2
PRICE: $3
Bulk orders of $25 or more $1 each
Copyright 2007.
David Horowitz Freedom Center
P.O. Box 361269
Los Angeles, CA 90036-9828
800-752-6562
www.frontpagemag.com
ISBN 1-886442-59-2
Printed in the United States of America
Jimmy Carters War Against the Jews
By Jacob Laksin
When James Earl Carter left office in 1981, after suffering a
decisive defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, the popular verdict
held that he was a decent man, if a dismal president. At home, Carter
had shown a persistent inability to address domestic concerns like
double-digit inflation and soaring interest rates, attributing them and
other problems to an American malaise. Abroad, he struggled with
a number of foreign-policy embarrassments, most notably the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan and the seizure of American hostages in Iran.
Together, these events engendered a crisis of confidence in Carter
himself and defined his administration as one of the least competent
in modern American history.
The ensuing decades have entrenched this view of his failed
presidency. But they have also exacted a toll on his personal
reputation, which he and his supporters hoped to save from the
wreckage of his administration. Carter set out to be an exemplary
ex-presidentindeed, to redefine that role into one involving a level
of moral activism and diplomacy other former chief executives had
considered unseemly. But after a quarter century out of office and
in the headlines, Jimmy Carter is now generally adjudged to have
debased what before him was a ceremonial role marked by discreet
silence and attendance at the funerals of foreign leaders. Rather than
advancing American interests, he has become a hectoring critic of
his country who exempts dictators from the high standards of human
rights he otherwise claims as his legacy. The moral double standards
are nowhere more visible than in his persistent and intemperate attacks
on Israel, which are so obsessive as to raise the question of whether
an agenda of anti-Semitism underlays the obvious anti-Zionism.
Dictators and Double Standards
Carters apparent sympathy for foreign dictators and antipathy for
Israel antedates his founding of the Carter Center, a combination
research institute and bully pulpit affiliated with Atlantas Emory
 3 4
University that would become the equivalent of a White House for
his ex-presidency. It was Carter who, in a 1977 commencement
address, admonished Americans for what he sneeringly dubbed their
inordinate fear of communism. This tendency has become even
more pronounced in his political afterlife. In the course of a 1994
visit to North Korea, for example, he declared, against all evidence,
that the Stalinist regime of Kim Il-Sung was committed to providing
international inspectors with access to its nuclear sites. Not only that
but, in Carters judgment, North Korea could be trusted to suspend
its development of nuclear weapons. All these confident assurances
notwithstanding, in 2002 North Korea expelled weapons inspectors
and revealed that it was operating a clandestine nuclear program.
Shortly thereafter, in October of 2006, North Korea, having been
given protective cover by Carters credulous intervention, exploded
a nuclear device.
It was not the last time that ex-President Carter put himself at
the service of a communist regime. In 2002, he paid court to Fidel
Castro, becoming the first American ex-president to honor the
longtime Cuban dictator with his official presence. Taking diplomatic
niceties to the extreme, Carter not only lavished praise on Castro
for Cubas supposedly successful health and education systems but
also demanded that the United States abrogate, without concomitant
human-rights concessions from Havana, its economic embargo.
Carter has routinely inserted himself into political disputes the
world over, often, as the above instances show, to the detriment of
U.S. principles and interests. No conflict, however, has so preoccupied
the 39th president as the ongoing conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians. It is an issue that has commanded his interest since
1978, when, thanks largely to the willingness of Egyptian president
Anwar Sadat to break with the rejectionist Arab consensus against
recognizing Israel, he helped broker the peace accords between the two
nations, an achievement that led to a Nobel Prize. Since the moment
that he helped get these two leaders to shake hands, however, Carter
has increasingly seen his role as that of apologist for the Palestinians
and prosecutor, judge and jury of Israel.
The Apartheid Lie
This double-standard, a recurring feature of Carters political
career, finds its most recent expression in Carters latest book, the
ungrammatically titled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.[1] To read
Palestine is to witness not an objective mediator, as Carter imagines
himself to be, but an unscrupulous propagandist who masks his ill-
concealed aversion to Israel in a posture of neutrality. However flawed
its analysis, the book has the virtue of revealing in stark terms the
degree to which Carter has become a political agitator for the Arab
side. Instead of providing a formula for peace between Israel and the
Palestinians, Carters alleged intention in Palestine, he has succeeded
only in delegitimating democratic Israel; providing free rhetorical
ammunition to its enemies; and lending the moral imprimatur of a
former American president to the cause of ideologues, extremists
and, it is not unfair to say, even terrorists.
Any discussion of Carters views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
must begin with his recent use of the term apartheid in reference to
Israeli policies in the occupied territories, especially the West Bank.
Israels apartheid, according to Carter, is motivated not by racism,
as was the case in apartheid-era South Africa by a desire for the
acquisition of land. This is a longtime theme of Carters. Even during
his presidency, he was decrying the Israeli presence in the West Bank
(itself the result of a war precipitated by belligerent Arab states), as
the main source of regional strife. On one occasion, after a meeting
with then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Carter famously
grumbled that the obstacle to peace is Israels desire to perpetuate
its domination of the West Bank and Gaza.[2] Faithful to this theme,
Carter today accuses Israel of colonization and confiscation
of Palestinian lands. By contrast, Carter monochromatically sees
Palestinian residents in the territories as an abused population robbed
of all rights by Israeli authorities.
Defending his use of a term that compares Israeli policies with South
Africas state-sanctioned racism, Carter has written that the West Bank
has become divided into Bantustans and cantons. In arguably his
most inflammatory charge, Carter used a November 2006 appearance
 5 6
on the program Hard Ball with Chris Matthews to proclaim that
Israels persecution of the Palestinians was an example of human
rights deprivation even worse than that which occurred in Rwanda -
- an unmistakable reference to the 1994 intertribal genocide in which
the countrys Tutsi minority was nearly exterminated. Carter repeated
the charge during a January 2006 speech at Brandeis University,
stating that today, obviously the Palestinians have a worse time than
the Rwandans.
Equally egregious in Carters view, and symptomatic of Israels
alleged apartheid policies, is the Israeli security barrier. In Palestine,
Carter devotes an entire chapter to a discussion of the barrier (which
is in fact largely a fence) called The Wall As Prison. In Carters
account, the barrier as it exists in the Gaza Strip is based on a valid
premise, insofar as it has proven an effective bulwark against
Palestinian terrorists (a term Carter studiously avoids, preferring
to euphemize terrorist attacks as simply cross-border raids). But
for reasons the ex-President does not define, the same security
premise becomes invalid when applied to the barrier currently being
constructed in the West Bank. An intolerable incursion into the lives
of Palestinians, this wall ravages, cuts and strangles those
residents unfortunate enough to dwell in its path. Just as insufferable,
according to Carter, is that the barrier is an attempt by Israel to lay
claim to additional land and to leave Palestinians with no territory
in which to establish a viable state.
