Jimmy Carter: ‘I oppose a Palestinian State’--An American statesman speaks

Political Mavens ^ | 12-5-06 | Jeff Ballabon

[SJackson]

Jimmy Carter: “I oppose a Palestinian State”
By Jeff Ballabon (bio)

This was Carter, THEN:

… I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States interests. (Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference, February 25, 1980).

———-

…we oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America’s own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel’s security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer to the world. A strong Israel and a strong Egypt serve our own security interests.We are committed to Israel’s right to live in peace with all its neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism. We are committed to a Jerusalem that will forever remain undivided with free access to all faiths to the holy places. Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and committments. (Source: First anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty / White House joint conference, March 23, 1980).

What has changed in the last 25 years? Not Israel’s 1948 independence. Not the 1967 war. Not the cynical, ignominous treatment of Arab refugees by the Arab world.

So why, 25 years later, is Israel’s right to exist a matter of debate, while Palestine’s right to exist is presumed by everyone from the United Nations to Jimmy Carter to George Bush to Ehud Olmert?

Why, when the Palestinian leaderships - PA and Hamas - the first imposed and the second popularly elected, demonstrate that their chief characteristics are, respectively, corrupt thuggery and bloody holy war, why then is endless-concession-making, negotiating, retreating, disengaging, humanitarian-aid-giving, appeasing Israel viewed as the “destabilizing factor?”

Did a massive land-grab by Israel precede Carter’s new book? On the contrary: a massive land-surrender preceded the book. And, in fact, when it retreats, morally, intellectually, politically, physically, Israel does become the destabilizing factor - or at least surrenders its role as the stabilizer of the world’s most volatile region.

What has changed is Israel’s own resolve. Why should anyone else fight to support a nation whose political elite takes every opportunity and advantage we give it and squanders it? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which sacrifices its soldiers rather than vanquishes its enemy? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which has ceased believing in itself? Which cravenly begs forgiveness on the rare occasions it actually defends its citizens? Why should anyone fight for a Jewish homeland which seems bent on denying its Jewishness? Why should anyone care about a state which retreats from its victories? Which sheds its democratic veneer to brutalize and displace its most patriotic and committed citizens, its idealists, its pioneers? Why should anyone care for an Israel that is willing, even eager, in its quest for a “secular revolution” to declare that the Jewish heritage is an albatross, that Judea and Samaria are a burden, and that Jerusalem is negotiable? That the State of Israel is, in fact, seeking to disengage from the Holy Land?

The turning point, perhaps the catalyst, was Oslo; the Bill Clinton/Ehud Barak plan to (in Clinton negotiator Dennis Ross’ terminology) dispense with the “mythologies” in order to negotiate. How very modern and enlightened and liberal and civilized. And how very destructive and foolish and deadly. The ideas, the principles, the vision, the morals, the truths which they disdain as mythologies were and are the very heart of Israel’s national aspiration. It was the vision that kept Jews alive through millenia of diaspora and dispersion, crusade, expulsion, forced conversion, blood libel and pogrom, and, finally, Holocaust And the heart may be romanticized as the seat of emotion, but only the hopelessly deluded excises it and thinks the body will survive. Only the deluded excises the heart. Or the suicidal.

What has changed, in consequence, is the resolve of Israel’s enemies as well. And, because they are not burdened by the selfish inanity of modern liberalism, they have not lost their willingness to suffer and to sacrifice. The suicides they are committing are anything but deluded; their terror is a winning strategy. Rather than eliciting disgust and fury, rather than being condemned as unutterably barbaric, the use of civilians as targets, children as bombs and grandmothers as bunkers has even brought them the sympathies of the deluded West. Not only in the corridors of the UN or the salons of Europe - but even in those enlightened liberal precincts in Israel where the stubborn, unruly Jewish “mythologies” have long since been relegated, surrendered, sublimated to an oh-so-superior modern Israeli multicultural consciousness.

It often has been said that the Jews are the canary in the coalmine.

Pay close attention, for what is playing out in Israel today is the future of the West.

[supremedoctrine]

I figured this statement was "current" Carter, and that the kicker would be that he wanted the Palestinians to be given all Israeli land, ASAP.

[ridesthemiles]

I cringe whenever I read or hear "American Statesman" in the same sentence with Carter. He is a total embarrassment. Too bad Billy isn't around still to show him how to be a real American.

[rightazrain]

"Note the date of his remarks--"

I did, and that's my point.

[familyop]

Will Jimmy Carter's State become a possession of Iran? The answer is in the way he and his people want to deal with Islamist expansionism overseas.

[randita]

It is clear that the Palestinians seek nothing less than the complete annihilation of the state of Israel and everyone who lives in it. Arabs turn a blind eye to the historical fact that Jews occupied Israel (I won't dignify it by calling it Palestine) for thousands of years before Mohammed happened on the scene.

I just finished reading the biography of Queen Noor (Lisa Halaby)-"Leap of Faith". The book is pretty interesting and she doesn't shy away from politics--taking the Palestinian side, of course. Unfortunately, she totally ignores the history of Israel before Mohammed. It's pretty amazing.

To her credit, however, she did not like or trust Arafat because too often Arafat played King Hussein for a fool.

[Wuli]

The turning point for Mr Carter is (1)his ego, (2)an absence of a final peace between Israel and her immediate neighbors, (3)the fact that his own beliefs in the myths of land-for-peace have failed, and he knows it, and (4)his age, which is diminishing the time for him to complete his ego-satisfying sense of his "legacy".

In other words, the "turning point" for Carter is that time is running out, for him, and it is more convenient to blame others than to acknowledge the mistaken myths which contributed to his own failures.

Carter is very much like many Middle Eastern Arabs (not all). He creates myths in his own mind and no ongoing evidence to the contrary can shake the myths that now form a prism through which all events must be filtered. It is a convenient way of (1) denying reality and (2)denying your own guilt.

[Little Ray]

I haven't figured it out either. The Pali scum gets away with murder, day in and day out.

[supremedoctrine]

Everything you say about Carter, especially the "turning
poimt" assessment, will hold true for Clinton in another 20 years: Clinton has, in fact, already been working on his legacy, concurrently w/ Carter working on his. And NO ONE should dare cause Clinton to break stride or impede the flow of The Legacy Project, as Chris Wallace found out some weeks ago.

[gondramB]

>> It makes even more sense now, with Jordan and Israel being on good terms.

-Eric<<

If only Jordan wanted the Palestinians - no Arab country seems to actually help them that much except when its politically beneficial.

[E Rocc]

If only Jordan wanted the Palestinians - no Arab country seems to actually help them that much except when its politically beneficial.

It would be easier if Jordan was willing to accept sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza. At this point, I suspect Israel would give it to them.

Reagan was ahead of his time, again.

-Eric