Written by no2liberals:

As a young man, and a Sergeant in the USAF when President Ford was sworn in after President Nixon resigned, I didn’t fully comprehend what it all meant, or what it would come to mean to me and my brothers and sisters in the USAF.

On the day Ford became President, 9 Aug 74, I was a Security Policeman (USAF term for Military Police) working hard at a very busy installation, Clark AFB. I only remember a few discussions with my buds about what had happened, and few of us even thought of President Ford, our thoughts were on the last few strange years of the Watergate scandal, the hearings, the breathless reports from the liberal media, and how we all thought this was the best thing for our country…to just be done with it. We didn’t really know about the power grab a Democrat controlled Congress had made with the WPR in 73, or the same Congress refusing to fund the South Vietnam government when it passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. Events had been set in motion, that we were unprepared for, and would spell doom for the South Vietnamese.

The U.S. militaries combat troops had completed their withdrawal from South Vietnam in Mar 73. Colonel Bui Tin of the North Vietnamese Army was present, as an observer, to ensure requirements of the Paris Accord of 73. As the last troop walked across the tarmac at Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Col. Tin asked the soldier for his autograph, as it was an historic event. Years later in the book “Tears Before The Rain,” it was learned that the autograph Col. Tin was so proud of, had been signed boldly by…Sgt. Bilko! This is poignant to me, as the general feeling among all members of the U.S. military was that we were abandoning a country and it’s wonderful people at a time when they needed us, a feeling that is difficult to describe in words.

The North Vietnam Army first began to attack South Vietnam, 10 Mar 73 in the north for tactical advantage, and to see how the South Vietnamese military would react, and also to see if the U.S. would come to their aid. As this action proved that neither the U.S. would intercede, and that South Vietnam was weak, the North Vietnamese reassesed their plan, and scaled up their attack on the south. The events that followed, led to the Fall of Saigon on 30 Apr 75.

On 3 Apr 75, President Ford issued orders to begin evacuation of Vietnamese orphans from South Vietnam to the U.S. and used a special fund to do so, ordering officials in Saigon to expedite their transfer and cut through red tape. Thus began Operation Babylift, an operation I was, and still am, proud to have been a part of.

The SP’s were assigned to accompany the flights from Clark AB to Tan Son Nhut each day, in the beginning of the operation, to provide security for the aircraft, crews, and orphans. On my first flight into Saigon just days after the operation began, I was in charge of the three man team. We were very well armed with our GAU’s(shortened M-16’s), our Smith&Wesson Combat Masterpieces, flag jackets, riot gear(helmets, baton’s), and approximately 1200 rounds of ammo, each. Our biggest fears, at that time, were all of the desperate Vietnamese trying to find a way out of the country in the face of the constantly advancing North Vietnamese Army, the potential for a mass of people rushing the aircraft was a real threat and VC sapper getting through to sabotage an airplane.

As we were approaching Tan Son Nhut AB, the aircraft commander of the C-141 announced that due to President Ford’s assurance to the American people that he would not land armed troops in South Vietnam again, the SP team was to leave all firearms and ammo on the aircraft when we took our positions to guard the aircraft. The top of my head nearly exploded, upon hearing these words, as I knew we were flying into a potentially lethal situation. When I asked the commander for clarification of orders, he stated those are your orders from the Commander In Chief. I went back to my group, and they asked me what it meant, as they were younger than me and I was a Sgt. They were frightened, as was I, only I was also thoroughly p**sed-off. I told them we had to follow orders, but here’s what we will do. Leave your weapons and ammo inside the nearest door to your position. If the fence comes down, and the crowd rushes the aircraft, or you see an individual or group running towards your position, grab your weapons and commence firing, and if you don’t fire your s**t fast enough, I will shoot it after I’m out.

I had plenty of time to ponder those orders from President Ford that day, and on the flight back to Clark that night. I came to the conclusion that President Ford had betrayed me and my fellow Airmen, by issuing such an order, as he didn’t fully understand the position he was putting us in. We weren’t combat troops, we were a security detail, and as such, should have been accorded a different status and not disarmed.

As the operation progressed and the number of personnel and aircraft increased, that particular order was dropped, out of necessity, and thankfully so. I have never forgotten the way I felt when that happened, and have never forgiven President Ford for betraying us in that way.

