Israelis & State Dept. Fume Over ‘Bigot’ Statement Made at Skadden, Arps

on 12 Comments

From Haaretz:

[T]he U.S. State Department is planning to issue a public
statement condemning comments made by [Ambassador Dan] Gillerman at a press conference
in New York on Thursday, where he called [Jimmy] Carter a "bigot." …Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni refused yesterday to respond to the
demand by [Knesset Member] Yossi Beilin that Gillerman be recalled for his statements
against Carter. Beilin described the ambassador’s statements as "mad."

Once again, Israel is behaving way more responsibly than the Israel lobby.

The Israel Project, which sponsored the talk, is happily promoting Dan Gillerman on its website. And as I regularly point out, powerhouse law firm Skadden, Arps hosted the talk. Do these organizations owe Carter an apology? Are they ashamed of serving as a doormat?

12 Responses

  1. the Sword of Gideon
    April 27, 2008, 10:32 am

    Why apologize over something that's true.

  2. the Sword of Gideon
    April 27, 2008, 10:38 am

    To see Jimmy Carter's true allegiances, just follow the money
    Sunday, April 27th 2008, 4:00 AM
    In embracing Hamas last week in direct defiance of the wishes of Congress and the President, ex-President Jimmy Carter raised the question of why he was granting precious prestige and credibility to an organization the U.S. government has designated a "foreign terrorist organization" since 1995.
    If he was hoping to rekindle a flagging peace process, Carter's trip was doomed to failure; Hamas remains committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. So does this trip merely reflect a tremendous lack of judgment on Carter's part?
    Perhaps the answer is more complicated. You see, the Carter Center, the ex-President's not-for-profit research and activist organization, has prospered over the years as a direct result of Arab largesse. Many of these "charitable" interests support Islamic fundamentalism and are vehemently anti-Israel.
    The full extent of these connections is unknown because the amount and source of the Carter Center's funding is not public. But from various news reports and press releases, one can begin to sketch a very troubling picture.
    For example, Saudi Arabia, the source of 15 of the 19 plane hijackers on 9/11 and whose royal family has funded terrorism outside the kingdom, has channeled tens of millions of dollars into the Carter Center over the years. In 1993 alone, the late King Fahd gifted $7.6 million, while more recently, the king's nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center. The Carter Center has a $36 million annual budget; these amounts are hardly insignificant to its ongoing operations.
    Another million-dollar-plus backer is Sultan Qaboos sin Said, monarch of Oman. Considerable financial support comes from the United Arab Emirates as well.
    There's more. In 2001, Carter received the $500,000 Zayed International Prize for the Environment and, the following year, praised the efforts of the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up.
    The Zayed Center has repeatedly hosted anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers, supported terrorism and asserted that there is an international conspiracy of Jews and Zionists for world domination, and that a Jewish-American conspiracy perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11.
    It would seem that all of this money is not without its influence. Contrast Carter's relentless criticism of Israel, the most modern and democratic country in the Middle East, to his appreciation of such authoritarian countries as the UAE, which he described as an "almost completely open and free society."
    Whether the United States can or should interrupt this stream of funding to Carter's operations, it at the very least should not supplement it.
    Yet – believe it or not – the United States government itself has been providing millions of dollars to the Carter Center over the years. Representative Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.) estimates that the center received $19 million in federal funding since 2001 alone, and has called for passage of a bill that would immediately cut off all federal financing for the center.
    Carter is free to travel around the world, stir up trouble, and cheer on terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. But U.S. taxpayers should not help him do this. And Carter should finally come clean and disclose the amounts and sources of all foreign funding for his center.
    Just as the American public has a right to know whether a scientist researching the root causes of global warming is being funded by major oil companies, we should know who is supporting Carter's lobbying efforts to bring "peace" to the Middle East.
    It is indeed a sad day in American history when a former President lowers himself to becoming a propaganda tool for terrorists bent on harming our country and the democratic principles by which we live – and we cannot even discover who is paying his bills.
    Greif is president & CEO of Greif & Co., an investment bank, and a director of the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation.

