, where he compiled an impeccable pro-Israel voting record.”
But as ambassador Young held an informal meeting with Zehdi Labib Terzi, the PLO representative to the U.N. and a professor of English literature at Columbia, in the summer of 1979. He thereby “broke an official rule established by Henry Kissinger as secretary of state… agreeing with Israel that the United States would not negotiate with the PLO. Carter renewed this pledge during his election campaign to hold on to the Jewish vote, and Congress formalized and broadened the diplomatic ban in 1976.”
Eizenstat suggests that the Israelis leaked Young’s meeting. “No one knew better than Dayan how to rouse the anger of American Jewry” when it came to the Terzi meeting, Eizenstat says.
Young resigned and was replaced by Donald McHenry. And in March 1980 a Security Council resolution calling for the dismantling of settlements went through with U.S. support. “Vance and the president himself were looking for an opportunity to send a strong signal to Menachem Begin about the impact the expansion of settlements was having on talks about autonomy for the Palestinians.”
The White House believed all Jerusalem language was removed from that resolution, Eizenstat says; but it wasn’t. UN SC 465 contained numerous references to Jerusalem—and it was adopted three weeks before the New York Democratic primary.
The campaign staff in New York was in revolt, Mondale told Carter that workers were literally walking out of headquarters. “Mondale was livid and ‘discouraged,’ accurately forecasting it has ‘revived Kennedy’ and would cost Carter the New York primary…. Mondale was like a man possessed saying, ‘We’ve got a firestorm.’”
Carter disavowed the resolution, but Mondale blamed Vance, and Rosalynn Carter said Cy Vance had not a political bone in his body, for he testified to Congress and said that it was administration policy.
The damage was done. Previous to New York, President Carter had swept nine states across the Midwest and south and only lost Massachusetts. He had won Illinois, winning 70 percent of Jewish Democrats, and held a 20 percent lead over Kennedy in polls. It was reported that Kennedy was planning to withdraw after the New York primary. But: “In the primary we suffered massive Jewish defections.” And Kennedy won New York by 59 to 41 percent.
The opposition to settlements in a key UN vote had caused Carter’s alienation from the American Jewish establishment, Eizenstat says. “The howls of outrage from Israel, AIPAC and major American Jewish leaders reached their highest octave…. At a White House staff meeting on March 24, Carter complained, ‘The Jewish community has never given me a break, even when Begin is at the far extreme, and other Israelis agree with me.’”
Carter prevailed over Kennedy at the Democratic convention in New York; but in the general election Carter received “the lowest percentage of support from the American Jewish community of any modern Democratic presidential candidate” – 45 percent, down from 70 percent just 4 years before.
Carter even paid for the historic peace treaty he had brokered between Israel and Egypt at Camp David. The president had “to push both sides, and the Jewish community didn’t like the fact that he had pushed Israel,” the president’s political guru the late Ham Jordan later said. Eizenstat writes:
“From the New York primary onward, I believe Carter was left with the view that New York Jews had not only defeated him in the primary but were also a factor in his loss in November. He was also hurt by bitter opposition over the U.N. vote from New York City’s egocentric Jewish mayor, Ed Koch, even after Carter had literally saved his city from bankruptcy.”
Ham Jordan said some of the opposition was cultural, a suspicion of Carter as a southern Baptist.
Begin also contributed to that dislike–
“Although he spoke graciously about Carter from time to time, he continued making statements to try to rally the Jewish community to him in the peace process. Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.”
Of course they are not unbeatable. If human kind came together, we could fix all the problems on Earth in a day.
Thankfully we have satan and his children to keep us scurrying around like drugged cockroaches.
I felt truly sickened by reading through this. Physically ill.
The stench of sulfur and brimstone was too much to bear.