To underscore the urgency of his findings, Carter adds in his book
that Israels control and colonization of Palestinian land have
been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in
the Holy Land. This highly charged claim, moreover, is not open
to debate: No objective person could personally observe existing
conditions in the West Bank and dispute these statements.
But as would be immediately apparent to any fair-minded reader,
Carters charges about Israels policies and its security barrier
are eminently disputable. For example, the suggestion that Israel
confiscates land with no regard for the rights of Palestinian
occupants will not survive even the most cursory scrutiny. Far
from simply seizing land, Israeli authorities make every effort to
accommodate and compensate dispossessed landowners. (Not all of
whom, as it happens, are Palestinians; as shown by Israels August
2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip, Jews and Israeli citizens
have been among those landowners.) On the contrary, Israel follows
strict rules of seizure, which have been set forth by the Israeli Supreme
Court:
Pursuant to standard procedure, every land owner whose land
is seized will receive compensation for the use of his land. After
the order of seizure is signed, it is brought to the attention of the
public, and the proper liaison body of the Palestinian Authority is
contacted. An announcement is relayed to the residents, and each
interested party is invited to participate in a survey of the area
affected by the order of seizure, in order to present the planned
location of the Fence. A few days after the order is issued, a survey
is taken of the area, with the participation of the landowners, in
order to point out the land which is about to be seized. After the
survey, a one week leave is granted to the landowners, so that they
may submit an appeal to the military commander. The substance
of the appeals is examined. Where it is possible, an attempt is
made to reach understandings with the landowners. If the appeal
is denied, leave of one additional week is given to the landowner,
so that he may petition the High Court of Justice.[3]
Examined in detail, the reality of Israeli seizure policies bears
not even a passing resemblance to the caricature drawn by Carter.
Correspondingly, Carters attempt to link territories surrounded by
Israels security barrier to South African Bantustans fails even
the most elementary test of historical logic. In their South African
incarnation, Bantustans were created to entrap poor blacks in order
that they would serve as a dependable source of cheap labor for the
countrys economy. Israels purpose in erecting the security barrier
is, of course, precisely the opposite: to keep potential terrorists out of
Israel and thereby to reduce the terrorism threat.
In this respect, the West Bank barrier has proven a remarkable
success. Though less than 60 percent completed, the barrier has cut
 7 8
down terrorist attacks by 90 percent between 2002 and 2005. Such
successes, significantly, have not translated into a desire by Israel to
annex land or advance it frontiers. Israeli courts have held that the
security barrier should in no way be regarded as a de facto border.
In any event, Israel repeatedly has proven willing to give up land for
peace, though Carter has seldom deigned to acknowledge that fact.
It is also seriously inaccurate to imply, as Carter does, that in
pursuing its security interests Israel has dispensed with humanitarian
concerns. Despite the demonstrable effectiveness of the barrier, Israel
has made every effort to alleviate avoidable suffering to Palestinians
affected by its construction. In 2004, Israels Supreme Court ordered
a stretch of the barrier -- some of which had not yet been built -- to be
rerouted in order to respect the rights of Palestinians. It is impossible
to imagine the lawless colonialist state conjured up by Carter
taking preemptive measures to minimize the distress its actions force
on non-citizens.
No more accurate is Carters rendering of the barrier as a fearsome
stretch of thirty-foot high cement, an image reinforced by the
photographs of cement slabs on the cover of Palestine. In fact, this
image, like so many of the images that come out of the Mideast
conflict, is wildly misleading. For over 95 percent of its length, the
West Bank barrier is made up of modest sized chain-link fence; less
that five percent of the barriers length is fashioned from concrete.
While the fact goes unmentioned by Carter, those sections of the
barrier that are made of concrete are used largely in urban areas,
where they offer the local population the advantage of taking up less
space. Hardly an attempt to colonize Palestinians land, the use of the late Syrian tyrant Hafez Assad, who once slaughtered over 30,000
concrete has in fact freed more land for their use.
And there is more to the story that Carter has not told. Because the
West Bank barrier has proven so effective in stemming infiltration by
terrorists and preventing Palestinian snipers from targeting innocent
Israeli civilians, Israeli forces no longer have to make retaliatory
incursions into Palestinian territory. As a direct result of the new
and improved security measures -- a response, it should be borne in
mind, to a terrorist uprising launched by Palestinians in September
of 2000 -- Israel has been able to cut back on the number of security
checkpoints, about which Carter complains also at length. Even
the United Nations, an organization not know for solidarity with
Israel, determined in a 2005 UN report that the construction of the
security barrier replaced the need for closures: movement within the
northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier
has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed
in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under
construction.[4]
But for Carter, otherwise an ostentatious Christian, there is no
God in these details. In this regard, little has changed over the last
quarter century. During his days in the White House, Carter used
Israel as a whipping post for his diplomatic frustrations. Nearly three
decades hence, he continues to cast Israel in the poorest possible
light, ignoring facts that might undermine his attack or show that
comparisons to South Africas racist regime are as contemptible as
they are inaccurate.
Arab Dictators Best Friend
In Palestine, Carter devotes an entire chapter to reminiscences about
his travels in the Middle East. Apparently intended to fortify his image
as evenhanded negotiator, it actually paints a picture of Carter as a
sycophant who is unwilling to challenge even the most preposterous
propaganda when it passes from the lips of Arab despots.
Perhaps the greatest beneficiary of Carters unskeptical sympathy is
of his own countrymen at the town of Hama to maintain his hold
on power. But Carter writes that in order to understand the more
moderate views in the Arab world it is useful to summarize the
fervent opinions of Assad. Recounting a 1977 meeting with Assad,
for instance, Carter provides the following glimpse into Assads
mind:
Even in his bitterness toward Israel, [Assad] retained a certain
wry humor about their conflicting views, seeming to derive
 9 10
patience from a belief that history, as during the Crusades, would
be repeated in an ultimate Arab victory.
Bewilderingly, this forthright admission by Assad that he remains
wedded to the dream of an Arab victory on the model of the Crusades
-- that is, of the conquest and destruction of Israel -- only serves
to confirm Carter in his certitude that Assad might be sufficiently
independent and flexible to modify his political views and tactics
and make peace with Israel.
In 1977, Syria was one year into what would become its bloody
occupation of Lebanon, but Carter reproduces without judgment
Assads assurance that he recognized Lebanons independence
without equivocation. Only in 2005, following a civic revolution
by Lebanese backed by the international community, did some of
the Syrian forces at last withdraw. But Carter, clearly at pains to
whitewash any wrongdoing on Syrias part, is disinclined to dwell on
such context. Thus he writes opaquely that Lebanese Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri -- assassinated for his outspoken opposition to the Syrian
occupation -- was a strong critic of Syrian decisions concerning
Lebanon. As to which decisions these may have been, Carter
supplies no clue. Indeed, the only time he uses the word occupation
in connection with Syria is to decry Israels occupation of the Golan
Heights -- an apt demonstration of the perverse double standard that
Carter has employed against Israel throughout his career.
