Carter Stares Down Hamas
While many of us are secretly questioning our own belief in democracy and are wondering if the belief that “Democracies don’t attack democracies” will be proven a fantasy, the former U.S. president–best known for his bold and daring heroism during the Iran hostage crisis in the late 70’s –is pulling an Ariel Sharon. Boldly reversing his past hawkish stands against Islamic Fundamentalism (he never did draft that memo of ultimatum, but that may have been due to the pressing needs of other national security issues that couldn’t be trusted to underlings, such as the tennis court schedule), Jimmy Carter is calling for world economic support for the biggest hippies to take power in the Middle East since the Shah fled Iran like it was an after-hours bar that ran out of coke.
The Jerusalem Post reports,
Carter, who led an 85-member international observer team from around the world organized by the ‘National Democratic Institute’ in partnership with ‘The Carter Center,’ urged the international community to directly or indirectly fund the new Palestinian Government even though it will be led by an internationally-declared foreign terror organization.
“The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming,” Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.
He added that if international law barred donor countries from directly funding a Hamas-led government than the US and the EU should bypass the Palestinian Authority and provide the “much-needed” money to the Palestinians via non-governmental channels….
No assurances necessary folks. That’s not humanitarian! Just write a check, and circumvent laws if you have to. Hey, the former president may not be a fan of Rule of Law, but at least he’s honest!
Full story
Great article, David. I agree that circumventing the rule of law to support any proscribed group, governmental or otherwise, is counterproductive. I’m curious as to why Carter hasn’t demanded all of the money back which was siphoned off by Arafat and his cronies since Oslo. Perhaps it is the corruption of the PA that has left it largely destitute. But Carter asking us to throw good money after bad just doesn’t make sense.
but is George Will honest? Haaretz said Carter told Hamas to accept Israel’s right to exist.
here are some experpts from a toronto star interview with Carter.
““Democracies don’t attack democracies†will be proven a fantasy,”
This has already been proven false way before this election.
BTW, unless non governmental channels are illegal, he isn’t circumventing the law.
The stands of the Israeli and American government are nothing but posturing and asscovering moves anyway.
Not disagreeing Joe, but please elaborate!
Joe:
How so? The PA isn’t a sovereign democratic state as yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
Whoops, democracy was restored right after that war. My bad. Anyway, my point was simply that there are plenty of wars that most consider to be exceptions to this rule.
Great post, Kelsey.
I often tell people how great and brilliant the Founding Fathers were, and how excellent the system of government they devised is. If someone expresses doubt, I tell them that the US survived four years of Carter. What better proof could there be?
What’s up Karter?
Stay away from us, we don’t need ‘your’ help.
What bad thing did Carter do to warrant the K in his name?
Josh,
Carter was certainly an awful president. One of the very worst. In ’84 the American people overwhelmingly voted for an Alzheimers patient rather than elect a man who had been connected in any significant way to the Carter administration. Moderate Democrats began looking at Nixon the Burglar’s foreign policy with longing and respect. Russia read the situation and smirked, and invaded Afghanistan, knowing they had nothing to fear. It was a terrible administration.
But he was and is no traitor. And you don’t need to go there. He was bad enough as it is.
He was done in by the hostage crisis in Iran. He was a horrible campaigner, but he did some important things the present President is incapbable of and that is that he made a peace deal with Sadat an Begin. That is probably why there is such ultra hatred from the Israeli right for him. He certainly isn’t as bad as the present bozo.
The hated comes from the pullout of the Sinai. People should be careful not to respond to spin.
Dameocrat,
You are correct that this is why many on the Israeli right hated him, but this is not why he is held in contempt by so many Americans. The important peace agreement between Israel and Egypt did not compensate for his other lack of accomplishments.
And he was not done in by the hostage crisis. He did himself in with the hostage crisies. He bungled Iran every which way possible. There was no secret deal with Reagan. They simply feared what “the cowboy” would do. Carter just had to send an ultimatum. This came clear in the New Yorker a couple of years ago with information from a former Iranian bigshot who received asylum. Carter could have done much better, Dameocrat. He could not have done much worse.
“He sure isn’t as bad as the present bozo.”
Great. What a choice. You are comparing the worst Democratic president to the worst Republican one since at least prior to the depression. The fact that you have to go there suggests you don’t really disagree with me terribly strongly.
I don’t know about any deal with Reagan, but I do know there was animus toward Carter from the Iranians because of his support for the Shah
Exiles are creatures I have learned not to trust. Think Chalabi, and the Iraqi National Congress. I would say, Johnson was perhaps more checkered than Carter as Dems go, and personally I don’t think the dropping A bomb was a great thing, so Truman is checkered as well.
I am not calling the others perfect. Far from it. Carter is just particularly difficult to even understand.
Then again, Johnson’s continuing his failed war in Vietnam isn’t exactly easy to understand either. But Truman I understand just fine. What he did was horrible, but I understand it.
I think we are looking at what consitutes a failed presidency differently. I am not looking at it from a purely moral perspective.