Yea well Mr Carter was responsible for one of the biggest reasons “israel” got the upper hand. He arranged a so called “peace agreement” that the Arab states that surround “israel” signed so they could get US tax dollar “aid” money. In exchange for this they had to agree not to take any acts of aggression out on “israel” or the money stops. Yet “israel” was allowed to keep slaughtering the helpless native people it occupies. The Arab states were flooded with helpless Palestinian victims who were forced out of their homes by the Zionist European Jew occupiers who now refer to themselves as “israelis”.
Not very much of this US tax dollar “aid” money even goes to help the Arab people or the Palestinian refugees. Most of it lines the pockets of corrupt Arab leaders who sold their souls to the sons of Satan.
So not only do we the American tax payer fork over billions a year to “israel” directly but we also fork over billions more each year to the surrounding corrupt Arab leaders so they will just sit on their golden throwns and do nothing while helpless Palestinians get slaughtered every day in front of all of our eyes.
We pay the Arab leaders “protection” money just like helpless citizens paid the Mafia in exchange for them not beating them up while they tried to run their businesses and daily lives.
Protection money….. American Tax Dollars….Any thing for the Jews right fellow Americans?
Jimmy Carter stands as one of the strongest allies “israel” ever had. If he feels guilt or sorrow today because of it then he should.
He can burn in hell with all the rest of American presidents that shoved their heads up the kosher ass of the Jews.
ed note–it is exactly comments of this sort that lead me to conclude that it is hopeless and that indeed, the Jews will finally win everything that they have been dreaming of attaining now for 2,000 + years.
LB, did you bother to actually READ the article? Was it not clear to you, in the very detailed manner in which it was written, just what kind of pressures Carter was under? He met with an Israeli PM who BRAGGED about blowing up the King David Hotel and killing dozens of innocent people in the process.
THIS is the kind of world in which US presidents are forced to work and live, which is NOT by any stretch the world in which you and I live.
Carter could have sold out from the beginning and had a cushy presidency, but instead he went up against the monster in the only way that was (politically) possible at that time, or so he thought. He could have chosen a much easier path, but instead tried in the limited capacity available to him at that time to do his best, a price he paid then and a price he pays to this very day with the unrelenting vitriol that is heaped upon him by the Jews.
As I said, it is comments such as this that bring the picture into almost perfect clarity and focus as to why no substantive progress is made on this issue when a ‘pro-Palestinian’ type finds herself standing alongside pro-Israel Jews who are also saying ‘may he burn in hell for what he did’.
another point, almost as critical precisely because so commonly overlooked is how much, to this day, JEW HATES OBAMA and feels betrayed by him.
for all of obama’s atrocities, he actually MINIMIZED them, given the weight of truly satanic pressures, brought down on him, the round the clock curses, imprecations, pulsa di nuras uttered fervently by thousands of highly experienced kabbalist necromancers, hellary clinton installed and remotely micromanaged by george soros and lynn rothschild to ensure flawless operation, obama managed rather well, without the almost invincible private and otherwise (read: domestic intel + military plus putin’s inner circle) security enveloping donald trump – does anyone seriously believe that he’d still be breathing today had he been left to the secret service tender mercies like obama was?
truly, we are witnessing a doomsday struggle between leviathan and behemoth and everybody, including the bible, are clueless as to how it ends.
the only thing i know that the tragicomically moronic contingent continues to condemn trump even they pore over the sandy hook and
glassplastic beads tossed to them by the carthagenian merchant-parasites.As a descendant of those who lost their lands to these hyenas, I understand Lady Bat’s emotions, but at the same time, I am forced to agree with the ed note–It is exactly this kind of ill-considered emotionalism that the Jews utilize to their advantage in furthering their infernal agenda. As the article makes clear, the ‘leader of the free world’ is not nearly as powerful as is believed to be the case and as some would like to imagine.
to TUT Editor, you may be surprised at Lady Bat’s comments, but I am not.
In the decades I have been involved with the Palstinian/jewish issue, I have literally seen it all, and particularly acute these days is the utter irrationality on the part of many pro-Palestinian partisans who simply cannot see by virtue of the seething resentment which they rightly feel how they are maneuvered time and again by zionist partisans into slitting their own throats in a very public and dramatic way.
yes, the fact that Carter is hated by the Jews and yet here is an obvious pro-palestinian voice siding up with these same jews in her own condamnation of a man whose political career was destroyed by the jews for having dared utilize the power of his office for a more balanced approach to the palestinian issue is very disconcerting, to say the least.