Revealing himself to be something of an Assad family loyalist,
Carter also has kind words for Assads son, the current Syrian dictator
Bashar Assad. Bemoaning what he sees as the mistreatment of the
young Assad by the Bush administration, Carter marvels that he has
survived for six years in one the most difficult political posts in the
region. As if the main explanation for Assads political longevity
were not the fact that he presides over a one-party dictatorship -- an
inheritance from his father-- in which all forms of political dissent are
routinely and ruthlessly suppressed.
Shifting his sympathetic attention to Jordan, Carter finds that his
memories of the late King Hussein are without exception pleasant
ones. The views of King Hussein were always moderate, Carter
informs his readers, reporting that the king supported international
proposals designed to end conflict. A skeptical reader might point
out that this claim is hard to reconcile with Carters casual remark
that Hussein not only opposed Egypts efforts to make peace with
Israel during the 1978 Camp David Accords but condemned Anwar
Sadat for doing so. This circle goes unsquared. In addition, did
Carter forget that Jordan initiated a full scale military attack on Israel
in 1967 and supported terror organizations?
Larger still is the ideological blind spot Carter carries for Saudi
Arabia. Of the leading sponsor of Wahhabi terrorism and the onetime
home of Osama Bin Laden, Carter lectures the reader, Its stabilizing
role [in the Middle East] has always been crucial. Astonishingly,
Carters sole criticism of the kingdom is affably to chide the late
King Khalid for the purportedly time-consuming extent to which
he devoted himself to the concerns of his Saudi subjects. Carter then
faithfully records the absolute monarchs reply that the kingdom
could not survive if its leaders abandoned this commitment of personal
service to their people. Amid this literary flight of sycophancy, not
one mention is made by Carter of the kingdoms persecution of
religious minorities and political reformers; of the gender apartheid
enforced by hard-line Sharia courts; or of the brutal punishments
meted out for crimes like homosexuality.
It does not speak well of Carter that Palestine is only the latest
affirmation of his reverence for the ruling tyrants of the Arab world.
Keeping Faith, Carters 1995 memoir, is similarly filled with tributes
to the brilliant and strong Hafez Assad, and the moderate Saudi
royal family. After meeting with these key Arab leaders, I was
convinced that all of them were ready to find solutions to long-
standing disputes and acknowledge Israels right to exist, Carter
enthuses.[5] Only Israel is a disappointment. Bitterly recalling
Menachem Begins refusal to meet with members of the PLO, a
terrorist group forthrightly sworn to Israels destruction, Carter
writes that after that there was no prospect for further progress in
the Middle East.[6] The message is unmistakable: All that stands in
 11
the way of peace is Israel.
Cumulatively, these accounts of travels in the Arab world attest
to nothing so much as the ex-presidents willingness to suspend all
disbelief in the presence of Arab leaders. Moreover, when considered
alongside Carters acerbic attacks on all things Israeli -- in Palestine,
for instance, Carter is continuously outraged by extreme Israeli
spokesmen, extremely militant Jews, and Israels militant has been colored by Saudi petrodollars.
policy; even Israeli domestic debates are too vitriolic for his
delicate sensibilities -- they make for an instructive study in contrasts.
In Carters moral narrative, Israel can do no right, while Arab leaders
are virtually blameless. It is no mystery that, as Carter confided in
his 2004 memoir, Sharing Good Times, he was always greeted with
smiles and friendship when traveling in the Arab world.[7]
Carters Arab Moneymen
Citing Carters reflexive support for Arab strongmen, some critics
have located the source of his political sympathies in the generous
funding that the Carter Center has received from Arab leaders in the
course of its history.
On this reading, Carters impossibly charitable assessment of
Saudi Arabia may be a function of the patronage of the Saudi royal
family. Before his death in 2005, for instance, Saudi King Fahd was
a longtime contributor to the Carter Center and on more than one
occasion contributed million-dollar donations. In 1993 alone, the king
presented Carter with a gift of $7.6 million. And the king was not the
only Saudi royal to commit funds to Carters cause. As of 2005, the
kings high-living nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, has donated at
least $5 million to the Carter Center.[8] (For purposes of comparison,
it is worthwhile to note that in the wake of the September 11 terrorist
attacks, then-mayor Rudy Giuliani refused a $10 million donation
from the prince because of his suggestion that the United States scale
back its support for Israel.)
Meanwhile, the Saudi Fund for Development, the kingdoms
leading loan organization, turns up repeatedly on the centers list of
12
supporters. Carter has also found moneyed allies in the Bin Laden
family, and in 2000 he secured a promise from ten of Osama bin
Ladens brothers for a $1 million contribution to his center. There
is no evidence that any of these bin Ladens maintain any contact
with their terrorist relation. But the money trail that leads from the
kingdom to the Carter Centers coffers still raises difficult questions
about the extent to which Carters view of Middle Eastern politics
Equally lucrative has been Carters affiliation with the United Arab
Emirates. In 2001, Carter even traveled to the country to accept the
Zayed International Prize for the Environment, named for Sheikh
Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the late UAE potentate and former
president-for-life. Upon claiming his $500,000 purse, Carter also
hailed the UAE as an almost completely open and free society,[9]
a surreal depiction of a rigidly authoritarian country where Islamic
Sharia courts judge sodomy punishable by death.
On top of these official honors, Carter was offered a forum at the
Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up,
the Emirates official think-tank. In gratitude, Carter declared his
intention to forge a partnership with the center. Carter made good
on the pledge in a 2002 letter, in which he praised the centers efforts
to promote peace, health, and human rights around the world.
Uncomfortably for Carter, the center has since garnered notice
for an altogether different reason: It has repeatedly played host to
anti-Semitic speakers who have denied the Holocaust, supported
terrorism, and alleged an international conspiracy of Jews and
Zionists to dominate the world. Precisely for that reason, Harvard
University in 2004 rejected a $2.5 million gift from Sheikh Zayed bin
Sultan al-Nahyan due to his ties to the Zayed Center. While Carter
obviously does not share the hateful views of the centers speakers, it
is revealing of his see-no-evil approach to the Arab world that he has
not likewise seen fit to sever his ties to the institution.
Apologist for Terror
Much of Carters energy since leaving office has been given over
 13
to the task of rehabilitating the reputation of murderous Palestinian
terrorist organizations like Hamas, whose declared goal is the
destruction of the Jewish state and the genocide of its Jewish citizens.
In addition, Hamas members did not hesitate to direct their sinister
threats toward the USA and the free world.
