With Ex-Presidents Like This…
…who needs enemies? Jimmy Carter is quickly exhausting my considerable store of good will towards ex-Presidents. Even given the quite obvious anti-Carter animus of this article, it still manages to astound:
President Carter personally called Secretary of State Rice to try to convince her to reverse her U.N. ambassador’s position on changes to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the former president recalled yesterday in a talk in which he also criticized President Bush’s Christian bona fides and misstated past American policies on Israel.
Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America’s ambassador, John Bolton. “My hope is that when the vote is taken,” he told the Council on Foreign Relations, “the other members will outvote the United States.”
Not content to undermine U.S. policy while out of office, Mr. Carter (I prefer not to use the honorific President at the moment) took the time to take swipes at George W. Bush’s Christianity, and to engage in apologetics for the Palestinians:
Asked yesterday about his views on religion, Mr. Carter said, “The essence of my faith is one of peace.” In a clear swipe at Mr. Bush’s faith, and to a round of applause, he then added, “We worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war.” Mr. Carter then went on to attack American Christians who support Israel.
He also reiterated his known view that most of the problems in the Israeli-Arab front derive from Israel’s settlement policies and its building of a defensive barrier in what he insisted on calling “Palestine.”
“From Dwight Eisenhower to the road map of George W. Bush, our policy has been that Israel’s borders coincide with those of 1949,” Mr. Carter said, adding, “All my predecessors have categorized each settlement as both illegal and an obstacle to peace.”
On April 14, 2004,President Bush said in a speech, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” He later cemented that statement in a letter to Prime Minister Sharon, which became the stated American policy on Israeli settlements.
The host of yesterday’s event, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, who has served several presidents in key Middle East roles, including most recently Mr. Bush, told the Sun yesterday that while American officials frequently defined settlements as an “obstacle to peace” they refrained from calling them “illegal.”
It’s worth pointing out how Israel gained control of the area it now ‘occupies’:
…5. In 1967 Israel was attacked by Jordan, which at the time ruled the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel had no obligation, under international to vacate any territories until its foes entered into a meaningful peace agreement.
6. Later in 1967, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242, Notably, the resolution calls for Israel to withdraw from “territories” (not “all territories” or “the territories”) as part of a peace agreement by which Arab states would end their belligerence against Israel. Today, most Arab states remain in a declared state of war against Israel.
7. Having acquired the West Bank in a defensive war, Israel later began building settlements on the West Bank. The settlements were built solely on land belonging to the Jordanian government, and not land belonging to individual Arab owners.
8. As a general rule, international law forbids the permanent annexation of territory, even after a defensive war. However, Israel’s settlements did not violate this rule, because they were built in areas where no internationally-agreed international border existed. (See points 4 and 6).
9. Later, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, and renounced all claims to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Jordan’s renunciation of the West Bank necessarily included a renunciation of all claim to West Bank land which had been owned by the Jordanian government. The renunciation therefore perfected Israel’s legal ownership of the former Jordanian government lands in the West Bank.
Leaving aside the tasteless spectacle of an ex-President so openly conspiring against a sitting one, Carter is wrong on the merits, as well…
Carter should relax and get away from the spotlight…and leave the governing to those who have been elected to do so…
UPDATE 6:45 p.m.: Fuller remarks from the actual transcript are here…
What a jerk the former President Carter has turned out to be. I don’t know if all these people who continuously talk about our current President and the policies know how much they are hurting our country or not. It’s a sad situation.
Even beyond the issue of whether it’s appropriate for a former president to take swipes at his successors, let’s all bathe in the unmitigated gall of this portion of the story:
However, on the next day, Mr. Carter said, Mr. Bolton publicly “demanded” that the five permanent members of the Security Council will have permanent seats on the new council as well, “which subverted exactly what I have promised them,” Mr. Carter said.
Perhaps someone needs to explain to Mr. Carter that when people address him as “Mr. President” nowadays, it’s just a courtesy. Exactly what standing does he have to promise any diplomat anything, other than a ride home from the dinner party? You can’t be subverted if you never had power to begin with.
Quite a sad spectacle he’s become these days, and it didn’t have to be this way – he had a good start with the Habitat for Humanity programs, which helped him regain some of the lost respect he had after his disasterous term as President.
Give us your tired Dictators (Chavez), your poor huddled homicidal maniacs (Hamas) – Jimmy will always be your saving grace as head apologist for your monstrous actions.
The reporting in this article seems a little fishy to me. If Carter said these things, it is certainly newsworthy, but I could not find any other coverage of his speech anywhere else on the Internet. The reporter did not reveal the source of his information (was he there? Did he interview someone else who was there?). Also, there are several things in the story which are just plain weird. Carter making personal assurances to ambassadors? Carter attacking pro-Isreal Christians?
Jimmy Carter is an old man, and possibly in his dotage he is morphing into Ralph Nader or Ramsey Clark. However, I would want to see some other verification besides the NY Sun. The Sun is a polemical publication. This doesn’t necessarily mean that its account is false, but the story is so bizarre that I think some skepticism is in order before jumping to conclusions –
You may be correct, Peter – but the issue of polemics is one that your heroes at the NYT practice with regularity. You know the old adage – “those who throw stones…”
And given Carter’s contemptible actions over the past few years, this story is imminently plausible.
If you can show some examples where the Times deliberately distorted a news story for partisan gain, I am eager to see them –
[...] Some (I’m talking to you, Peter! – but you were right to be skeptical) have questioned whether Jimmy Carter really said the things the New York Sun alleged him to say. Let’s go to the transcript. On the mistaken assumptions of U.S. Policy vis-a-vis Israel: Let me first review the official position of the United States. From Dwight Eisenhower to the road map of George W. Bush, our policy has been that Israel’s borders coincide with those of 1949. The United States has consistently stated since 1967 that U.N. Resolution 242 is binding on Israel as a foreign power that is occupying Palestinian territory. To quote its key commitments, “The inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security, and the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict” — I’m still quoting — “and a termination of all claims or states of belligernecy, and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty of territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of violence.” [...]
Sorry, peter, the report is accurate…I just posted a link to the transcript in my newest…
Carter was for a while a great example of an ex president. He showed commitment to making the world better by building homes in underdeveloped countries, as well as in poor US communities, being an observer of elections worldwide, just to name a few. Im not against an ex president stating his political views so long as they are not competing in the political system. That means, its inappropriate to take jabs at a successor. And when that successor is taking us to the brink of anhialation, even then, I think its inappropriate for an ex president to take such jabs at a successor to foreignors. Unity at all costs. He should know that. He has become a shameful utter embarrassment.
Make The News Better
[...] Decision ‘08 [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]