I didn’t then, nor do I now, hate the man, and I have never felt ill will towards him, as I can’t begin to understand all the pressures he must have been under, but I have never felt a deep affection for him, either.

I would like to say rest in peace Mr. Ford, and my deepest sympathies to his family and many loved ones.

Chad comments: This story seems extremely poignant with respect to where we are today, having a war decided by a number of measures and political will points rather than by what makes the most sense.  And Ford is hardly the first president to wage war based on rising or sagging poll numbers, unfortunately he won’t be the last either, but how much more do we put up with suits trying to fight popular wars rather than winning wars?

Thank you, no2liberals, for your moving story.

Jim Geraghty writes on how to turn young Muslims away from joining groups like Al Qaida:

Al-Qaeda’s sales pitch to young Muslim men is explicitly theological. “This is what Allah wants you to do. This is why you were created; your life has meaning, it has a purpose, you are special and you are called to a great destiny in a divine plan. This purpose is to kill infidels. In exchange for your sacrifice, you get 72 virgins in the afterlife and will be remembered and revered forever.” It is an evil message, but it is easy to grasp its appeal.

The counterargument from the West is variations of, “it’s illegal, it’s immoral, it’s wrong.” But I don’t know how much weight has been put behind the argument that “it is apostasy, that is not Allah’s will, that bin Laden and his ilk are offering Muslims a false doctrine that angers and insults Allah, and those who choose this path will be damned for all eternity.”

>Our enemies make an explicitly religious pitch, and offer not merely a cause to fight for but a worldview that lets the poor and uneducated reinvent themselves as noble and brave warriors for a cause synonymous with all that is ‘good’, complete with unseen and unimaginable rewards. Our counterargument has been largely secular, and thus ignores the spiritual, matters of the soul, a confused person’s yearning for a meaning and purpose to his life. What if we did? What if we systemically argued that following bin Laden betrays Islam, and that no good Muslim would consider that path?

I’m sure many in the West would scorn the idea of making that argument, and many Muslims would probably contend that those of us outside the faith have no standing to debate their theological doctrines, or declare what is and what isn’t Allah’s will. (On the other hand, of course we have standing to make this argument; we’re the ones who will be the targets if they decide that conversion by the sword has been given a heavenly thumbs-up.)

This sounds like a reasonable plan, but I think it assumes too much and it is missing a couple of key points.

It assumes Al Qaida’s sales pitch to potential recruits is purely theological. Al Qaida’s pitch to us, the infidel, is theological and strategic, but I have seen too many Al Qaida in Iraq recruiting videos that don’t strike theological chords with me. Instead those videos try to appeal to a sense of adventure, which is also probably a big reason why you think of a male in their teens or 20s joining Al Qaida. Does Allah give special graces to the adventurous among us?

Al Qaida certainly uses theology when the group seeks to justify its attacks, which is one reason why too many Muslims across the globe support the group’s biddings (one is too many). There can be no denying there are excerpts from the Koran that do justify every single act of savagery we’ve seen thus far from the likes of Al Qaida. There may be counter points, but that doesn’t matter in the Al Qaida handbook to justify attacks. Therefore it is a theological argument used by Al Qaida to explain why they did something, but the group is always careful to stress strategic reasons for doing so as well.

An example of that is to explain why they call for the death of all Americans.  Theologically speaking within Islam, it is right to kill infidels and it is right to kill those who invade.  Strategically speaking, Al Qaida has been very clear about why they are attacking certain nations and that is to gain strain from the mass public as well as accomplish the strategic goal of spreading one’s influence to create an Islamic state.

To lump in the supposed theological argument with how Al Qaida recruits also misses the fact radicals are only slightly more religious than moderates (one percentage point). They come from more wealthy homes and have a better education as well.

Geraghty is correct in asserting a potential winning alternative sales pitch would be from a theological standpoint, but that all depends on who it comes from. If it comes from the likes of me or Geraghty, those considering becoming a jihadi wouldn’t bother listening to an infidel if they were already taken in by theological means. The call, therefore, would have come from an Islamic leader who should be coming around the bend any time now.

Pakistan to Wall and Mine Border with Afghanistan

Pakistan has announced it will fence and mine parts of it’s long border with Afghanistan in an effort to curb Taliban and Al Qaida jihadists from crossing into Afghanistan to battle Coalition soldiers.  Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammed Khan also said Pakistan will be adding to the 80,000 current military contingent along the border to try to prevent this jihadist transit way.
If this plan sounds familiar, that’s because it is.  Several times the issue of a border fence has been raised, always to the unique ire of the Afghanistan government largely because of differences with where the border lines lay, but thus far there is no fence.