For reasons not difficult to discern, this is something the former
president is uneager to admit. Trying to rebut criticism that his book
takes a soft line on Palestinian terrorism, Carter wrote in the Los
Angeles Times in December 2006: Obviously, I condemn any acts
of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present
information about the terrible casualties on both sides. [10] When
criticism persisted, Carter, at a January appearance at Brandeis
University, again sought to placate critics by stating that he would
never excuse the use of violence. Repeatedly I call on all to terminate
the use of violence, Carter explained. As for terrorist organizations
that seek to destroy Israel, Carter added, I would have no brief for
them and no sympathy for them.
Carters continuing explanations were necessary because time
and again in his book, he not only fails unequivocally to condemn
Palestinian terrorism, but suggests that it is a misguided tactic best
abandoned because it does not advance the Palestinian Arabs political
goals. Counter productive, of course, is different from counter to all
civilized norms.
In the most notorious instance of this construction, Carter writes in
Palestine that It is imperative that the general Arab community and
all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the
suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws
and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
The obvious implication of such a sentence is that Palestinians would
be justified in carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians
so long as, in Carters reading, Israel does not abide by the so-called
diplomatic road map for peace. Carter himself conceded as much,
when he apologized for the above sentence and acknowledged that it
was worded in a completely improper and stupid way, promising to
alter it in future editions of the book.
14
But if he is to foreswear his softness on terrorism, Carter will have
to revise more than a single Freudian slip. There are numerous other
examples in the book in which Carters condemnation of terrorism
falls well short of convincing. For instance, he writes, It should be
noted that by following policies of confrontation and inflexibility [i.e.,
terrorism and a refusal to recognize Israels existence], Palestinians
have alienated moderate leaders in Israel and America and have not
regained any of their territory or other basic rights. Discernible in
such statements is the implication that had terrorism paid political
dividends, its use by Palestinians would be unobjectionable. In a
slight variation of the same theme, Carter elsewhere writes: It would
be tragedy -- especially for the Palestinians -- if Hamas decided to
promote or condone terrorism. This bewildering sentence leaves
the reader to wonder why terrorism would be especially tragic for
Palestinians, rather than, say, their Israeli victims.
Carters seeming belief that the main problem with terrorism is the
risk it poses to the Palestinian cause finds its clearest expression in
little-noticed remarks Carter made during a January 2007 interview on
Al-Jazeera television.[11] When asked whether the firing of missiles
into Israeli territory constituted an act of terrorism, Carter offered an
arresting answer:
I dont consider... I wasnt equating the Palestinian missiles with
terrorism. But when the Palestinians commit terrorist acts, and I
mean when a person blows himself up within a bus full of civilians,
or when the target of the operation is women and children such
acts create a rejection of the Palestinians among those who care
about them. It turns the world away from sympathy and support
for the Palestinian people. Thats why I said that acts of terrorism
like I just described are suicidal for the popularity and support for
the Palestinian cause.
Casting further doubt on that claim that he condemns all acts
of terrorism are Carters attempts to portray Hamas, a terrorist
organization designated as such by the United States and the
European Union, as a pragmatic group of Palestinian nationalists that
has renounced violence to become a credible negotiating partner for
 15
Israel. In Palestine, Carter mounts a determined effort to convince
his readers that since its election to the Palestinian legislature in
January of 2006, Hamas has meticulously observed a cease-fire
commitment, which they called hudna. While recounting a meeting
with Hamas legislator Mahmoud Ramahi, Carter uncritically reports
his assurance that Hamas had not committed an act of violence since
a ceasefire was declared in August 2004... Having once scolded his
fellow Americans for their inordinate fear of communism, Carter
has revived the same strategy in the service of Hamas: there is nothing
to fear but fear itself.
Accordingly, Carter has demanded that the United States recognize
the Hamas government and circumvent counterterrorism laws
prohibiting the financing of terrorist organizations to provide aid to
the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. In January of 2006, for instance,
the New York Times reported that Carter had called on the U.S. and
Europe to redirect their relief aid to United Nations organizations and
nongovernmental organizations to skirt legal restrictions. Phrased
less diplomatically, Carter wanted the international community to
launder money to a terrorist organization.
Carter continued to make appeals on behalf of Hamas. In a February
2006 op-ed in the Washington Post, he scorned the Israeli government
for refusing to allow members of Hamas to cross Israeli checkpoints,
calling it an intolerable aggravation and strongly implying that
such restrictions would justify a terrorist attack by the terrorist group.
Hamas, Carter concluded, needs to be given a chance.[12] Carter
repeated that plea in Palestine, writing that the so-called National
Reconciliation Document drafted between Hamas and Fatah was
a notable and promising development, one that would meet the
international communitys conditions for lifting the embargo that has
been placed on the Palestinian people. For good measure, Carter
adduced Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyehs statement that his
organization would have no problem with a sovereign Palestinian
state. Carter further reported, without a hint of hesitation, Haniyehs
vow that Hamas would modify its rejection of Israel if there is a
negotiated agreement that Palestinians can approve.
16
Not the least of the problems with Carters sanitized description was
that it was in direct confrontation with Hamas animating purpose:
the conquest, through holy war (jihad), of Israel in the name of Islam.
For evidence of that purpose, one need look no further than Hamas
1988 founding charter, which announces its genocidal creed: There
is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. All
initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are a waste of
time and vain endeavors, the charter usefully explains. Nor was
it true that the terrorist groups leaders had put aside their hostility
to Israel. The same Ismail Haniyeh who Carter insisted was ready
to accept a peaceful compromise with Israel declared as recently
as December 2006: We will never recognize the usurper Zionist
government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the
liberation of Jerusalem.[13]
Similarly divorced from reality was Carters claim that Hamas had,
in accordance with the hudna, suspended terrorism against Israel. As
more clear-eyed observers pointed out, since declaring the hudna in
2004, Hamas had claimed credit for no fewer than 15 terrorist attacks,
which claimed the lives of 26 Israelis, among them two children,
11 civilians, and 13 soldiers.[14] Before long, Hamas was unwilling
even to make a show of honoring the ceasefire. In April of 2007, the
terrorist group was steadily firing rockets and mortar shells into Israel
and declaring the death of the hudna.
Why Hamas would fail to live up to its end of the ceasefire was
no mystery, except perhaps to Carter himself. At the time the hudna
was issued, the late Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi emphasized
that it was a temporary measure implemented because Hamas, for
the time being, lacked the capacity to destroy Israel, a goal to which
the organization was unswervingly committed. A strategic maneuver,
the hudna was necessary because it was difficult to liberate all our
land at this stage; the hudna would however not signal a recognition
of the state of Israel, Rantissi explained. (Rantissi himself, it
might be added, was a passionate spokesman for one of Hamas
signature causes: anti-Semitism. He once vowed, We will kill Jews
everywhere. There will be no security for any Jews, those who came
 17
from America, Russia or anywhere.)
