Carter, Once Again, Inspires Censure

Jimmy Carter, whose legacy is already stained by his distorted and error-filled book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is once again on the receiving end of dismayed criticism as a result of his decision to meet with leaders of the Hamas terror organization.

Shmuel Rosner, Ha’aretz‘s chief US correspondent, writes that the decision of Israel’s Prime Minister and Defense Minister not to meet with Carter during the former president’s Middle East trip — a decision apparently in response to Carter’s insistence on meeting with Hamas — was justified. (Rosner also describes Carter’s book as being “nothing but a concoction of exaggerations, inventions, distortions and lies.”)

Michael Kraft, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser, writes in the Baltimore Sun that

For a high-profile person such as Mr. Carter to put the gloss on Hamas and publicly meet with its leader at this stage only encourages Hamas to believe that if it remains steadfast in its “resistance” and rejectionist rhetoric, the West will try to make deals or concessions without Hamas having to end terrorism and its opposition to Israel’s existence. …

Mr. Carter’s well-publicized meeting plans amount to rewarding terrorists in advance without any negotiations.

A Washington Post editorial today similarly criticizes Carter for lending undue legitimacy to Hamas. The editorial asserts that

no act of terrorism is out of bounds for the Hamas leader [Mahmoud al-Zahar], who endorses the group’s recent ambush of Israeli civilians working at a fuel depot that supplies Gaza. The “total war” of which he speaks was initiated and has been sustained by Hamas itself through its deliberate targeting of civilians, such as the residents of the Israeli town of Sderot, who suffer daily rocket attacks.

These facts would hardly need restating were it not for actors such as Mr. Carter, who portray Hamas as rational and reasonable.

The Post takes Carter to task for believing — or making believe — that Hamas accepts Mahmoud Abbas’s negotiation with Israel, while conveniently ignoring that Zahar called Abbas a “traitor” for negotiating. (This amounts to an “incitement to murder,” the editorial notes.)

Democratic Congressmen Howard Berman and Gary Ackerman wrote a letter to Carter explaining that “The legitimacy and prestige that Hamas will derive from your visit will be seen in the region as a clear demonstration that violence pays.”

Perhaps the most scathing commentary is by the opinion editor of Lebanon’s Daily Star, Michael Young. Under the headline “Jimmy Carter: A fool on a fool’s errand,” Young describes the idea, promoted by Carter and others, that meeting with Hamas will enlighten its supposedly pragmatic leaders on the benefits of peace and negotiation, and counters: “You can almost hear Khaled Meshaal gasping at the naivete of such sweeping positivism, as he prepares to score points off his solemn American visitor.” He adds:

it makes no sense today to damage Abbas by opening a channel to Hamas, which has never endorsed the agreements reached with Israel during the Oslo years. In fact, to bring Hamas into negotiations would only grant legitimacy to the movement’s rejection of those agreements, and of the entire Oslo process. This, in turn, would only further constrict Abbas’ slim margin of maneuver. …

There is also a valid case to be made that Hamas is not interested in a peace treaty with Israel, because its ultimate ambition is to liberate the whole of Palestine. Certainly, that’s what the movement demonstrates day in and day out. Meshaal has declared that Hamas would accept a deal on the basis of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, but has added a key caveat that this must also include a right of return for the Palestinian refugees of 1948 to their places of origin. For Israel this is a non-starter on demographic grounds, and Meshaal knows it. …

That’s why Jimmy Carter is on a fool’s errand, complicating an already complicated situation. It’s often said that Carter has been a better ex-president than president. That’s no compliment, so ghastly was his tenancy of the White House – the Camp David accords notwithstanding. Peace may be a long way away between Palestinians and Israelis, but Carter won’t speed things up any by turning into Meshaal’s patsy.