You all seem to be under the impression that if a person is someone the Jews hate then that person must be “one of the good guys”. Didn’t you know that the Jews hate any one that does not give them 100 % of what they demand? Not 99.9% but 100%.
What I said about Carter is the truth. He did one of the biggest things to make “israel” even more powerful than it already was. Later he comes out against settlements. How good of him.
But I guess Mr. Carter is a saint compared to LB Johnson. Now there is an American president we can all be proud of right my kindred spirits? Sold our own service men out to the Jews. Used them as pawns then tried to slaughter them and blame it on the Arabs. And our then AMERICAN PRESIDENT not only covered it all up for them but actually HELPED THEM DO IT!
Okay now you all go on and tell me how I should feel sorry for Johnson too. How pressured he must have felt to do that to the very people who were serving under him.
I am not an American president. I am no one of importance. Yet. I would put a bullet to my head before any one could ever make me feel so pressured as to do something like that.
To bad I have more balls than American presidents.
ed note–no one is saying that Carter–or any of the others–were/are ‘good guys’. Likewise, no one is calling Carter a ‘saint’, compared to LBJ or whoever. The entire reason for posting the article–as clearly explained in the ed note commentary–was to provide much needed historical context not only for what happened then, but indeed, what has happened since then and more importantly, what is happening now.
Now, you may think you have ‘balls’ and that you would put a bullet in your head if you found yourself in similar circumstances, but what happens when you find out that there are israeli nukes–dozens perhaps–that have been smuggled into the country decades ago, some have been found, some are still out there, and that Israel is going to start setting them off, killing millions of innocent people in the process, if her demands are not met?
Are you going to put a gun to your head and blow your brains out rather than come to terms and engage in some type of rational behavior? If so, then thank God you are not president.
The Jews got what they wanted and where they are now by taking small bites, a nibble at a time, rather than just walking away in rage because they didn’t get the whole thing. The only way the Palestinians are going to get back what was taken from them is by engaging in the same strategy.
Your posture is EXACTLY why the Palestinians have made no progress. Loud, irrational, ‘ballsy’ behavior that only results in the loss of all political/public support vis the people from whom they need it most. The Jews got their country by playing the victim card after the Hollerco$t and by being savvy with the media and with the message they needed to convey and if the Palestinians stand a snowball’s chance in hell of coming out of this thing the victors, then they are going to have to do the same thing.
As we like to say here, no one ever accused the Jews of being stupid, and no one ever accused the Gentiles of being smart.
“….. but what happens when you find out that there are israeli nukes–dozens perhaps–that have been smuggled into the country decades ago, some have been found, some are still out there, and that Israel is going to start setting them off, killing millions of innocent people in the process, if her demands are not met?”
Any good books you recommend that cover this topic?
ed note–this is a theory that (to my knowledge) I was the first to introduce into the various discussions involving israel, and so I can’t off the top of my head recommend any books that have furthered this theory, as I don’t know of any. Perhaps Mike PIpers ‘The Golem’ mentions it, I can’t remember, although I certainly recommend this book be read nonetheless, as all Mike’s books should be.
Emotions are pretty much worthless in the grand scheme of things. That is because it usually gets in the way of good judgement.
Explain why Prophet Muhammad, after an assassination attempt by a rabbi/jew, went to see the same individual who plotted it, when he became sick to genuinely offer aid and comfort? Why did God, through the Prophets, especially Jesus tell us to love our neighbors? People invariably think it through based on emotion rather than what it really is, good judgement.
