PrintApril 25, 2008
The Lust in Jimmy Carter's Heart
Jimmy Carter's recent negotiations with the terrorist group Hamas have been called a bad idea, ill-conceived, counterproductive, self-aggrandizing, and naïve. However, what if the meeting was not at all naïve, but a well-conceived execution of an unstated plan? What would a former U.S. president do if he really lusted in his heart for the complete destruction of the Jewish state?
First, he would deny it. He could not declare, as Hamas and other terrorist organizations do, his desire to see Israel obliterated, for fear of undermining his credibility with all but the lunatic fringe in the U.S. and Europe. Instead, in a soft-spoken drawl, he assumes the mantle of peace-maker and advocate for human rights. After all, isn't he the man who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at bringing together Israel and Egypt? If you look closely, you can almost see his halo.
The next step would be to vilify Israel and thus prepare the world for her deserved annihilation. With a long history of anti-Semitic propaganda on which to draw, Carter needed little originality to apply well-worn lies about Jews to the State of Israel. Thus Carter set about to portray Israel as an evil entity, which perpetrated upon Palestinians "one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation" in the world. (MSNBC December 2006) Ignoring Palestinian violence as a precipitating cause of Israel's defense, he promotes the idea that Israel relishes the pain it causes the poor Palestinians.
Then the master stroke of associating Israel with the apartheid era in South Africa, as in his revisionist account of Middle East history: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Never mind that Israeli Arabs enjoy the same freedom as other citizens and are not obligated (but not prevented from) joining the army, the apartheid label would become a powerful weapon in his anti-Israel arsenal.
Then the master stroke of associating Israel with the apartheid era in South Africa, as in his revisionist account of Middle East history: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Never mind that Israeli Arabs enjoy the same freedom as other citizens and are not obligated (but not prevented from) joining the army, the apartheid label would become a powerful weapon in his anti-Israel arsenal.
Carter's attacks on Israel include traditional anti-Semitic canards about the nefarious power of Jews. In interview after interview, he has accused the pro-Israel community of intimidating the media and the nation into silence about the Israel's flaws. He declared that any politician who advocated a "balanced position" (that is, anti-Israel) would be committing political suicide. Yet somehow no one has managed to silence him on his crusade to undermine Israel's legitimacy.
Carter holds Israel to blame for all that is wrong with the Middle East and probably most of the world. (A tenet that mirrors the Hamas Charter) In one of his many articles faulting Israel, Carter blames the Jewish state for all of Lebanon's woes with Syria and Iran's proxy terrorist group Hezbollah. A nation which is the source of so much conflict will be responsible for its own demise.
In Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he contradicted the account of the Camp David meeting given by President Clinton and chief U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross. Carter claims that Israel never wanted peace, that it made unfair accusations against Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak never offered the Palestinians 98% of the land they claimed and never offered joint sovereignty over Jerusalem. Today with Hamas rockets targeting Israeli civilians every day since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, the fault still rests with Israel.
"The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria," Carter said upon his return. "The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved."
Israel, in other words, is a nation which wants to live by the sword. The world should shed no tears if it dies by the sword as well.
In Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he contradicted the account of the Camp David meeting given by President Clinton and chief U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross. Carter claims that Israel never wanted peace, that it made unfair accusations against Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak never offered the Palestinians 98% of the land they claimed and never offered joint sovereignty over Jerusalem. Today with Hamas rockets targeting Israeli civilians every day since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, the fault still rests with Israel.
"The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria," Carter said upon his return. "The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved."
Israel, in other words, is a nation which wants to live by the sword. The world should shed no tears if it dies by the sword as well.
Once he has primed enough of the far-left, the Islamist sympathizers, the would-be anti-Semites and the totally ignorant to accept and even breathe a sigh of relief at the end of Israel, Carter would need to implement his plan. Of course, he would not take up arms himself, but rather engage in the two-pronged strategy of weakening Israel's military and empowering the worst of her enemies to do the job.
One sure way to destroy a nation which has been under siege since its birth sixty years ago would be to cut off support from its only friend, the U.S. That is what Carter called for in a 1996 New York Times op-ed piece wherein he advocated cutting off all U.S. financial aid to Israel. Carter's ambitions were frustrated by a U.S. Congress, which refused to abandon a valued ally as Carter had abandoned the Shah of Iran.
One sure way to destroy a nation which has been under siege since its birth sixty years ago would be to cut off support from its only friend, the U.S. That is what Carter called for in a 1996 New York Times op-ed piece wherein he advocated cutting off all U.S. financial aid to Israel. Carter's ambitions were frustrated by a U.S. Congress, which refused to abandon a valued ally as Carter had abandoned the Shah of Iran.