We can be hopeful to an extent that Pakistan will follow through and build the fence, but even if they do, it won’t stop the Taliban and Al Qaida from using Waziristan as a launching ground for attacks.  Since there are many trade routes over the mountains from Pakistan and Afghanistan, I would surmise there will be guard posts along controlled entry points.  There are already many outposts in the region, outposts that have hardly stopped any jihadist transit or the mere presence of jihadists in the region, and it is well known Al Qaida jihadists are more than willing to dress up in burqas to conceal their identity.  The Pakistani military guarding those controlled border crossing outposts should be on the lookout for burqa-clad people with deep voices, assuming Al Qaida jihadists have reached that point.

U.S. Captures AQ Cell Leader Responsible for Mutilating Two U.S. Soldiers

The United States military announced they captured an Al Qaida in Iraq cell leader who is responsible for the hostage-taking and mutilation of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas Tucker this past June.  Menchaca and Tucker were found dead and badly mutilated on a bridge and an Al Qaida in Iraq video surfaced showing the two soldiers’ dead bodies.

The statement announcing this cell leader’s arrest also said “the terrorist is also suspected of perpetrating numerous kidnappings, murders and other violent crimes within the Yusifiya area.”

Houston, we Have a Luggage Problem (HT Ahsileri)

While this story is not necessarily terrorism related, it does strike me as a tale of concern in that area.  Sixty-eight pieces of luggage were found in a trash bin behind a Houston area pet store from George Bush International Airport in Houston.  Tags on the bags indicated they were either going “to or from London and Dubai.”

(more…)

Victor Davis-Hanson argues it would be a collosal mistake for the United States to negotiate with Iran over Iraq, to which I certainly agree, because the government of “Iran is far shakier than we are.”

In Iran’s city council elections last week, moderate conservative and reformist candidates defeated Ahmadinejad’s vehemently anti-American slate of allies. At a recent public meeting, angry Iranian students — tired of theocratic lunacy and repression — shouted down their president.

By supporting terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon, enriching uranium and insanely threatening to destroy a nuclear Israel, Ahmadinejad is only alienating Iranians, who wonder where their once vast oil revenues went and how they can possibly pay for all these wild adventures.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has invested little in the source of his wealth — the oil infrastructure of Iran. Soon, even the country’s once-sure oil revenues will start to decline. And that could be sooner than he thinks if the United Nations were to expand its recent economic sanctions in response to Ahmadinejad’s flagrant violation of nuclear non-proliferation accords.

Indeed Iran’s oil revenues have already taken a dive, losing 10 percent of exports per year “on lack of investment” according to Professor Roger Stern, an Iran expert at Johns Hopkins University. Stern believes Iran “cannot afford to carry out their threats to shut off oil supplies” rather Iran’s constant warning of using oil as a weapon is “just a bluff.”

(more…)

Steven Stalinsky, of MEMRI, notes some rather interesting conspiracy theories in the Iranian press. A summary of conspiracies in his article appearing in The New York Sun:

• A program on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television network last week announced that Israel “murdered” a Lebanese parliament member, Pierre Gemayel, with the help of “four American experts” who work at Beirut’s airport.
• The head of the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., Muhammad Al-’Asi, was on Iranian TV saying that the “American administration” was behind [ed. September 11], while Lebanese Shiite leader Muhammad Hussein Fadhlallah blamed the Jews and some American powers.
• An adviser to President Ahmadinejad, Mohammad Ali Ramin, was quoted in a daily newspaper saying Jewish treachery was behind such ills as the plague, typhoid, AIDS, SARS, and bird flu.
• IRIB reported that more than 10,000 Russian women are kidnapped each year and taken to Israel through Egypt by Zionists, and that each woman is sold for between $4,000 and $10,000.
• The Iranian news channel IRINN asserted that Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean “is a “Zionist conspiracy” by the company to exert cultural influence. Similarly, IRINN ran a special about “Zionist companies” such as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Pepsi, which it claimed stands for “Pay Each Penny Save Israel.”
• The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, was quoted by the Islamic Republic News Agency regarding reports on the “formation of terrorist squads in Brussels by Israel and certain European states for assassination” of Iranian dignitaries.
• On May 19, [ed. during Friday sermons] the Ayatollah Kashani was quoted by the Tehran Times blaming “the CIA” and “Zionists” for terrorist attacks within Iran, and in particular targets connected to its economy, universities, and science.
• IRIB reported on April 5 that ” U.S. troops are distributing boobytrapped dolls among Iraqi children.”
• An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza, was quoted by the Iranian Student News Agency on September 6 stating that terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East “are being guided by the White House.”
• IRNA reported on November 27 that the “apparent discord among Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is the fruit of a conspiracy by America and the Zionist regime.” [ed. nope, there has never been anything but peace between the Shia and Sunni]
• The Iranian daily Keyhan claimed on November 15 that Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death because he knows many secrets about American activity in the Middle East and that “the neoconservatives have to silence him once and for all.”
• Conspiracies about alleged Israeli activity in Iraq are also common, such as an article titled “Mossad Assassins Targeting Iraqi Scientists” in the Tehran Times, which reported that “more than 2,500 Iraqi scientists over the past 3 years were killed by the Mossad.”
• Another report from IRIB said, “Zionists will be burying nuclear waste in Iraq,” which “is a threat to … the people living in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan.” The report claimed American forces in August burned poisonous substances in Fallujah.

Now how many of these have we here in the U.S. heard of before called by fellow Americans? There are several of the above. Quite sad really.

Ethiopia continues to slice through Somalia, cutting the Islamic Courts Union (Union of Islamic Courts) apart, though that was entirely expected. It was not expected, though, that would be as easy as it has been thus far.

The Los Angeles Times reports Ethiopian and Somalian soldiers have advanced to Mogadishu in an effort to rout the ICU and an expected final push in only a few hours away. The African Union has turned against the war, calling for Ethiopia to withdraw followed by the Arab League calling for an immediate cease-fire. “The fighting will not end as long as one of the terrorists remains in Somalia,” said Barre Adan Shire, defense minister for the transitional government.

Reuters reports the United Nations Security Council “failed on Wednesday for a second day to agree on a statement calling for a quick end to the war in Somalia after Qatar again insisted it also urge Ethiopian troops to leave.” The vote was 14 to 1.

A rather interesting editorial written in the Khaleej Times regarding to UNSC’s failure to act on the war:

The position of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) in Somalia, comprising the hard-line Islamists, is strangely reminiscent of the Taleban before they were ousted from Afghanistan. Despite their repressive rules, they did provide Afghans with the element of security that eluded both their predecessors and successors, in addition to putting up a resistance the occupiers seem increasingly incapable of finishing off. There is an important lesson to be drawn from this.

The big powers behind the Ethiopian push need to realise that there are wiser options on the table than using muscle to subdue an extremist enemy. Rather than using armoured tanks and aircraft to ‘free Somalis of the UIC’, it is more prudent to make efforts to provide the people with the necessities that only the hardliners seem capable of assuring. What would eventual peace be worth if bolstering the government means killing, injuring and displacing hundreds of thousands of innocent people who already live far from enviable lives?

The last question is a bit dubious in my mind, but there is a follow-up question to this line of thinking. If there can be an ‘eventual peace,’ are the hardships not worth ridding the world of a government who supports Islamism and has at minimum tacitly aligned with terrorist elements? I know, I’m far from. There is a reason though Al Qaida in Iraq has released a communique calling for the support of the ICU.

It won’t matter though how fast Ethiopia and the UN-backed government of Somalia defeat the ICU, which is certainly an impending action, because the ICU has prepared itself to wage an insurgency war. The quandry the UNSC should be debating is how to better support the Somalia government it recognizes and how to prevent jihadists from entering Somalia to cause both internal and external strife. Fourteen UNSC nations at least partially agree, only one doesn’t.

UPDATE: The BBC reports a leader within the ICU claims the ICU militia has fled Mogadishu to “avert heavy bombing because Ethiopian forces are practising genocide against the Somali people.”  You know, even if the Ethiopian and Somalian government was committing genocide against the people of Somalia, you would think the ICU could have learned a lesson from Hezbollah and at least made genocide up.  Hezbollah is, after all, in Somalia working with the ICU.

Texas really is the home of the best football in the United States, though it didn’t take an ESPN write-up to confirm that.