Maybe God knows something we don’t.
ed note–this is a theory that (to my knowledge) I was the first to introduce into the various discussions involving israel, and so I can’t off the top of my head recommend any books that have furthered this theory, as I don’t know of any. Perhaps Mike PIpers ‘The Golem’ mentions it, I can’t remember, although I certainly recommend this book be read nonetheless, as all Mike’s books should be.<<<
In other words dear esteemed Editor….. A JEW BLUFF. That you help to spread when you have provided no evidence to support such a theory.
We are the United States of America. No one has weapons more destructive or more powerful than ours. This is not necessarily something that I am proud of but it is a fact.
If we are going to be the top of the food chain on planet earth THEN WE SHOULD ACT LIKE IT!
ISRAEL EXISTS BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ALLOW IT TO EXIST. If we decide collectively as one that it should no longer exist it won't exist but so many of my fellow Americans have forgotten who we are. We have allowed the Jews to turn us into cowards.
When our government wanted it Saddam Housein was our pet. Then he was not. In a matter of days our media turned him into our worst enemy even though most of us had never even heard of him.
"israel" exists because we want it to. When we don't want it to it won't.
ed note–ok, so it is a theory–as yet unproven–that Israel was behind 9/11, but because putting it into the mainstream of discussion obviously helps in furthering Israel’s image of invincibility, we need to not discuss this theory.
Likewise with Israel’s assassinations of JFK, RFK, and JFK jr. Those are theories as well, but because they obviously help in furthering Israel’s image of invincibility, we need to not discuss these theories either.
Likewise with the theories surrounding Israel’s attack on the USS LIBERTY–just theories that obviously help in furthering Israel’s image of invincibility, so we need to not discuss these theories either.
I could go on for an hour, but I think I have made my point.
Lady Bat, Dr’s orders for you are as follows–Go take a LOOOOONG, very cold shower to cool off that hot blood of yours that has obviously gone to your head and is preventing you from thinking rationally, and please don’t come back to the discussion table until this perscription has been filled.
They have mobile nukes now, after Germany gave them all of those modern U-Boats. Rat bastards……
ed note–ok, so it is a theory–as yet unproven–that Israel was behind 9/11, but because putting it into the mainstream of discussion obviously helps in furthering Israel’s image of invincibility, we need to not discuss this theory.”
Oh but there is so much information out there that makes it much more than just a theory that they were directly involved in 9-11. But a google search about your theory that “israel” has hidden nukes planted around US soil and that may be why all American Presidents are scared to death of them turned up nothing my dear esteemed Editor. All I found was an article that claims Russia put hidden nukes on US soil during the cold war. And another one by Veterans Now web site that makes the same theory claim as you but shows not one thing in it that is remotely evidence. How ever, there are tons of sites that show actual believable evidence that the israelis were directly involved in 9-11.
ed note–the fact that there are no others out there advancing the theory that Israel has smuggled nukes not only into the US, but indeed into every world capital, does not make it not true. You will also find no one else advancing the theory that what we see taking place right now is Judea’s revenge against what the Romans did 2,000 years ago, but because there is one lone voice out there amongst millions advancing this, does it make it not true?
You make excuses for American Presidents bowing down to israel and in them doing so they bow down in your name and in mine. I do not agree with you about that.
ed note–we are not making excuses for anything or anyone. We are merely approaching this thing from a rational posture rather than letting our emotions get the best of us, which only works towards helping the Jews.
You say that I should try to understand the “pressure” they are under from the Jews. I say they should grow a pair and stop fighting like a girl!
ed note–again, this is very easy for you to say. Imagine one of these dogs holding a gun to the head of one of your kids, and warning that if you did not do exactly as they said, they would blow their brains out. Are you going to ‘grow a pair’ and go all Kung-foo on them or are you going to do exactly as they say? Now, imagine that instead of a single gun being held to the head of one of your children, it is a thermo-nuclear device being held to the heads of 300 million. Perhaps then you might understand the stakes that are involved.
