Deconstructing Jimmy Carter: Former president visits Israel with the “Elders”, and gets a drubbing

Robin Shepherd

Think Tank Blog

26 August 09

“Could it be,” asks columnist and writer Michael D. Evans in today’s Jerusalem Post, “that Jimmy Carter’s ideals are formulated by the number of zeros before the decimal on the contributions to the Carter Center by oil-rich Gulf States?”

That’s right. This is not going to be a hagiography of the former president, and his supporters would be advised to read no further. But just what has Jimmy Carter been playing at? I don’t just mean in the last couple of days where he has turned up in Israel with Desmond Tutu and Mary Robinson to tell “apartheid” Israel to start behaving itself. He is visiting as part of a delegation of “The Elders”, a designation which is either ludicrously pompous or, in the Israeli context, just plain crass (Elders? Protocols? Zion?), according to your taste. Set up with funding from Virgin Atlantic boss Richard Branson, the Elders say that they “amplify the voices of those who work hard to be heard, challenge injustice, stimulate dialogue and debate and help others to work for positive change in their societies.”

In other words, it’s a UN talk-fest gone freelance. We know what to expect then. But back to Jimmy Carter and his record in the Middle East. Evans has a few gems to offer.

His piece takes the form of a review of Carter’s latest book, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that Will Work. In it, Evans tells us, Carter comes up with the startling innovation that all sides should embrace the Road Map advanced by the so called Quartet: The US, the EU, the UN and Russia. But that Hamas, Hizbolloah, Iran and Syria should also be involved.

Quoting the British, Menachem Begin is described as the “most notorious terrorist in the region”. It is also alleged that at one point Begin agreed to divide Jerusalem, a point which Evans ridicules:

‘I found that to be astonishing, especially since Begin had given me a copy of the letter he penned to Jimmy Carter on September 17, 1978, in which he wrote, “Dear Mr. President, on the basis of this law, the government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is one city indivisible, the capital of the State of Israel.” According to Begin, Carter informed him that the US government did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

‘Begin told me he responded, “Excuse me sir, but the State of Israel does not recognize your non-recognition.”‘

There is plenty more of this sort of thing (see article below). But Jimmy Carter’s ability to be taken in any way seriously in the Middle East peace process died the day he published, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid thus legitimising a form of hate-speech against the Jewish state which has now entered the mainstream and in no small part due to the former American president’s own efforts.

Carter has tried to wriggle and squirm his way out of this. But to no avail. In an online interview with Amazon.com in January 2007 he gave the following absurd response to a question as to whether he had been surprised by the reaction his wording elicited:

“Forced segregation in the West Bank and terrible oppression of the Palestinians create a situation accurately described by the word,” said Carter. “I made it plain in the text that this abuse is not based on racism, but on the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land. This violates the basic humanitarian premises on which the nation of Israel was founded. My surprise is that most critics of the book have ignored the facts about Palestinian persecution and its proposals for future peace and resorted to personal attacks on the author. No one could visit the occupied territories and deny that the book is accurate.” (My Italics)

So if it is “not about racism” why did Carter use the term which more than any other in the post-Holocaust era is synonymous with brute racism and white supremacy? There is no rational come-back to that question. His use of the word “apartheid” was a term of abuse: nothing more and nothing less.

As for his latest foray into peace-making in the Middle East, Evans has a simple piece of advice:
“The best thing President Obama could do is completely ignore Jimmy Carter and his plan.”

Enough said, I think.

To read the piece from the Jerusalem Post, click here:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145115888&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
.