England Prime Minister Tony Blair called Iran a “strategic threat” last week, the first such public statement to that effect out of Blair.  This caused Michael Leeden to question what has changed in recent weeks regarding England’s stance towards Iran, and Leeden believes it was the indictment of Corporal Dan James who allegedly spied within the British military for Iran inside Afghanistan.

This explanation seems plausible enough, forcing Blair to say something to the British public who sees Iran’s constant meddling in two British interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This one statement though did not sit well with Tehran, The Times of London reports.

Iran summoned the British Ambassador in Tehran yesterday to reject Tony Blair’s recent criticism of the Islamic Republic, as tensions continued to mount over the country’s controversial nuclear enrichment programme.

Even as Geoffrey Adams, the ambassador, was warned that Britain must halt its “tirade of allegations” against Iran, the country’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to retaliate against the UN in response to sanctions imposed last week . . .

. . . “Tony Blair has brought up baseless charges against Iran to cover up his failure in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East, but to no avail,” Mr Rahimpour was reported to have told Mr Adams. The Foreign Ministry said that Iran had voiced its “strong objections” over Mr Blair’s comments.

There was one more phrase in with Blair has used regarding Iran:

During a speech in Dubai on December 20, the Prime Minister called for moderate governments in the region to help to rein in the “forces of extremism” in Iran. He accused Tehran of undermining regional stability and of being an obstacle to peace.

Not shared with their British counterparts, because naturally this isn’t a two-way street when dealing with Iran, is the repeated linking of England with the Family Satan (U.S. and Israel are also in the family).  Numerous times over the past couple of years, Iran has condemned England and called upon Iranians to rise up against the British nation.

In Basra, Iraq it’s long been known Iran has infiltrated the city to attack British soldiers therein, sold advanced IED’s to insurgents within and set up shop to ensure the British fail in Basra.  The result other than dead Iraqis has been dead British soldiers.

It is Iran’s sense of regional domination, wars through proxy militias, a nuclear program combined with a rocket arsenal nearly capable of hitting middle Europe and Iran’s attempts to create a regional power with Tehran as the master that is a strategic threat to not just England, but every nation within the Middle East and several other nations as well.  Blair’s labeling of Iran as a “strategic threat” is apt, Iran’s one-sided response of outrage is not.

The Times editorial notes Iran is “more vulnerable to external pressure than outsiders tend to suppose.”

(more…)

I went to cash in a gift card at the local Barnes and Noble yesterday and picked up ‘Future Jihad‘ by Dr. Walid Phares who also writes on The Counterterrorism Blog.  I also put on order a book I’ve wanted to pick up for some time now, ‘Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military.’  While I have yet to crack open ‘Future Jihad,’ that’s not what this post is about.

What struck me as I was going through the books in the ‘Current Affairs’ section of Barnes and Noble was one book in particular which was given a good deal of shelf space.  Jimmy Carter’s ‘Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid’ had around 10 copies on the shelf, complete with one cover facing the aisle.  Most other books were not given such coverage in the same section, not even relatively new books on similar subject matters.

In no way am I suggesting Barnes and Noble was giving good shelf space to this book for any political reason, and I actually believe it’s due to other reasons including deals struck with the book’s publisher.  It is a decent selling book which would add to the number of copies stocked in a book store.  But there were 10 copies whereas there were maybe five at most of many others (most had one or two copies and I grabbed the last copy of ‘Future Jihad’).

Is Carter’s new book not selling too well in Dallas?  Considering the date I went to the store, December 26, one would have imagined the number of books was down when compared to the number of books stocked per title normally, much less pre-Christmas.  That’s why I was taken aback just slightly by the remaining number of Carter’s book.

I suggest it’s a regional issue since in a new Gallup Poll, Jimmy Carter was named the fourth most admired male figure in the United States.  How anyone admires such a waste of human tissue is beyond me, but I suppose he’s a better pick than Tom Cruise.

Another random observation: If you want to get published, just write something to either disparage President Bush, Republicans or the United States.  While there’s a good chance you’ll be published, the chances you can beat out other similar books is likely nil considering there are 100 books of that topic to every 5 books writing any of the above subject in a positive light.