As might be expected from Carters dangerously misconceived
understanding of Hamas, the National Reconciliation Document
in which he invested so much hope -- and on the basis of which he
urged the international community to reconsider its opposition to
Hamas -- turned out to be the furthest thing from a declaration of
peace. Indeed, this document failed to satisfy the only three demands
that the international community had set for establishing diplomatic
contacts with Hamas: that it recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and
abide by previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Instead, it reiterated
Hamas position that resistance (i.e., terrorism) is a legitimate
right of the Palestinian people. The document added the further
condition that Palestinians were to be granted a full right of return
for Palestinian refugees, in effect a proposal to flood Israel with a
demographic onslaught that would complement Hamas ongoing
jihad. If there existed a moderate Hamas, in short, it was only as a
figment of Carters imagination.
Paralleling Carters support for Hamass political assurances
is his insistence that Israel has no right militarily to respond to
the provocation of such terrorist groups. In the summer of 2006,
when Israel mounted a retaliatory offensive against Hezbollah,
Carter rehashed his remarks from the 1970s. Ignoring the fact that
Hezbollah, apart from raining thousands of missiles on Israeli cities,
had violated Israeli sovereignty and taken Israeli soldiers hostage,
Carter insisted that Israel had no right to launch an attack against the
Lebanese terrorist group. Falling into line behind the Arab worlds
claim that Israel had launched a disproportionate response, Carter
told Germanys Spiegel magazine: I dont think that Israel has any It was an early warning that Arafat would countenance no agreement
legal or moral justification for their massive bombing.
In his mind, Carter plainly believes that countering Israels efforts
to strike back at terrorist groups is essential to his work for peace.
But it is a sad irony that the man who, at the end of his presidency in
1979, inaugurated the Holocaust Memorial Museum with a pledge
that the United States must forge an unshakable oath with all
civilized people that never again will the world stand silent, never
18
again will the world fail to act in time to prevent this terrible act of
genocide,[15] now condemns the Jewish state for taking up arms
against enemies who unabashedly seek a second Holocaust.
Apprentice to Arafat
However deplorable in themselves, Carters repeated attempts to
cloak terrorist groups like Hamas in the mantle of moderation are part
of a broader pattern in his career. He served his apprenticeship in this
regard in his courtship of the late PLO chieftain and arch-instigator
of anti-Israel terrorism, Yasir Arafat.
Evidence of Carters esteem for Arafat can be found as far back
as 1977, when he tasked his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, to determine whether the Arafat-led PLO was willing to
repudiate terrorist violence and to recognize Israels right to exist. After
researching the matter, Brzezinski concluded that such conciliatory
statements as Arafat allowed himself were little more than the same
old double talk.[16] The PLO leader could not reasonably be seen as
a credible partner for peace.
As if to underscore the wisdom of Brzezinskis verdict, Arafat
proceeded to do everything in his power to sabotage the accords that
Carter sought to broker between Israel and Egypt at Camp David.
Then, having failed to scuttle the diplomatic efforts, Arafat assumed
a lead role in marshalling a retaliatory boycott of Arab states against
Egypt for the offense of making peace with Israel. Following the
assassination of Egypts Anwar Sadat, Arafat reportedly growled,
This is what happens to people who betray the Palestinian cause.[17]
that accepted Israels presence on the Middle Eastern map.
Determined to see Arafat as a man of peace, however, Carter set
about befriending the PLO leader. In fact, as recounted by Carters
sympathetic biographer, Douglas Brinkley, There was no world leader
Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat. Convinced
that Arafat had been, in Brinkleys words, unfairly maligned by
the Western press, Carter appointed a special U.S. envoy to deal
 19
with Arafat and announced that the U.S. should recognize the PLO,
still regarded chiefly as a terrorist organization, as the legitimate
representative of the Palestinian people. To bolster Arafats unearned
-- and wholly undeserved -- reputation as a moderate, Carter averred
in his 1984 book, The Blood of Abraham, that Arafat was an ally
against more radical terrorist groups among the Palestinians,
and maintained that Arafat has generally taken a more moderate
line.[18]
This was in every sense the inverse of the truth. In fact, Arafat
had virtually defined modern terrorism in the late 1960s and after
as he was reshaping his organization from one that was explicitly
and solely genocidal into a national liberation movement. Yet
Carter was determined to help Arafat transform his image so that he
would be understood in the United States, not as a terrorist but as a
peacemaker.
The depth of Carters commitment to Arafats cause was vividly
demonstrated in the shameless counsel that the ex-president offered
Arafat about a speech the latter was to deliver before the United Nations
Security Council in 1990. To maximize the international appeal of
the PLO, Carter advised, Arafat needed to present Palestinians as
blameless victims of Israeli oppression:
The objective of the speech should be to secure maximum
sympathy and support of other world leaders, especially including
Americans and Israelis. The Likud leaders are now on the
defensive, and must not be given any excuse for continuing their
present abusive policies[You should refer to various reports
of Israeli cruelty in the West Bank and Gaza.] Then ask: What
would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren?
As the Palestinian leader, I share the responsibility for them. Our
response has been to urge peace talks, but the Israeli leaders have
refused, and our children continue to suffer. Our people, who face
Israeli bullets, have no weapons: only a few stones remaining
when our homes are destroyed by Israeli bulldozers. The thrust
of the speech should be to bring, not only the worlds political
20
leaders, but every parent and grandparent, into a realization of the
excessively patient suffering of the Palestinians.[19]
Carters best efforts notwithstanding, the image of Arafat as a
humanitarian and devoted peacemaker proved impossible to sustain.
Just several months later, in August of 1990, Arafat and his PLO
openly backed Saddam Husseins brutal invasion of neighboring
Kuwait. In siding with Iraq, Arafat had alienated many of his previous
supporters, including financial backers across the Arab world.
But Carter remained loyal. Certain as ever that Arafat was a man
of peace, Carter undertook to revitalize Arafats diminished fortunes
and to restore financial support for the PLO. As recorded by Brinkley,
Together [Carter and Arafat] strategized on how to recover the PLOs
standing in the United States. In what Brinkley called essentially
a fund-raising mission for the PLO, Carter even traveled to Saudi
Arabia to plead Arafats case before King Fahd. Brinkley reports that
the bonds of friendship between Carter and Arafat were forged from
the shared belief that they were both ordained to be peacemakers by
God.
To judge by Carters latest book, he retains that fervent belief.
Calling the late PLO leader surprisingly friendly, Carter uncritically
repeats Arafats assurance, given at a 1990 meeting, that the PLO has
never advocated the annihilation of Israel, as well as his confident
pronouncement that the slogan drive the Jews into the sea was
actually coined by Zionists and falsely attributed to the PLO to
discredit it. Even Arafats claim that Zionists do not choose to live
with people other than Jews -- an unsubtle attempt to equate Zionism
with racism -- elicits no challenge from Carter.
