Horowitz is at a minimum ignorant of history. Studiously so regarding the Near East. But let me show you rather than just tell you.

Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 14, 2006

Even as Islamic Hitlerites gather in Iran to deny the first Holocaust of the Jews and to plot the second, former president Jimmy Carter tours America with a new book that describes Jews as racists and oppressors, and suggests they are also a conspiratorial mafia that intimidates "critics," controls America's media and war policy, and are therefore also the source of Islamic terrorism and the Arabs' genocidal campaign to eliminate them from the map of the Middle East.

Hitlerites? I have no idea when that word went out of style in the US. I was born in 1945 and never heard it until a few years ago I when I started looking into the geopolitics of WWII. (The geopolitics is like sausage and the law. It is nothing like you have been told. Don't say I didn't warn you.)

But even worse he shows total ignorance of politics of the Nazis. One would think a Jew who is so ready to use such a label would try to become familiar with the subject. Nazism is about the last political system that could take root in the Middle East. They can't be accused of wanting a theocracy and Nazism at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. Only a very stupid person would use "Hitlerite" to describe them.

Look at how casually "plot the next one" is inserted. The entire meeting was open to the public and there was plenty of press coverage. No such thing happened but Horowitz has no problem lying while calling others liars. This is a quite malicious lie in the west where the holocaust is sacred and ritual profession of faith in it is mandatory in public.

In other words, Americans beware of the Jew in your midst.

I have not read the book. I have read several of Carter's interviews about the book. I have read him describing the kind of attacks contained in this article. Carter could not ask for a better example to prove his case.

But from the number of lies in the one article I do suggest "Beware of a David Horowitz in your midst." He is one of the more infamous liars about Iraq leading up to the conquest of Iraq. Lying does come quite naturally to him. The over 3000 dead Americans in Iraq are as much his fault as anyone's.

Here is Carter's description of the Middle East conflict in his own words, delivered during an interview he gave on National Public Radio during the second day of the Holocaust deniers' conference in Teheran:

"I have spent a lot of time in Palestine in recent years. ... The Palestinians have had their own land, first of all, occupied and then confiscated and then colonized. They've been excluded from their own gardens and fields, and pastures and churches. They have been severely restrained in their movements. They have to have different kinds of passes to go through different checkpoints inside their own lands on their own roads. The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine.They connect these settlements with very nice roads for the Israeli settlers, and then superhighways and so forth going into Jerusalem. Quite often the Palestinians are prevented from even riding on those roads that have been built in their own territory. So this has been in many ways worse than it was in South Africa."

When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel this is more than a lie; it is a blood libel.

He does not deny anything Carter said which is good because it is all true. In fact when he discusses the wall below he admits everything Carter is true but attempts to justify it. But he calls the truth blood libel. Does he expect to be taken seriously? Of course he does as he is in our midst.

Also note it is very clear from the statement that Carter is talking about the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem. The Israeli Supreme Court says it is occupied. The Israeli Attorney General says it is occupied. This began in 1967 and events prior to 1948 have nothing to do with it.

It is a lie that Palestinians "had their own land, first of all, occupied." This is like saying that Texans had their own land occupied by Hispanics, ignoring the fact that Hispanics were there first. The very word Palestine is a Roman appellation for the people called Philistines, who were not Arabs but red-haired sailors from the Aegean. The Jews were there as well.

The gentleman is ignorant of history. The first mention of these people are as the Palestine Syrians by Herodotus in the mid 5th century BC. Herodotus never came across any people who could have been the Jews in his travels through the region. The word Philistine appears in the corruption of the Jewish Old Testament.

And as Carter is clearly talking about the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem which Israel agrees is occupied he is challenging the formal legal position of Israel itself. And that occupation began in 1967 so he is deliberately discussing the wrong thing.

In short, first of all the Jews were in the land before the Arabs.

In short, he is very wrong. By real history we have no evidence Jews were in the region 2500 years ago. By real history the Judeans of Roman times simply converted to Christianity and later to Islam. The Palestinians and Sephardic Jews are genetically brothers. Ashkenazi Jews like Horowitz are unrelated to either. They are not descended from the Jews of Roman times.

Second of all, the Arabs who inhabited the Palestine Mandate in 1948, at the time of the creation the state of Israel, considered themselves Syrians.