“Likewise with the theories surrounding Israel’s attack on the USS LIBERTY–just theories that obviously help in furthering Israel’s image of invincibility, so we need to not discuss these theories either.” Editor
OMG! Are you saying that the attack on the Liberty is a theory? No its hard core fact and there is plenty of hard evidence that proves it! To say otherwise is to call every single survivor on that ship a liar.
ed note–anyone who has even remotely followed my work over the years knows that I have written several books on the USS LIBERTY, a hundred or so articles, and for 2 years, hosted a program with a LIBERTY survivor where the main topic of discussion was–drum role please–Israel’s deliberate and premeditated attack on the USS LIBERTY. Therefore it is an absolute NO BRAINER that yours truly does not believe that the attack was a ‘theory’.
A CLOSER and more RATIONAL examination of what I wrote reveals that I used the word ‘THEORIES”, in that several THEORIES have been brought forth by those seeking to answer the particular question WHY it was that Israel did what she did. Some say it was to blame Egypt and then to draw America into the Middle East in the exact manner she has been since 9/11, the one which I give the most credibility. Others say it was because the LIBERTY was listening in on those directives by Israeli HQ to take the Golan Heights, which (it is alleged) America did not want taking place.
Whatever the case may be, as of this moment, there are only THEORIES explaining or attempting to explain why the Joos did what they did, and the fact that I had to waste as much as a millisecond of my time explaining this underscores in a small sense why we are so dreadfully behind schedule in solving this very serious problem.
The israelis are not invincible. They have folks like you bluffed into thinking they are. They are nothing but a band of wandering gypsies running a con game on the whole world. They are good at it because they’ve been doing it for centuries. Wandering all over Europe bluffing and stealing and tricking. They were taught an old dying obsolete religious belief left over from the Arab world and they were able to add it to their con game and use it to their advantage. Do not give them more credit than they deserve dear Editor. They bleed. They die. They fear. They despair. They can be defeated. As all humans can be. But not by the majority of us sitting around in chat rooms dreaming about it. There is only so far you can go with class room education. Sooner or later you have to graduate out into the real world and go to work with what you have learned.
ed note–I do not believe nor have I ever believed they were invincible, the obvious proof of which is the fact that I continue doing what I do at the great personal risk that I do. At the same time however, to underestimate their capabilities and the lengths to which they are willing to go–including incinerating the entire world–if they don’t get every damned thing they demand is in my opinion une erreur fatale. They did not get to where they are in terms of their power by luck. They are cunning, remorseless, very resourceful, masters of Jew-jitsu in the political realm and anyone doing battle with them who does not factor this into the equation might as well just sign their own death certificate.
“Lady Bat, Dr’s orders for you are as follows–Go take a LOOOOONG, very cold shower to cool off that hot blood of yours that has obviously gone to your head and is preventing you from thinking rationally, and please don’t come back to the discussion table until this perscription has been filled.”-Ed
You need to take one too then dear esteemed Editor. If this is how angry you get when someone who holds you in the highest regards simply disagrees with you. Peace out Bat
ed note–throughout this entire exercise, I have not entertained as much as a microbe of anger. My personal posture has been nothing more than one would experience with me if I were conveying my favorite recipe for spaghetti sauce. If you are reading ‘anger’ into this, then you are simply allowing your emotions to get the best of you–again. In fact, that particular paragraph where I was counseling you as an MD to take a cold shower and to cool off was done in the spirit of light-hearted affection, and anyone who has followed my work on this site knows that I don’t fly off the handle but rather try to argue as stoicly as possible the case before the court of public opinion for the simple reason that once one DOES fly off the handle, they have lost the argument, and the fact is, I hate losing, and even when I am seething inside, for the sake of winning, I will bite my tongue and bide my time.
And the ‘highest regards’ is mutual, by the way.
Lady Bat’s heated emotions are certainly understandable and equally justified, but history sides in favor of our esteemed editor’s counsel–what is needed is cooler heads, because the Jews always utilize our emotions in paralyzing our efforts in their favor.
Its all good our esteemed editor (smile). We still stand as one fighting the battles of the garden of good and evil. Neither of us are alone and never will be.
We need countermeasures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zJEzgTZbx8