It would not have required much research for Carter to question
these assertions. For example, the notion that the PLO has never
advocated the destruction of Israel is resoundingly contradicted by
the PLOs founding covenant. At once denying the legitimacy of
Israel and declaring war against it, this document explicitly states
that the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the
state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time
 21
and notes that [a]rmed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
Had Carter taken the time to do so, he would have discovered
that Arafats denials about seeking to drive the Jews into the sea
were similarly fictitious. In 1993, to take just one instance, Arafat
confided in Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid his fervent
belief that the Palestinians would eventually throw the Jews into
the sea. As for allegations of bigotry and prejudice, these are more
accurately laid at Arafats door. Obscene hatred against Jews was
routinely fomented by the PA and its affiliated institutions, finding
its most pernicious articulation in the religious sermons aired on PA
national radio, which, with Arafats approval, broadcast that Jews
were descendents of apes and pigs who relentlessly scheme in all
times and places against Muslims.[20]
When not giving Arafat a pass on his serial fabrications, Carter seeks
to rewrite history to his credit. In the most brazen example of historical
revisionism, Carter claims in Palestine that Arafat deserves no blame
for the failure of 2000 Camp David summit, in which President
Clinton tried unsuccessfully to broker a peace agreement between
Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. As Carter summarizes
the talks, Israel failed to meet Palestinian demands, leaving Arafat no
choice but to reject the offer drafted by the United States: There was
no possibility that any Palestinian leader could accept such terms and
survive, but official statements from Washington and Jerusalem were
successful in placing the entire onus of the failure on Yasir Arafat.
For Carter, Arafat the rejectionist is Arafat the victim.
Not a single detail of Carters account is accurate. No informed
observer now denies that Israel did in fact present Arafat with
exceptionally generous terms, offering to cede to the Palestinians
97 percent of the territories captured during the 1967 war; to grant
Palestinian control over East Jerusalem; and to provide a compensation
package, paid for by the Israeli government, for Palestinian refugees
(many of whom, it bears noting, left their former homes voluntarily
or under directives from invading Arab states during the 1948 war).
22
Little wonder that, reflecting on the failure of the summit, President
Clinton would later point an accusatory finger at Arafat. I regret that
in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being,
Clinton lamented. Clintons Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, who
oversaw negotiations at the summit, was left particularly resentful of
Arafats refusal, despite repeated gestures of compromise, to make
peace with Israel. He would later caution incoming Secretary of
State Colin Powell, Dont believe a word Arafat says. Hes a con-
man.[21] Unsurprisingly, both Ross and Clinton have become vocal
critics of Carters book, with Carters fellow ex-president giving it
a particularly harsh review: If I were an Israeli I wouldnt like it,
because its not factually correct and its not fair.[22]
Carter and Anti-Semitism
In keeping with American Jews historical support for the
Democratic Party, Carter received 68 percent of the Jewish vote in the
1976 election. But the relationship soured swiftly. Particularly on the
question of Israel, Carters presidency was marked by rifts with the
Jewish community. Carters consideration of former Under Secretary
of State George Ball to head the State Department aroused concern
among many supporters of Israel, mindful of Balls antagonism
toward the Jewish State. Later, Mark Siegel, Carters liaison to the
Jewish community, earned the dubious distinction of being the first
senior official in American history to resign over disagreements about
American policy toward Israel.
Further problems followed. In one memorable case, Carter alienated
Jewish voters with a 1978 proposal to sell arms to Egypt and Saudi
Arabia, while at the same time abrogating arms sales to Israel. By the
time he sought reelection, Carters ties to the Jewish community had
frayed beyond mending. When the votes in the 1980 election were
tallied, Carter emerged as only the second Democrat in American
history (after James Cox in 1920) not to carry the Jewish vote.
In the ensuing years, Carters standing among Jews has plummeted
yet further. The reasons for the rift are not difficult to see. In adopting
an aggressively antagonistic view of Israel and its supporters, Carter
 23
has taken to making assertions that call to mind nothing so much as
old-fashioned anti-Semitism. If his newest book is any guide, Carter
seems particularly keen to arouse Christian passions against Israel. In
recalling a 1973 visit to Israel, Carter writes:
It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving
Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture
were not being respected by Israeli authorities -- the same complaint
heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier.
On its face, this claim is confounding. Carter provides no supporting
evidence for his allegation that Israeli authorities were in fact abusing
Christian holy sites -- neither footnotes nor a bibliography are to be
found in his book -- and of course the state of Israel did not exist
at the time of Jesus biblical persecution (nor did He ever complain
about insufficient respect for relics for the movement based on his
teaching that would come into being only after His death.) What is
clear from the befuddled words, however, is Carters encoded allusion
to deicide, the myth of Jewish responsibility for Christs sufferings
that has fueled much of historical anti-Semitism.
It is a theme Carter invokes throughout the book. Recalling a
visit to Jerusalem in 1990, Carter writes that he met with Christian
leaders, all unnamed, who were distressed by what they considered
to be increasing abuse and unwarranted constraints imposed on
them by the Israeli government Although Israeli Prime Minister
Yitzhak Shamir assures Carter that there was no official inclination
to discriminate against Christians, Carter is unwilling to rethink
his conclusions. Placing the blame squarely on Israel, he writes: I
understood for the first time why there was such a surprising exodus
of Christians from the Holy Land.
In yet another section of his book, Carter, venting his outrage at the
Israeli security barrier, makes a point of commenting that the wall
ravages many points along its devious route that are important to
Christians. Because of the wall, Carter avers, 2,000 Palestinian poignantly summed up the difficulty of living as a Christian among
Christians have lost their place of worship and their spiritual center.
Typically, Carter offers no evidence for this claim, but the crux of his
24
complaint could not be clearer: Israel, and by implication Jews, are
persecuting innocent Christians.
Nowhere in Palestine does one find reference to the well-
documented and far more prevalent incidents of anti-Christian
discrimination, and not infrequent acts of violence, by the Muslim
majority of the Palestinian territories. Radical Islamic groups have
routinely threatened to blow up churches and Christian sacred sights
in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and have repeatedly made good
on their threats. In September of 2006, to take just one example,
four churches in the West Bank city of Nablus were attacked by
Palestinians armed with guns, firebombs and lighter fluid -- all on
one day. It is little wonder that Christian leaders like Elias Freij, the
late Palestinian Orthodox Christian mayor of Bethlehem, lobbied
Israeli authorities against transferring the city to the Yasir Arafats
Palestinian Authority under the terms of the 1993 Oslo Agreement,
warning that it would spell a bleak future for the citys Christian
community.[23]
Freijs concerns proved prophetic. No sooner had the PA assumed
formal control of Bethlehem than it set about removing Christians
from top leadership posts, asserting its authority over Christian places
of worship, and forcing the study of Islamic texts into the curricula of
Christian schools. Arafat himself, in one of the most notorious cases
of anti-Christian sacrilege, converted Bethlehems Orthodox Church
of Nativity into his personal residence. As a result, Bethlehem has
been transformed from a Christian-majority city in 1990 to a Muslim-
dominated city today -- a demographic change spurred largely by
what many have called the PAs policy of religious cleansing.