As above this tradition goes back to Herodotus. They are the Palestine Syrians. In fact save for a short period of errors in Roman times the region called Palestine was ruled from Damascus. Even under Islam, save for the Crusader period, it was ruled from Damascus. Damascus was in turn ruled from Turkey in Ottoman times. That was the hierarchy.

While it might be excusable in some sense not to know ancient or medieval history it is not excusable to be ignorant of modern history. Both Lebanon and Palestine were carved out of the Damascus governate of the Ottoman empire. Syria's original refusal to recognize Israel was its historical claim, going back at least 2500 years, to Palestine and to the Israel planted in Palestine. This also explains Syria's interests in Lebanon. Syria never agreed to France carving out Lebanon in the vain hope of creating a Christian majority country. Nor did it agree to Britain carving out Palestine to satisfy the Balfour declaration. The Balfour declaration was to give Palestine to Europeans.

Third, the Palestine Mandate was not created on land taken from the Syrians or the Arabs. It was taken from the Turks.

Who it was taken from as a governate is separate from whose private property was taken by Jews for themselves from non-Jews. It was taken from Palestinians landowners. This is what we call theft plain and simple. As it was done by murdering the reluctant and driving out 750,000 Palestinians and then murdering those who tried to return to their property one can see why the owners were and remain a touch upset. When lawful means of recovery are not possible violent means are permitted.

It was not taken from the Turks by the Jews, but by the British and the French. They took it because Turkey sided with Germany in the First World War and, of course, lost. The Turkish empire had ruled the entire region including Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan for four hundred years before Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan were artificially created by the English and the French. Jordan - a state whose majority is Palestinian - occupies 80% of the Palestine Mandate.

So it is a preposterous lie to say that the Palestinians had their own land and that it was occupied by the Jews.

But to sell his worthless excuse he sticks with who ruled the land rather than who owned the land and pretends Carter is talking about Mandate times rather than post 1967 times. What does it matter who ruled it? Individuals and tribes owned it. That private property was in fact stolen by Jews. They may have been murderous Zionist Jews but they were Jews.

The Syrians have been around for at least 2500 years, those called Assyrians even longer. The idea France and Britain created Syria is ignorance of history beyond belief but I can't prove he knows he is lying.

But as he does not list Palestine as an artificial creation he must know something of the real history of the region. This is a strong indication he is lying.

Fourth, the individual plots of land that Jews now own were in the first instance bought from the Arabs who regarded themselves as Syrians and who lived in the area of Israel. The only property that was confiscated was confiscated as a spoil of the aggressive war that five Arab states waged against Israel from the day of its birth. Five Arab armies invaded Israel, a sovereign state, with the declared intent of "pushing the Jews into the sea." The cry today of the Muslim majority in the Middle East is to "liberate Palestine from the river to the sea." In other words push the Jews into the sea.

Land was taken as spoils of war. OK, the right to govern as a consequence of conquest was first renounced by members of the UN and Israel was a member of the UN in 1967. But that is only the right to govern. It is nothing else. Is absolutely NOT the right of ownership. Claiming actual ownership contributed to many people being hanged at Nuremberg.

As for being bought, about 3% was in fact bought and lawfully owed by the European immigrants. That means 74% of the land was stolen leaving 23% as the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And this was done in 1948 nor did it have UN approval, only sovereignty had UN approval. In fact the UN specifically required the return of the Palestinians to their private property.

Israel passed land laws declaring land whose owners were absent for a few years became state property. And then of course the European immigrants murdered any owner trying to return. They even killed citizens of Israel who were driven into ghettos if they tried to return to their land and claim it. Thus by murder Israel had the color of law to claim ownership.

But even if someone is foolish enough to buy into his confiscated land idea Carter is still talking about post 1967 times not pre-1948 times when Israel did not exist. Even if someone is foolish enough to buy into his confiscated land idea the Palestinians are the only people who did not send an army against the Jews so there is no justification for confiscating anything from them.

All Horowitz has are long discredited Zionist lies. Can he really be so stupid as to not realize Carter is talking about post 1967 war times not pre-1948 times? Can he as stupid as he writes?

By the standards of occupation and legitimacy Jimmy Carter invokes, Israel has more legitimacy as a Jewish state than Texas does as an American state, rather than a Mexican province.

