The Return of Jimmah
You know, I’m beginning to suspect Jimmy Carter doesn’t like George W. Bush…
Our favorite ex-President is back with another criticism of U.S. foreign policy, this time in the Washington Post. The purpose of this latest screed is to decry the apparent policy of Israel and the U.S. to isolate Hamas through financial pressure. He does have a point about the possible drawbacks of such a stance:
This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies.
Jimmah wouldn’t be Jimmah, though, if he didn’t take a stab at the current occupant of the White House:
The election of Hamas candidates cannot adversely affect genuine peace talks, since such talks have been nonexistent for over five years.
This, despite the fact that George W. Bush is the first sitting president to declare a Palestinian state as the explicit goal of U.S. policy in the region.
There is a certain element that believes in the notion that “talking” is a good in itself, that as long as some discussions are going on, even if nothing is being accomplished, it’s still somehow an example of working toward peace.
These are the folks who freaked when talks broke down between Gorbachev and Reagan in Iceland (sp?) over disputes over SDI. Meanwhile, Reagan’s willingness to walk away that day probably did more to hasten the end of the Cold War than all the jabbering of endless summits.
Things have been made pretty plain for the Palestinians. If they’re not willing to recognize some basic facts, such as Israel is not going away, they can stew in their own filth. I don’t feel the need to keep talking just to make them feel good.
I don’t see how Carter’s remarks are a stab at Bush — there have, in fact, been no peace talks for over five years — when these talks have occured in the past, it has been primarily because of American pressure — moreover, there has not been an American negotiator (such as Dennis Ross) for as long — perhaps you feel that America ought not to be involved in Isreali-Palestinian negotiations, but its indisputable that this conflict has been less of a priority for Bush II than for previous administrations –
Yes, but we had the Road Map and the Gang of Four – it’s not as if Bush has been totally inactive…besides, if Carter has a beef with anyone, it’s Sharon, who (wisely, in my view) decided disengagement was the way to go…
Exactly. It’s not a matter of assigning priorities so much as recognizing some strategies don’t work. Merely sending a negotiator over to keep talks going on the theory that the talks themselves are a good thing is pointless.
Now negotiations may be fruitful again in the future, so I’m not saying a negotiator is necessarily a bad thing. I’m just saying the absence of a negotiator is not necessarily bad either.
Once the wall is completed, we may see more action on this front than in the previous 5 years combined. The Palestinians only respect actions and deeds, words justify weakness to them.