The election of the Islamist Hamas to lead the Palestinian
government has only worsened the situation for the Christian minority,
with the New York Times reporting in March of 2007 that incidents
of beatings and property damage caused by Muslims have increased
since the election. One Palestinian Christian interviewed by the Times
Muslims: Their children call us atheists, he said. The illiterates
who support Hamas look at us as foreigners, not Palestinians. Many
 25
of them look at us this way.[24]
It goes nearly without saying that Carter allows no such details
to stand in the way of his diatribe about Israels insensitivity to
Christianity. Indeed, in defending his views on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, Carter has only lent credence to the view that he is animated
by some distinctly unsavory motives.
Certainly that is the message communicated by Carters recent
attempt to cast himself as a victim of a shadowy but all-powerful
Jewish and pro-Israel lobby. Claiming, absurdly, that there is no
forthright discussion about Israel in the United States, Carter writes
in his latest book that this is due to the powerful political, economic,
and religious forces in the United States, which makes sure that
Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned.
Sounding a similarly conspiratorial note, Carter adds that voices
from Jerusalem dominate in our media.
Though Carter declines to spell out who these voices may be, many
have taken this as an allusion to supposed Jewish domination of the
press, a canard long favored by anti-Semites and other expounders
of conspiracy theory. Underscoring that impression was a curious
editorial Carter wrote in the Los Angeles Times in December of 2006,
in which he charged that Book reviews in the mainstream media have
been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations
Carter went further, asserting that pro-Israel forces had contrived to
deny a hearing to critics of Israeli policies like himself. (For the
last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints
on any free and balanced discussion of the facts, Carter claimed.)
Besides the media, Carter singled out universities -- and especially
university campuses with high Jewish enrollment -- as institutions
that have attempted to stifle debate. He complained that even though
he had offered to speak on campuses for free he had trouble getting
bookings.
Anti-Semitic media in the Arab and Muslim world latched onto
Carters words as proof that, even in America, Zionists and Jews
could and would silence those who dared to raise their voice against
26
Israel. In the United States, Israels detractors on the Chomskyite
Left and Buchananite Right saluted Carters courage for taking on
the almighty pro-Israel lobby. Carter even earned a mention in The
Israel Lobby, the discredited pseudo-scholarly polemic published
by academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in the London
Review of Books.
Plaudits from the political fringe could not sustain the image of
Carter as a speaker of uncomfortable truths, however. As soon became
evident, his complaint about widespread censorship was entirely
baseless. As much was acknowledged by Carter himself after his
remarks ignited popular outrage. In a letter to the Jewish community
issued one week after his Los Angeles Times op-ed, Carter noted in
passing that he had in fact been afforded every opportunity to discuss
his book. During my recent book tour I signed more than 10,000
books and was interviewed on 100 news media outlets, Carter wrote.
What is more, Carters appearances were far from free. Hosting Carter
for a speech reportedly cost Brandeis University $95,000.[25]
Even more embarrassing for Carter was the disclosure, by the
Boston Globe, that Carter had refused an invitation from a university
trustee at Brandeis University -- the very definition of a campus with
high Jewish enrollment -- because it included the suggestion that
he debate a critic of his book, Harvard Law School professor Alan
Dershowitz. As the author of several well-regarded books on Israel
and a frequent visitor to the Palestinian territories, the professor
might have made a compelling debate partner. Likely for that very
reason, Carter, as reported by the Globe, refused to consider even the
possibility of engaging a critic like Dershowitz. I dont want to have
a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz, he was quoted as
saying.[26]
Pointing out that Carter had rejected a debate about his book,
Dershowitz later took Carter to task for his posturing as a free-
speech martyr. Jimmy Carter isnt brave for beating up on Israel,
Dershowitz observed in the Boston Globe. Hes a bully. And like all
school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, theres a
nagging insecurity and a fear that one day hell have to answer for
 27
himself in a fair fight.[27]
Carters Ex-Friends
Carters repeated attempts to pass himself off as a victim of pro-
Israel interests bent on silencing debate impressed few in the Jewish
community. Even close supporters and allies of the ex-president
found that they could no longer stand by as he voiced his support for
peace in the Middle East while indulging in anti-Israel invective
and peddling sinister allegations about non-existent persecutors.
Of these, the most prominent -- and, ultimately, the most damaging
for Carters self-professed reputation as a speaker of unpopular
truths -- was his longtime colleague Kenneth Stein. A professor of
Contemporary Middle Eastern History and Israeli Studies at Emory
University, the home of the Carter Center, Stein had co-authored a
book with Carter in 1984 titled The Blood of Abraham. As the first
executive director of the Carter Center, Stein had often advised Carter
about the history and politics of the Middle East.
Over the years, however, Stein had grown disenchanted with
Carters increasingly pronounced bias against Israel. In the 1990s,
Stein penned a personal letter to Carter voicing these concerns: If
you continue on the course of only criticizing or minimizing Israel
in your public presentations, you will be doing yourself a potentially
devastating disservice, particularly if you want to be reengaged in
any capacity in any future Middle East diplomacy.[28]
With the publication of Palestine, Stein decided that he had finally
had enough. He severed his 23-year affiliation with the Carter
Center and, in his resignation letter, released a scathing indictment
of Carters book. Calling its title too inflammatory to even print,
Stein characterized the book as replete with factual errors, copied
materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply
invented segments.[29] Stein also noted that he had attended many
of the meetings with Arab and Israeli leaders that Carter describes in
the book and that his notes of those meetings show little similarity
to points claimed in the book. Here was a close confidant confirming
28
what many had already suspected: To discredit Israel, Jimmy Carter
was not above lying.
Instead of directly responding to this devastating critique, Carter
tried to portray his onetime advisor and friend as a distant colleague
with only the most tenuous connection to his current work. But an
even worse rebuff was yet to come. In January of 2007, 14 members
of the Carter Centers advisory board took Steins lead and resigned.
In their letter of resignation, they told Carter, You have clearly
abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an
advocate for one side. [30]
If the defection of so many former colleagues was startling, Carters
response proved even more so. Speaking in March at Georgetown
University, Carter noted that resigning members were Jewish and
implied that in parting ways with the Center they were carrying out
the directives of some unnamed pressure group. They all happen to
be Jewish Americans, Carter said, adding ominously, I understand
the tremendous pressures on them.[31]
And it not just the Jewish community that has turned against the
former president. Commenting in the fall of 2006 on Carters allegation
that Israel was guilty of apartheid, then-House Minority Whip Nancy
Pelosi stated that Democrats reject that allegation vigorously. Even
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean -- himself
a recipient of criticism for taking what many perceived as an anti-
Israel stance during the 2004 presidential election -- felt moved to
add that Carters opinions about Israel are his own, they are not the
views or position of the Democratic Party.