Except for one minor point. The president of Mexico ceded Texas to the Texans. No one ever ceded Palestine to the Jews. There are other points such as Americans actually bought land or were given it as land grants. Also in those days acquisition by conquest was considered legitimate and that is how the "Hispanics" Horowitz tries to inject into it got the land from the Indians. He is simply trying to muddle the water by getting Hispanics to weigh into the argument against Carter. Or perhaps he really does want to equate the Hispanics and the European Jews with the Conquistadors.

The fifth Jimmy Carter lie in this lone Jimmy Carter sentence is the claim that the Jews have colonized anything. "The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine."

Why is it wrong of the Jews to live in the West Bank? (The 7000 Jews of Gaza, of course, have already been expunged as result of the Arabs' genocidal hate.) Why can't Jews have settlements in the West Bank?

Why is it wrong? First off Israel acknowledges 40% of their squattertowns in the West Bank are built on private property owned by Palestinians. So they are living on stolen land and that is always criminal no matter what other considerations there are.

Why cannot Jews have colonies in the West Bank in general? Germany did that in Poland and as above it contributed to their hanging. At the time Israel started its colonies in 1967 it was a long established war crime. The present day squatters are war criminals pure and simple. They cannot even plead they are following orders.

And it is clearly a war crime as the Supreme Court of Israel and its Attorney General have always held the West Bank is under belligerent occupation within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions. That puts their squattertowns squarely in the category of war crimes. There is no debate on the fanciful difference between occupied and disputed left. Israel has legally declared the land to be under belligerent occupation. End of discussion.

The answer is because the Palestinians Arabs are filled with a racist and theocratic hate towards the Jews. They can't tolerate a non-Muslim, non-Arab people --however small a minority -- living in their midst. (The 7000 Jews of Gaza - out of a population of 1.2 million - were law-abiding and peaceful and created a horticultural industry that produced ten percent of Gaza's gross national product. But they were Jews. And that was intolerable to Palestine's Nazis. So they had to be removed.)

Not only is he ignorant of modern history he is ignorant of the facts which he could have learned at any time simply by reading the English language Israeli newspapers available on the web. Lets take the 7000 compared to 1.2 million as an example. Please explain why 7000 Jews claimed (stole) fully one third of the land of Gaza which was also the best land. I suggest the "intolerance" was based upon the huge land grab. Those few Jews also claimed the best water resources and dumped their untreated sewage onto neighboring Palestinian farmland as they still do in the West Bank.

And the claim those few produced 10% of the GNP is also clearly bogus given the land grab and other facts. It is certainly an example of gross mismanagement if a full one third of the land can only produce one tenth of the GNP.

The term GNP makes no sense in this context but I took my best guess at giving it a meaning.

In addition Palestinians in Gaza could only export their products through Israel. Much of it was flowers and food in competition with the Jews in Gaza. Israeli customs had unique requirements for perishable exports by Palestinians, they took several times longer to get through export inspection and often simply left to rot and spoil. Many times the packaging was deliberately damaged so the produce was also. This year Israel caused the entire seasonal export of Gaza to be a total loss. So we really do not know what the relative fractions would have been if the treatment had been equal.

As for them being law abiding and peaceful, Israeli newspapers regularly reported their armed attacks on Palestinians in Gaza and the Israel army protecting them WHILE THEY ATTACKED and defending them from retaliation. Horowitz should read the Jerusalem Post, Israel Insider and Haaretz to learn what it is really like over there. (I suspect he does and knows he is lying but I can't prove it.)

I cannot see a single reason to say the Palestinians are racist because they use deadly force in an attempt to regain their private property and expel the thieves. That is a natural and normal human reaction without regard to race. All thieves are equal and equally evil. There is no special class of noble Jewish thieves. A thief who is a Jew gets no special consideration because he is a Jew.

For the record, Jews are not a race and neither are Arabs. Jews are a religion and nothing else. Atheists have to accept some tenets of the Jewish religion to call themselves Jews so they are not really atheists. If Horowitz claims to be an atheist or agnostic he is not a Jew. If he claims to be a Jew he is not an atheist or an agnostic.

Contrast Carter's attack on Jews living in the West bank as "colonizers" who must be expelled with the fact that more than a million Arabs live in Israel, where Israel provides them with more rights - including the right to vote and elect Arab members of Israel's government - than any Arab who lives in any Arab state in the Middle East.

