Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is almost beyond understanding. He is trained in nuclear physics, yet when it comes to the Middle East, he’s no rocket scientist. A self-proclaimed champion of human rights, he invariably cozies up to dictators and thugs—no tyrant is too repulsive to embrace. Too intelligent and too experienced to be genuinely naïve, too consistent to be forgiven as erratic or bumbling, one can only conclude that he is driven by ideology. Like so much of the illiberal Left, Carter thoughtlessly favors the “small and weak” over the “big and strong,” instead of asking more pertinent questions of “right” or “wrong.” If a group portrays itself as the victim of “neo-colonialism,” “occupation,” or “racism,” Carter will take up its cause, no matter how vile its principles or conduct.
Let’s examine his latest foray into the Middle East to see if this judgment is corroborated.
June 9: In Lebanon, Carter said: “Oh, I don’t think Hezbollah’s going to create any problems for Obama, or for Lebanon. I think they’re satisfied to maintain the status quo. . . . I think that withdrawing weapons from Hezbollah is out of the question. I don’t think they’re going to even bring it up. And that’s the main thing that Hezbollah wants.” Here, Carter casually endorsed Hezbollah’s status as a private army within the state, in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Carter loses no sleep because Hezbollah’s missiles are to be used against Israel.
June 11: Carter, after chatting with Syrian president Bashar Assad, opined that the U.S. should terminate its sanctions against Syria, imposed because of its support for terrorism. Syrian support for terrorism continues. There being no change of circumstances, one must conclude that Carter does not consider that supporting terrorism merits sanctions. If there is another more reasonable conclusion, readers are invited to supply it.
June 13: Carter, adverting to “the anguish and suffering and deprivation of human rights that you have experienced ever since 1948,” confessed that he was in love with the Palestinians. The ex-president has swallowed the line that the creation of the Jewish state was itself a crime against the Palestinians, which explains his hostility towards Israel. He also extemporized on the massive Iranian revulsion at their stolen election, saying that “I am sure [Ahmadinejad] will listen to this opposition.” Ahmadinejad, of course, dismissively compared the disgusted millions to disgruntled soccer fans.
June 14: In Israel, Carter rather surprisingly admitted that the Gush Etzion settlement bloc in the West Bank/Judea should remain in Israeli hands after a peace deal with the Palestinians.
June 15: Carter told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the Netanyahu speech—in which the Prime Minister accepted the creation of a Palestinian state—was a flop: “In my opinion, Netanyahu brought up several obstacles to peace in his speech that others before him have not placed. He insists on settlement expansion and demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, even though 20% of Israel's citizens are not Jewish.” Did Carter acknowledge that a “right of return” for the Palestinian “refugees” would doom Israel demographically, making “two states for two people” a farce? Don’t hold your breath.
June 16: Carter said in Gaza that Gazans “are being treated like animals.” He told them: “This abuse must cease. The crimes must be investigated. The wall must be brought down, and the basic right of freedom must come to you.” No reported mention of the thousands of rockets hurled from Gaza at southern Israel. No mention of the crimes of Hamas against the people of Gaza. Noam Shalit gave Carter a letter for his son, Gilad, a soldier kidnapped by Hamas over one thousand days ago. If Carter criticized Hamas for the kidnapping, or for refusing to let the Red Cross see Shalit, it wasn’t reported. He just allowed that there should be a “prisoner exchange,” equating a kidnapped soldier with terrorists.
June 17: Carter met with Hamas leaders in Gaza, as he had in Syria, breaking the diplomatic embargo erected by the U.S. government. He asked them to recognize Israel. They said that would be “unacceptable.” Perhaps there was no harm in asking. But what’s infuriating is that, ten to one, Carter won’t draw appropriate conclusions, but will continue to sing his old song: Hamas must be brought into the circle of peacemakers, which is both irrational and obscene.
Carter has been called “the worst ex-President in American history.” It is hard to judge definitively. But at an age when most people would be content to retire and rest on their laurels, he proudly marches on, determined to compete for the crown.
Comments
jimmy carter is apparently beyond your understanding. like you said he is not bumbling or naive. he simply disagrees with you. and he makes a much better case.
This article proves one thing: you're a person on the extreme right of the political spectrum, impinging on a fascist perspective.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!