  3. Ed
    April 27, 2008, 10:38 am

    This is the thanks that Jimmy Carter gets for implementing the framework for the Camp David Accords, which, from to Wikipedia:

    '"The normalization of relations [between Israel and Egypt] went into effect in January 1980. Ambassadors were exchanged in February. The boycott laws were repealed by Egypt's National Assembly the same month, and some trade began to develop…In March 1980 regular airline flights were inaugurated. Egypt also began supplying Israel with crude oil" (Sela, 100).'

    'The Camp David Accords also prompted the disintegration of a united Arab front in opposition to Israel….The success of Begin, Sadat, and Carter at Camp David demonstrated to other Arab states and entities that negotiations with Israel were possible.'

    This should be a lesson to all Americans: no matter how much one helps the Judeofascists, they pay one back with insults, slaps to the face, accusations of anti-Semitism and demands for money. Just look at this report from Hungary, where, in a typically simple-minded statement, Bush said that “We should have bombed Auschwitz.” This was spun as a US "admission" of culpability and guilt by "Jewish survivors of Auschwitz and their heirs" and prompted a $40 billion lawsuit against the US government.
    link to

    There might not be a Jew alive on earth today but for the American WWII generation, but Neocon draft-dodger Bush says they didn't do enough, and now some of those that they liberated from the death camps and their children are now suing the WWII generation and its heirs, who lost tens of thousands of lives saving them.

    Bush and his greedy Judeofascist allies are unfit to shine Christian Jimmy Carter's shoes.

  4. Rowan Berkeley
    April 27, 2008, 10:53 am

    Israel is behaving way more responsibly than the Israel lobby? Because Beilin makes the obvious rote condemnation? And he isn't even the Meretz leader? You're easily impressed.

  5. the Sword of Gideon
    April 27, 2008, 11:10 am

    Ed, please enlighten me has to who is suing who for what. BTW Jimmy Carter sat the war out in Maryland

  6. Phil Weiss
    April 27, 2008, 11:12 am

    Yes I am easily impressed, it's true. But there's been zero condemnation here. Not a frikkin eyebrow

  7. Charles Keating
    April 27, 2008, 11:18 am

    Between the Arab oil shieks and the Israel Lobby, between the
    hard place and the rock, what to do?

  8. Jim Haygood
    April 27, 2008, 11:52 am


    Q: What is the difference between Ambassador Dan Gooberman and a carp?

    A: One is a bottom feeding scum sucker and the other is a fish.

  9. Richard Witty
    April 27, 2008, 1:14 pm

    The Haaretz article described US state department condemnation of Gillerman.

    I'm surprised it didn't hit today's times though. A state department condemnation of an ambassador should be big news.

  10. Charles Keating
    April 27, 2008, 5:02 pm

    When a loaded charge like “terrorism” is leveled against a specific ethnic or religious group – but not against others who have engaged in comparable practices – that kind of selective outrage is generally called bigotry or racism.

    Who's the bigot?

  11. Charles Keating
    April 27, 2008, 5:19 pm

    Israel's ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday called former President Jimmy Carter "a bigot" for meeting with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria.
    A short memo to Israel's UN Ambassador Gillerman: what Carter has said about there being no possible peace in the region without the involvement of Hamas is absolutely, and uncompromisingly true.
    And as to the characterization of Carter as a bigot, let me ask the following question; when sick infants are denied medical care which could save them because of their ethnicity and religion, how would you describe that kind of national policy?

    Is that not, sir, bigotry of the highest order?

    And this time, Ambassador Gillerman, the entire world watching.

    Too bad most Americans don't give a shit and Israel leaders knows this.

    Jerry Springer lives! Jerry takes it all the the bank.

  12. Montag
    April 28, 2008, 10:47 pm

    The difference between the Israeli Lobby and Israel is that Gillerman wasn't the official representative of the Israeli Lobby, and so his idiotic opinions could be construed as an official Israeli statement. Also, as a guest in the country he was abusing our hospitality, while the Israeli Lobby are citizens and are free to criticize ex-Presidents to their hearts' content. Also the Israeli Lobby is dominated by Likudniks, while the Israeli Government isn't.

Leave a Reply