Carter is quite restrained in calling them colonizers when in fact they are criminal squatters who would have a date with hangman in a lawful world. And the West Bank includes East Jerusalem which includes the old city. Israel claim to have annexed Jerusalem is not recognized by a single country in the world. Every country considers the annexation claim null and void. Jordan's 1948 claim to have annexed Jerusalem was not recognized by any country in the world either, not even Egypt.

It is also pertinent to note the Palestinians living in Israel are citizens of Israel. The Israelis squatting in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are not citizens of Palestine and have no rights as citizens. So Horowitz would compared citizens living in their own country with foreigners living in another on stolen land and protected by military force. Horowitz has nothing but long discredited Zionist lies to offer.

Horowitz brings up my disagreement with Carter's public statements regarding his book and Israel. Non-Jews who are citizens of Israel do not have the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel. This is often discussed in Israeli newspapers. They cannot bring their spouses to live in Israel. They cannot bring their relatives to live in Israel. In no case can their spouses and relatives become citizens of Israel. The spouses and relatives of Jews can go to Israel and become citizens. Israel's housing rules, written and unwritten, were apparently copied from the Jim Crow era of the American South. The country is almost totally segregated. Palestinian schools have been "separate but equal" from the beginning and still are. They have all the worst aspects of that neglect that occurred in the US.

For Horowitz's insult to injury he says they can vote for their own members of Israel's government. While that is true the people they elect are removed from office if they advocate equal rights for non-Jewish citizens of Israel. Ending Jewish discrimination is specifically prohibited as a political platform. It is prohibited by law for Israeli elected officials to advocate equal rights for all the citizens of Israel. That undermines Horowitz's entire position of equality.

So my disagreement with Carter is in the reasons he gives to say his use of Apartheid does not apply to Israel itself. Israel is definitely segregated and non-Jews are politically limited and do not have equal rights with Jewish citizens. How close that comes to Apartheid is a separate issue. It is certainly a situation that Americans have not tolerated for half a century.

But then Horowitz does use the peculiar Jewish formulation of his claim. He does not say they are equal to Jews in Israel. He says "where Israel provides them with more rights - including the right to vote and elect Arab members of Israel's government - than any Arab who lives in any Arab state in the Middle East." So he is saying Israel is somewhat better than non-Jewish countries in the middle east.

In every country in the middle east all citizens are equal regardless of what rights they have even very few and none politically. Lebanon and Yemen are full fledged democracies where all are equal and have the same rights unlike Israel where non-Jews do not have the same rights. Although I disagree, the US says the same in true in Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq. Although not in the Middle East all are equal in Turkey and Iran and have full political rights. Pakistan is so democratic it has a woman as prime minister. Saudi and Kuwait are on the way to being democracies of all the citizens and what rights their citizens have at present are enjoyed by all.

But there is a worse conceit in his statement. It is the "Israel provides them with more rights" nonsense. Anything that is given by another is not a right. In fact what Israel does is take away some of the rights of non-Jews and that is a crime in all countries which declare themselves to be democracies.

There is indeed a wall now between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. But it is not a wall to keep Arabs out of Israel because they are Arab, as Carter maliciously maintains. There are more than a million Arabs living in Israel. There are indeed checkpoints in the West Bank and into Israel and obstacles to Palestinians crossing them. But this is not because the Israelis discriminate against Palestinians because they are Muslims or Arabs.

Even though he understates the implementation he admits them to be the facts of the case. There are more and they are worse than these such as the route of the wall being deliberately chosen to do the most harm to non-Jews and give the greatest land and water gains to Jews.

It is because too many Palestinians have shown themselves to be bloodthirsty, murderers who have been indoctrinated by their religious leaders and their government to believe in a sick Islamic fantasy that it is their Muslim duty to kill Jews by blowing themselves up; and that, if they do so, they will go to heaven along with 70 members of their family; and, that, if they are lucky enough to be male they will be rewarded by 72 virgins on the other side.

Killing Israelis accords with international law. It is their lawful right to kill the people occupying them. And Israel's government agrees they are occupied within the meaning of the right of the occupied to kill their occupiers.

And as to bloodthirsty, the Jewish army is about the most bloodthirsty in the world or else it is the most unlucky army in the world. In what other army are schoolchildren regularly killed by a bullet to the head from accidental discharges a hundred yards away? What other army has artillery shells that stray into civilians instead of open fields? Loki has it in for them or they are bloodthirsty. As with democracy, Israel has the most moral army in the world except for all the rest.

