| ottopilot |
10-17-2009 04:06 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
(Post 2717640)
So criticizing a series of policies is the same as denying the right to sovereignty?
|
Again, I can't agree with your narrow interpretation of such a complicated topic.
Carter's positions crticizing Israeli policies dealing with violence, including defence, prevention and punitive actions are mostly based on his bias challenging sovereignty issues. The challenges of outside aggression are rooted in religious bigotry toward jews, their right to exist, let alone their right to exist as a nation. Historically, Israel, a Jewish state (a post WWII nation created under the U.N. for the preservation and sanctuary of Jewish people), has accomodated diversity in the regard to Arabs, Christians, Muslims, etc. Carters influence in these matters have emboldened organizations like Hamas, who continue their attempts to erode Isaeli sovereignty and to what end? The sum of Carter's positions are frankly anti-Israeli. His unapologetic stances only fuel anti-semetic rhetoric and empower political hatred and violence. Cause hey, it's just good 'ole habitat for humaities, Nobel Prize winning, ex-prez Jimmy saying Isael is ultimately the aggressor and essentially has no right defend itself and protect its sovereignty. A position shared by the likes of Iran's leadership.
In the spirit of Nobel's award to Obama, perhaps the award should have gone to Ahmadinejad for potentially not really wanting to nuke Israel. It's just as ridiculous, but at least Ahmadinejad has an actual track record. Such an about-face would be truly notable. The Nobel award is more about unicorns and pop-culture than actual persons with amazing acts of selfless humanitarin acts.
(this should be taken to another thread) |
