Bad Record

Former President Jimmy Carter once again opines on the Middle East, and his history and suggestions on how to deal with the current conflicts are wanting. They're wanting for factual accuracy, recognition that the Palestinians reject land for peace implicitly and explicitly, and that Israel is not the be-all and end-all of all the woes in the region. Start with this:

Q: Do you think the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon was the real turning point?
JC: Well, they invaded Lebanon in ‘82 and they stayed there 18 years. As you know, they didn’t come out until 2000.

And why did they go into Lebanon in the first place? Because the PLO was engaging in cross border attacks, and was busy destabilizing the region. Nice to overlook that "minor point."

The rest of the piece is more of the same.

Q:I sometimes detect in your writings over the last few years, Mr. President, what really seems to be frustration if not anger with Israel on this score.
JC: Well, I wouldn’t say anger. I would say that in the last 30 years or so one of my main commitments in life, certainly in international affairs has been to bring peace to Israel. That has been a major goal and I’ve supported every move that’s been made to bring a peace to Israel and acceptance by all the Arab countries of Israel’s right to exist to live in peace. But I am frustrated when terrorist activities cause a serious setback as they have among the Palestinians and earlier by the PLO with cross-border raids, and by Hizbullah, and the reluctance of Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. All those things concern me very much because I see them as a major obstacle to a final peace for Israel with acknowledgement by the Palestinians and all of the Arabs of Israel’s right to exist and the right of the Palestinians to have a state side-by-side with Israel.

The Palestinians implictly and explicitly reject the two-state solution. The PLO (aka Fatah) and Hamas both reject the two-state solution. Look at their maps, rhetoric in Arabic to their followers, and their deeds. None call for a permanent two-state solution. Indeed, where one finds mention of a two-state solution, it is used as a means to eliminating Israel. Hamas rejects even that intermediate step, and rejects all agreements with Israel altogether.

Q: Do you think it is possible to make peace with an organization like Hamas now running the Palestinian government?
JC: Yes, I think within the bounds of a unity government, which is not beyond the realm of possibility—they have been on the verge of it recently—I think that the acceptance of that could lead to an accommodation among the Palestinian political parties, Fatah and Hamas. The Hamas leaders have stated publicly and often that they would accept any peace agreement negotiated between the Palestinian people and Israel if the Palestinians were permitted to approve it in a referendum. That was one of the premises of the Camp David accords: after any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, that it should be submitted to the Palestinians for approval. So those things stay below the surface, they are still there.

What makes Carter think that Hamas is willing to join a unity government where all such attempts have actually led to bloodshed between Fatah and Hamas thugs. Carter seriously thinks that the Palestinians want peace, when it is repeatedly shown that they actually encourage violence at the moment of truth. In 2000, Palestinians were offered a two-state solution from which they could still negotiate further concessions from Israel. Arafat refused, and the second intifada ensued.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and instead of using that opportunity to build a society, the Gazans promptly elected Hamas and began firing rockets into Israel on a regular and ongoing basis.

Carter prattles on about the land for peace under UN SCR 242 completely ignoring the fact that Hamas and Fatah both reject the terms of UN SCR 242. Indeed, Hamas rejects all agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

He also thinks treaties are worth the paper they're written on. Treaties, and the paper they're written on, only means something when both sides actually agree to enforce and carry out the terms of those agreements. The Palestinians thus far have shown themselves incapable and unwilling of those steps.

Carter also muses about what the Middle East would have been like had Anwar Sadat not been assassinated. Well, that's all well and good, but the fact is that the Islamists who murdered him are alive and thriving throughout the Middle East, including in Lebanon, where Hizbullah started a 34 day war against Israel over the summer.

But that's Carter for you.

Ignoring the fact and ignoring the history.