On this side they will be regarded as martyrs and saints and honored by their government. Sixty-percent of Palestinians support suicide bombing and this sick, genocidal agenda - which is shared by all members of the Palestinians' democratically elected government - to kill the Jews.

The problem with the separation wall, the Apartheid wall, is that not one foot of it is being built in Israel. All of it is being built in the West Bank. All of it is being built on land stolen by Jews from non-Jews.

As for martyrs and suicide bombing, I am supremely confident if they were given tanks, artillery and F-16s they would immediately give up suicide bombing. Suicide bombing is a method of last resort.

Jews used it in the Warsaw Ghetto against the Nazis. In one case a woman killed herself and her infant child using a hand grenade in an attack on the Germans. For both suicide is an act of last resort.

Israel honors the Iscaria (assassins) who defended Masada and in the end murdered their wives and children before suiciding. Israel likes suicide when they use it against others. It is nothing but hypocrisy to complain about it being used against them.

To ignore these facts and to invert them, as Jimmy Carter does, is to mark yourself as a moral defective.

To take on as a mission the spreading of lies that enable Islamic Nazis to carry out their final solution is the epitome of the evil that America's fifth column left and its reprehensible ex-President represent in our time.

Horowitz is clearly ignorant of facts well known to all Israelis and which he could know if he simply read Israeli news sources. He is either as ignorant of present day Israel as he is of the history of the region or he deliberately lying. He writes so much that is clearly false and well known to be false it is difficult to say he is making so many "innocent mistakes" in one article.

He is also apparently upset at the idea of Israel being eliminated. Palestine was eliminated and no one misses it but the Palestinians. No one will miss Israel but Israelis. It is not like anyone else cares about it.

Did condemning the old segregated South mean hatred of Southern Whites? Did condemnation of Apartheid South Africa, once Israel's closest ally and co-developer with Israel of the atom bomb, mean a desire to see the Europeans slaughtered by the Africans? In this case it is simply saying that a country which claims to be a modern democracy can do very much better than it has done.

Yet Jews always jump to the worst to connect Israel with Jews and criticism of Israel the same as antisemitism. Antisemitism lost its sting years ago due to excessive and inappropriate use. To some extent everyone is an antisemite these days as the original meaning of the word has been lost. If both of these are antisemitism what does the word mean? The bus bombing is calling a lawful attack on the occupying power antisemitism. In more than half the cases the swastikas are done by Jews, far out of proportion to their fraction of the population.

But even the ignorant and the liars serve their purpose. This article shows exactly what Carter is talking about. Here is an American Jew writing for an American magazine spreading incorrect information about Israel. Here he is attacking Jimmy Carter for telling the truth about Israel. If anyone doubted the essential Carter message, that the truth about Israel cannot be freely discussed in the US, Horowitz's article is an example of why it cannot be freely discussed.

One thing I have done in this analysis is declined to make a distinction between Jews and Zionists. Horowitz makes no such distinction. Why should I? Are all Jews responsible for the actions of Zionists? Of course not! That is the worst blood libel one can utter. But by failing to make the distinction Horowitz encourages the blood libel, that is, he lets murderers and thieves, past and present, hide behind being Jews. If that is what he wants I have no reason to mitigate his intention. He wants to foster antisemitism so Jews will go to Israel. American Jews have by and large shown they are not that stupid. There may be antisemitism in the world but most Jews know antisemitism when they see it. I don't consider the buses blown up to be antisemitism rather lawful attacks upon a military asset but as Horowitz and his co-conspirators want to call it antisemitism I see no reason to disagree with them to make this point. Most people will accept cleaning up an occasional swastika in exchange for cleaning brains and blood off the sidewalk.

I did not challenge the claim that non-Jews have said they want to drive Israelis into the sea even though it exists no place in the literature. Like the claim that Palestinians were told to leave so Arabs could attack in 1948 it is the product of the Jewish imagination. Jews repeat their own lies even when counterproductive. What rational Jew would go to Israel if this were true? Frankly Israel benefits the rest of the world by attracting only those Jews dumb enough to go there. It gets all the dumb Jews while the rest of the world keeps the smart Jews. I encourage the stupid ones to go live in Israel. Just make certain you renounce your American citizenship and don't come back save with hat in hand. America does not need people with dual loyalties or who cannot admit they made a mistake.