Although Carter has been unable to weaken Israel's military capabilities, he remains undeterred from his mission and is feverishly pursuing the second prong of the attack: empowering Israel's worst enemies. With a number of anti-Israel options available, he aligns himself with the most intransigent enemy: Hamas.
The Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas incite hatred of Israel, yet there is the slight possibility that the more pragmatic PA will reach some form of accommodation with Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, is irrevocably dedicated to the violent and total destruction of Israel. Strengthen Hamas' hand and the fragile West Bank government may give way to its more extreme jihadist brethren.
Carter promoted Hamas despite condemnation from the more moderate Muslims. On April 16, 2008, the London Arabic language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat noted,
"Carter's meeting with Khaled Mash'al could harm the Palestinian cause and inter-Palestinian reconciliation more than benefitting it. In fact, it can only exacerbate the crisis in the region. There is nothing to indicate that Hamas, under Khaled Mash'al's leadership, will commit to a resolution that unites all Palestinian efforts."
Carter's endorsement of Hamas was heralded in all Islamist circles. Al Jazeera gloated,
"This effectively pulls the rug from under Israel, as they have constantly maintained that the reason they will continue isolating Hamas is because they will not recognize their state. The ball is now in Israel's court."
Carter's most recent offensive against Israel began with praise for Arafat, whose widow is now living in Parisian luxury on money stolen from the Palestinian people, and with hugs and photo ops for Khaled Meshaal, the mastermind of hundreds of terrorist attacks and the man with the blood American blood on his hands.
What more could Carter do to assure a Hamas victory over Israel? He could present a "peace" proposal, which if accepted by Israel would be national suicide. That is just what the beaming Carter did in his speech to the Israel Council on Foreign Relations in Jerusalem, as he proudly announced his triumph.
What more could Carter do to assure a Hamas victory over Israel? He could present a "peace" proposal, which if accepted by Israel would be national suicide. That is just what the beaming Carter did in his speech to the Israel Council on Foreign Relations in Jerusalem, as he proudly announced his triumph.
"They [Hamas] said that they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, if approved by Palestinians and that they would accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace."
His "Peace" plan would return Israel to indefensible borders, from which Hamas could easily target the entire country. It would be comparable to Chicago having a terror stronghold in all the suburbs to the north, west and south. The plan would also leave the nation so narrow in parts that severing the north and south would be easy work.
To assure Carter's final solution for Israel, his proposal includes the return of millions of Arabs, most of whom have never set foot in Israel, thus demographically erasing the Jewish state, whose Jewish population is just over 5 million. What would happen to these Jews? If history is a guide, we know that Jews have been expelled from all the Muslim nations which surround Israel. We know that Jews were forced to leave their homes in Gaza, as there is a zero-tolerance for even one Jewish person living in Palestinian-controlled territory. Therefore, Israeli Jews would be running for their lives.
With no Israel, they would have nowhere to run.
Carter had Israel in a perfect grip: accept this "peace" proposal and be doomed; reject it and be condemned. Fortunately for Israel, Carter's good friends in Hamas thwarted his efforts. The terror group rejected his proposal for a month-long cease-fire and shortly after meeting with Carter, Hamas fired another rocket, wounding a 4-year-old Israeli boy. Worse for Carter, Hamas contradicted his claim that it would recognize Israel. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri in Gaza said that even if it puts a peace deal to a referendum, it "does not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum." Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader with whom Mr. Carter met in Damascus, denied Carter's statements.
"Hamas accepts the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and with full and real sovereignty and full application of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return, but Hamas will not recognize the state of Israel."
In other words, Hamas will accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and then a larger Palestinian state when Israel is inundated by more Palestinians.
What can possibly account for Jimmy Carter's passion to destroy Israel? Gary Bauer, a former presidential candidate and a fellow member of the Southern Baptist faith, provides a religious perspective.
"From a theological standpoint, I think he must be embracing replacement theology. [The concept that Christians replaced biblical Jews as God's chosen people] When God says, ‘Israel I will bless,' he's really saying, ‘the Church I will bless.' Theology aside, it's hard to distinguish his [Carter's] views on Israel from garden variety anti-Semitism. He seems to have infinite forgiveness for Israel's tormenters and infinite enmity for Israel and Israel's efforts to defend itself."
Carter's lust to see a submissive and supplicant Jewish state may stem from simple revenge. In Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn report that in March 1980, as Carter was watching his approval rating in the Jewish community at an all-time low and his chances for re-election evaporating, he lost his temper, "If I get back in, I'm going to [expletive] the Jews." Fortunately for Israel and for the U.S., he didn't, but he is still trying to fulfill his promise.