Conclusion
For nearly 30 years, Jimmy Carter has traded on his biography
as the broker of the Camp David Accords to remain engaged in the
politics of the Middle East. Throughout it all, he has continued to see
himself as a peacemaker, divinely chosen to bring the blessings of
peace to a region perennially mired in conflict.
A cold look at the evidence shows Carters desire to excuse
 29
intransigence and violent extremism on the part of Palestinians and
their leaders has insured that a peace settlement between Israel and the
Palestinians will remain more hope than reality. In this connection,
one of the most revealing passages in Palestine features Carter
excoriating President George W. Bush for his handling of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. After ticking off a list of grievances, Carter
at last arrives at his main complaint, namely that under the Bush
administration [r]esponsibility for a lack of progress toward peace
was placed on the Palestinians. For Carter, it is utterly intolerable
that Palestinians should be held to account and treated as responsible
individuals capable of exerting control over their future, rather than,
as he prefers, hapless victims who require the ministrations of keepers
such as himself. A strong case could be made for this approach -- one
might call it the soft-bigotry of low expectations -- has been a major
hurdle to progress in the Palestinian territories, and by extension to
any possibility of a negotiated peace.
Above all, Carter has contributed, often intentionally, to the growing
international campaign to demonize Israel and purge the Middle
Easts sole democracy from the community of nations. Indeed, while
Americas media institutions strike Carter as too pro-Israel in their
editorial line, the European press is far more to his liking. By way of
example, he points to a 2003 poll of 15 European nations, published
in the International Herald Tribune, and indicating that Israel
was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North
Korea, Iran, and Afghanistan. Carter does not attempt to understand
the basis of this current in European thinking, leaving the reader to
conclude that he believes Americans would be more sensible to share
the irrational hostility to Israel of their European counterparts.
In the end, the greatest failure of Carters post-presidential career
concerns the one thing he gets right. As Carter has said many times
over the years, he has indeed had a unique opportunity to influence
peace in the Middle East. As a regular traveler to the region who has
enjoyed the audience of powerful men, Carter might have impressed
on Arab leaders the necessity of recognizing Israel and renouncing
their support for terrorism -- an essential first step to any lasting
30
peace settlement. Instead, he has preferred to pressure Israel, the
one country that has repeatedly signaled its willingness, in word and
deed, to make compromises with its neighbors. Seen in this light, the
suspicion arises that the problem in the Middle East is not simply
the absence of peace. It is also the presence, for too many years, of a
certain peacemaker.
ENDNOTES
[1] Jimmy Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Simon and Schuster, 2006.
[2] Mitchell Bard, The Waters Edge and Beyond: Defining the Limits to Domestic
Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy, Transaction Publishers, 1991.
[3] Israeli Supreme Court Judgment Regarding The Security Fence, June 24,
2004. This document can be read at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/
Peace/fencesct.html
[4] Humanitarian Update, United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs, August 31, 2005. This report can be read at http://domino.
un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/e5738f917567bf58
85257083006fe8f1!OpenDocument
[5] Jimmy Carter, Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President, University of Arkansas
Press, 1995, pp. 295 - 296.
[6]Ibid.
[7] Jimmy Carter, Sharing Good Times, Simon and Schuster, 2004, p. 66.
[8] Jacob Laksin, Jimmy Carter and the Arab Lobby, FrontPageMag.com,
December 18, 2006.
[9] Jimmy Carter, Poverty, Wealth and the Environment, United Arab Emirates,
Dubai, April 22, 2001. This speech can be read at http://www.cartercenter.org/
news/documents/doc447.html
[10] Jimmy Carter, Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine, Los Angeles
Times, December 8, 2006. This statement was itself a revealing of Carters bias,
positing as it did a false moral equivalency between Palestinian terrorism, which
intentionally targets civilians, and Israeli retaliation, which goes to great lengths to
 31 32

avoid harm to civilians.

[25] Larry Cohler-Esses, Brandeis Donors Exact Revenge For Carter Visit, The
[11] A transcript of this interview can be read on the website of the Middle East
Jewish Week, February 16, 2007.
Media Research Institute at http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1355
[26] Farah Stockman and Marcella Bombardieri, Carter book wont stir Brandeis
[12] Jimmy Carter, Dont Punish the Palestinians, Washington Post, February
debate, Boston Globe, December 15, 2006.
20, 2006.

[27] Alan Dershowitz, Why wont Carter debate his book?, Boston Globe,
[13] Palestinian prime minister vows not to recognize Israel, The Associated
December 21, 2006.
Press, December 8, 2006.
[28] Excerpted in Steven F. Hayward, The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-
[14] Noted in Joshua Muravchik, Our Worst Ex-President, Commentary,
President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators, And Created
February, 2007.
the Party of Clinton and Kerry, Regnery Publishing, 2004, p. 211.
[15] Quoted in Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of
[29] Kenneth Steins letter of resignation can be read at http://www.foxnews.com/
Genocide, HarperCollins, 2003, p. xxi.
story/0,2933,235283,00.html
[16] Quoted in Barry M. Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin, Yasir Arafat: A Political
[30] The names of the resigning members and their letter to Carter can be found at
Biography, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp.81-82.
http://www.adl.org/main_Israel/carter_center_resignations.htm
[17] Ibid.
[31] Philip Klein, The Protocols of the Elder Carter, The American Spectator,
[18] Jimmy Carter, The Blood of Abraham: Insights Into the Middle East, University March 9, 2007.
of Arkansas Press, 1993, pp. 104-118.

[19] Paul Charles Merkley, American Presidents, Religion, And Israel: The Heirs
of Cyrus, Praeger/Greenwood, 2004, pp. 182-183.

[20] Efraim Karsh, Arafats War: The Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest,
Grove Press, 2003, p. 103.

[21] Clayton E. Swisher, The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story about
the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process, Nation Books, 2004, p. 404.

[22] Jennifer Siegel, Apartheid Book Exposes Carter-Clinton Rift, Forward,

March 30, 2007.

[23] This history is well documented in Yitschak Ben Gad, The Roadmap to
Nowhere: A Laymans Guide to the Middle East Conflict, New Leaf Press, 2004,
pp. 207 - 208.
[24] Isabel Kerschner, Palestinian Christians Look Back on a Year of Troubles,
New York Times, March 11, 2007.
Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPageMag.com and a writer at
the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation
Journalism Fellow.
Other Resources from the David Horowitz
Freedom Foundation
THE TERRORISM AWARENESS PROJECT
www.terrorismawareness.org

VIDEOS
What Americans Need to Know about Jihad
http://terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad
Islamic Mein Kampf
http://terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf
What Really Happened in the Middle East
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened

PAMPHLETS

To order, please call

(800) 752-6562 ext. 209