The associate editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the main paper in Jimmah’s stomping grounds, thinks that Carter is dead wrong on Israel.

The matter of Israel’s survival and this country’s relationship with it is much too consequential to discuss in the normal language of political debate. But I do sense a growing willingness, on the left especially, to regard Israel as the villain and America as the enabler.

As the war in Iraq has grown more unpopular in this country, there’s an eagerness to make peace, or at least the illusion of peace, so that we can get out. If we leave in defeat, the entire world knows we won’t go back, even in defense of Israel, for at least the time it took to recover from Vietnam.

For me this is not a time to be equivocal, either about Iraq, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas or our commitments to friends who believe in our word.

Israel’s right to exist has never been affirmed by its enemies. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows to see it destroyed. Palestinians chose a terrorist organization, Hamas, in parliamentary elections a year ago. Syria arms Hezbollah, which seeks to destroy Israel, as Syria would directly if it could.

For my part, there can be no “balance” in U.S. policy in the region. Retreating from Gaza in the summer of 2005, Israel did something this country would never have done, sending 25,000 soldiers to haul 8,500 of its citizens from their abodes, sacrificing their homes and land to the prospect of peace. What did they get in return? A rain of missiles.

With that example, with Hezbollah and Hamas, and a frighteningly dangerous leader in Iran who is no more than five years away from nuclear weaponry —- sworn enemies all —- you’ll not find a word here that undermines support in this country for Israel. That was surely not Carter’s intentions, but I fear it will be a consequence.

We have one permanent friend in the region and that is Israel.

When longtime Carter supporters speak out, as Stein and Konner and board members who resigned last week did, the rest of us should listen.

I’m pretty sure that Wooten is not a Jewish name. Wonder what Carter’s going to have to say about this?

Reading this article on ZNN by Ami Isseroff, I was amazed to see how an adept spin master can trick even the best of them. By “spin master” I mean Ahmed Yousef, a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya.

While Ami’s article is an excellent description of the hudna as it is applied to the current situation in Gaza, Ahmed Yousef succeeded in tricking Ami and, with him, obviously, a lot of NYT readers who accepted the definition of hudna invented by this senior spin master.

According to Yousef, hudna

A truce is referred to in Arabic as a “hudna.” Typically covering 10 years, a hudna is recognized in Islamic jurisprudence as a legitimate and binding contract. A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a cease-fire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a permanent, nonviolent resolution to their differences.

But is it really a classic definition of hudna? From that old post:

HUDNA - Arabic word often translated as “cease-fire.- Historically used as a tactic aimed at allowing the party declaring the hudna to regroup while tricking an enemy into lowering its guard. When the hudna expires, the party that declared it is stronger and the enemy weaker. The term comes from the story of the Muslim conquest of Mecca. Instead of a rapid victory, Muhammad made a ten-year treaty with the Kuraysh tribe. In 628 AD, after only two years of the ten-year treaty, Muhammad and his forces concluded that the Kuraysh were too weak to resist. The Muslims broke the treaty and took over all of Mecca without opposition.

Since it is obvious that people do not follow links, another excerpt from that post:

In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six Day War, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Rantissi said the hudna was limited to ten years and represented a decision by the movement because it was “difficult to liberate all our land at this stage”, the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel.”

As a side remark - it looks that Ismail Haniya is paying more attention to propaganda now. So, lest we be hudnawinked: let’s be alert and not buy the Hamas’ spin.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Ehud Barak is throwing his hat into the ring. Ehud Barak, you may remember, is the man who withdrew the IDF from Lebanon in 2000. Here’s what he has to say about that withdrawal:

Also, for the first time since the second Lebanon war Barak referred to the retreat from the Lebanon security strip he headed during his time as prime minister and said: “I don’t think that we should look back. We could sink into endless debates about the past. I am convinced that we left Lebanon the right way.”

According to Barak, “this withdrawal was very good. Only because of it were we able to gain complete international legitimacy to do whatever we please there a few years later. Beyond this I do not want to discuss it. It should be for the citizens to judge.”

Let me interpret that for you. The man who was one of the people who can actually be blamed for the accession of Hezbullah to its current status is actually saying that because he engineered the retreat from Lebanon, the world didn’t give Israel a hard time for going back in to fight the Hezbullah army last summer.

I’m thinking that Ehud Barak is a liar, a fool, or a man who cannot read. Well, two out of three ain’t bad.

What is it about politicians that turns them into complete assholes who think that nobody has any kind of memory, or grasp on reality?