Decision ‘08

Jimmy Carter, FOE (Friend Of Extremists)

Everybody sing - all together now!

ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE ISLAMIC EXTREMISM A CHANCE!

The most disgraceful of former presidents sinks even lower:

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration’s refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was “criminal.”

Sigh…it’s true that Bush’s embrace of democracy in the Middle East certainly backfired in this case, but “criminal”? What’s criminal is that Hamas has to do one little bitty simple thing to win the favor of the entire world community (with the exception of Iran and Syria): admit that Israel has a right to exist - and yet it would rather condemn the Palestinian people to a lifetime of suffering than come to peace with its neighbor.

And the fact that Carter made these comments, these apologies for extremism, these excuses for a rampant purveyor of the vilest anti-Semitism, at a human rights conference?

Now THAT’s criminal…

17 Responses to “Jimmy Carter, FOE (Friend Of Extremists)”

1 too many steves Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
As a solidly conservative voter I expectedly and respectfully disagree on public policy with about 65% of elected federal officials (and the electorate). There are two national politicians I thoroughly despise: Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. These are not honorable men, they are not (to me) motivated by good will and what they believe is best for all of us, they are self-centered, egotistical, and despotic people. They should be tarred, feathered, put on public display, and then banished from the republic. Oh, and they are just plain wrong on just about everything.
2 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Two thoughts:

1. This is what happens when you fetishize democracy: you’re left trying to explain why you don’t recognize a legally elected government. We have only ourselves to blame?

2. Doesn’t Fatah technically also oppose the existence of Israel?
3 Fred Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
The United States and Europe must end their policy of favoring the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany, or they will doom the European people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Roosevelt administration’s refusal to accept the 1932 election victory of National Socialism was “criminal.”
4 Fred Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
And Germany had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the USSR. What more could you ask of a government?
5 Aaron Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Ryan, as for (2) I believe that the PLO (now the Fatah party) agreed to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist in the mid-90’s, allowing it to return it’s HQ to Palestine and become the PLA.
6 Mark Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Ryan, I don’t Fatah’s ‘official’ policy on Israel’s right to exist. Unofficially, however, it has shown itself to be willing to deal with Israel in the manner of two states rather than bitter enemies from time to time.

In other words, they ain’t perfect, but considering the alternative…
7 CrawlinKingSnake Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Fred, thats the first thing that came to my mind too and I suspect the average joe will be thinking the same thing.
8 Fred Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Totalitarian regimes ALWAYS have a reputation for being more organized. Not that they are, it’s just that they tend to beat up anyone who says otherwise. And as for the idea that US support should be based, even in part, on which side it more organized militarily is simply bizarre.

As for election, they are a superior method of determining the consensus position of a society. But it is the consensus itself that should carry weight. After all, Jeff Davis probably could have won an election in the South up to 1863 and most would say his armies where better organized then Lincoln’s. Based on Carter’s beliefs, was it therefore criminal that England never recognized the Confederacy?
9 Chris J. Breisch Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 7:49 am
In the words of Glenn Reynolds: OUCH!
10 mikebdot Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Mark: “one simple bitty thing” to them is not all that simple or bitty.
11 Mark Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Yes, and I can’t think of a bigger indictment of the radical Islamist mindset, Mike…
12 peter Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I think Carter has a point, although it is not well stated. The facts are murky and I don’t claim to be a Middle East expert, but it seems to me that Hamas won an election fair and square and were blocked by Fatah from assuming the power they rightly won. Regardless of what you feel about Hamas, the fact that a plurality of Palestinians voted for them suggests that they ought to be taken seriously.

Dennis Ross makes a cogent argument that because Hamas practices terrorism and refuses to recognize Israel, they should not be bailed out by the West with foreign aid. He argues that without assistance they will be unable to run the government and be kicked out of power, and we ought to use our leverage to see that this occurs. I see his point – and he certainly has far greater expertise in the area than I ever will – but I question whether isolation will lead to the results we would like to see.

We lose any possibility of being an honest broker among warring parties when we choose sides and try to insert our will into other countries’ domestic politics. We also lose any chance of co-opting Hamas when we isolate them. Because their constituency includes a majority of Palestinians, when we thumb our nose at Hamas we are also thumbing our nose at the Palestinians. We can’t tell the world that democracy is a universal good – and invade a country to install it – and then imply that democracy is good only when people we like are elected. I think that at minimum we ought to have a dialogue with any popularly elected government, regardless of how distasteful it may be.

You could argue that we should never talk to terrorists because the only way to deal with them starts with ostracism and ends with military force. However, if you look at the Bush administration’s refusal to talk to those countries which have practiced (or currently practice) terrorism, the only conclusion is that in every instance it has failed miserably. All of our enemies are much stronger than they were when Bush took office: Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria. We have worked with terrorist and totalitarian regimes in the past (including Reagan, who – as we all know – made a deal with Iran to fund the Contras) with results which were sometimes successful.

If the goal is to maintain an ideological purity where we never engage those who oppose us, then you get the kind of results we have had in the Middle East over the past six years. If the goal is to achieve a result which is better than the status quo, then the only way is to look at different alternatives. I think Carter is right to the extent that without some effort to engage Hamas, our results will be doomed.
13 Mark Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Peter, with all due respect, nuts to all that. If we cannot choose between moderation and extremism, then let’s just shut the borders and quietly wait to die…what point is there otherwise? Today, the Washington Post reported that Tony Blair is being appointed to give a new boost to the work of the Quartet, with a focus on laying the groundwork for a future Palestinian state.

By definition, this excludes Hamas, because Hamas DOES NOT WANT a Palestinian state. They want Israel, and they want it free of Jews when they get it. When you hear Palestinians and their sponsers talk of the wonder of a one-state solution, remember that the demographics of the region mean that one state would be Arab…

The conditions for Hamas are crystal clear: recognize existing international agreements on the status of Israel, and join the efforts of the quartet - or lead your country into ruin, but with the sure knowledge that Israel will continue to exist, with our full support, with or without the consent of Hamas…
14 peter Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
They are the ones choosing extremism over moderation — how do you suggest that we try to move them towards moderation by calling them terrorists and refusing to deal with them? It hasn’t worked before — why should it work now?
15 Mark Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Don’t get me wrong, we can’t move Hamas - their very reason for existence is the destruction of Israel. We can, however, work on presenting an attractive enough alternative under Fatah that we can perhaps slowly move the popular opinion away from a lifetime of useless carnage.

The Middle East is the graveyard of hope, to be sure, but it might work…
16 miriam Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I don’t think you can deal with either group. They are all thugs.
17 Peter Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 7:48 am
In 1970, you could have looked at China and concluded pretty much the same thing. They were arguably more dangerous to us than Russia: a nuclear power, with the world’s largest standing army, led by a madman who starved his own people and was sworn to the destruction of capitalism and the West.

Our relationship to China — and its relationship to the world — is now far more cooperative and much less belligerent. What caused them to change? Diplomacy and trade. Whether diplomacy will work with the Palestinians remains to be seen, but we know from experience that trying to isolate Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, North Korea, and Syria has only made each of them stronger. (It hasn’t done much good with Cuba, either — after nearly fifty years of diplomatic and trade embargos, Castro is still in power and will die in his bed). I think throwing your hands up and insisting that Hamas is irredeemable ignores some of the lessons of history.