An editorial written by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach appearing in the Jerusalem Post  (via Best of the Web):

I grew up in the US during the 1970s, the one decade universally acknowledged to have truly sucked. In 1970s America we danced to disco music, wore leisure suits and watched the Brady Bunch. But if that wasn’t torture enough, we had Jimmy Carter as our president.

I can still recall how depressing it was to watch his taciturn face on TV announcing one catastrophe after another, from the skyrocketing misery index, to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to the capture of our hostages in Iran, to the tragically-botched rescue attempt to free them.

Jimmy Carter was arguably the most hapless president in all American history, and indeed, today most presidential historians today rate him at or near the very bottom of the list.

Ronald Reagan was able to crush Carter at the polls with the simple slogan “Morning in America,” a tacit acknowledgement that under Carter’s watch it had been a cold midnight across the fruited plain.

But with the publication of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, his ignorant rant against Israel, many in the American Jewish community believe that Carter is not just a loser but an anti-Semite. I disagree.

Jimmy Carter is not so much anti-Semite as anti-intellectual, not so much a Jew-hater as a boor. The real explanation behind his limitless hostility to Israel is a total lack of any moral understanding.

Carter wants to do what’s just. His heart’s in the right place. He just can’t figure out what the right is. He is, and always has been, a man of good intentions bereft of good judgment. He invariably finds himself defending tyrants and dictators at the expense of their oppressed peoples. Not because he is a bad man, but because he is a confused man.

CARTER SUBSCRIBES to what I call the Always Root for the Underdog school of morality. Rather than develop any real understanding of a conflict, immediately he sides with the weaker party, however wicked or immoral.

Israel has tanks and F-16’s. The Palestinians don’t. Therefore the Palestinians are being oppressed. Never mind that the Palestinians have rejected every offer to live side by side with Israel in peace and elected a government pledged to Israel’s annihilation. Their poverty dictates the righteousness of their cause even if their actions speak otherwise.

If Israel builds a barrier to cordon off the Palestinians, it is not to prevent their suicide bombers from dismembering children but to punish them for having darker skin.

Carter’s obsession with the unrighteous underdog has embarrassed him many times before. It was what motivated him to visit and legitimize Fidel Castro and take his side in a bio-weapons dispute with the United States. Castro runs a tiny island in the shadow of the world’s superpower. He must therefore perforce be a victim of American bullying, even if he is a brutal dictator and tyrant.

Championing the unrighteous underdog also led Carter to praise the murderous North Korean tyrant Kim Il Sung with these words: “I find him to be vigorous, intelligent… and in charge of the decisions about this country.” Carter added, “I don’t see that [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.”

He also hailed Marshal Joseph Tito as “a man who believes in human rights,” and said of the murderous Romanian dictator Ceausescu: “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics… We believe in enhancing human rights.”

Championing the underdog also had Carter tell the Haitian dictator Raul C dras that he was “ashamed of what my country has done to your country.”

AS A MARITAL counselor I have met many well-meaning arbitrators who always take the side of the wife in an ugly dispute in the belief that a woman, inherently weaker than her husband, is always the innocent and aggrieved party. Even where the evidence points to the wife as being violent and unreasonable, such arbitrators cannot conceive of the husband as anything but the oppressor.

Needless to say, such arbitrators cause more harm than good, which is why Jimmy Carter would make an even worse marital counselor than he was president.

No, Carter is not anti-Semitic so much as a man whose lack of judgment and shallowness render him absolutely incapable of telling right from wrong.
Carter’s obscene comparison of Israel with apartheid South Africa ignores the fact that Israel is the first country to airlift tens of thousands of black Africans to become free and full citizens in its borders, a phenomenon that has no precedent in the history of the world.

But by saying that the Palestinians are being subjected to apartheid Carter has grossly maligned not Jews, but black South Africans. Whereas black South Africans inspired the world with their humane capacity for forgiveness and peaceful coexistence with their white brethren, even after having been so egregiously wronged, the Palestinians have unfortunately embraced murderous hatred and racism. Arab newspapers routinely publish grotesque caricatures of Jews, and the Palestinians teach kindergarten children to grow up and blow up Israeli buses.

Nelson Mandela rose to become the world’s greatest statesman with his articulation of brotherhood and reconciliation. But Yasser Arafat fathered international terrorism and stole hundreds of millions of dollars from his own people.

Which leads to one conclusion: Before one runs around the world as a global do-gooder, one should first develop the ability to identify the good.