Our Debt to Jimmy Carter

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Our debt to Jimmy Carter

Haaretz Editorial

The government of Israel is boycotting Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, during his visit here this week. Ehud Olmert, who has not managed to achieve any peace agreement during his public life, and who even tried to undermine negotiations in the past, "could not find the time" to meet the American president who is a signatory to the peace agreement with Egypt. President Shimon Peres agreed to meet Carter, but made sure that he let it be known that he reprimanded his guest for wishing to meet with Khaled Meshal, as if the achievements of the Carter Center fall short of those of the Peres Center for Peace. Carter, who himself said he set out to achieve peace between Israel and Egypt from the day he assumed office, worked incessantly toward that goal and two years after becoming president succeeded - was declared persona non grata by Israel.

The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world. Recently, he was involved in organizing the democratic elections in Nepal, following which a government will be set up that will include Maoist guerrillas who have laid down their arms. But Israelis have not liked him since he wrote the book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."

Israel is not ready for such comparisons, even though the situation begs it. It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel's control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted. The interim political situation in the territories has crystallized into a kind of apartheid that has been ongoing for 40 years. In Europe there is talk of the establishment of a binational state in order to overcome this anomaly. In the peace agreement with Egypt, 30 years ago, Israel agreed to "full autonomy" for the occupied territories, not to settle there.

These promises have been forgotten by Israel, but Carter remembers.

Whether Carter's approach to conflict resolution is considered by the Israeli government as appropriate or defeatist, no one can take away from the former U.S. president his international standing, nor the fact that he brought Israel and Egypt to a signed peace that has since held. Carter's method, which says that it is necessary to talk with every one, has still not proven to be any less successful than the method that calls for boycotts and air strikes. In terms of results, at the end of the day, Carter beats out any of those who ostracize him. For the peace agreement with Egypt, he deserves the respect reserved for royalty for the rest of his life.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html

[kaydee457 13]

Our debt to Jimmy Carter

Haaretz Editorial

The government of Israel is boycotting Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, during his visit here this week. Ehud Olmert, who has not managed to achieve any peace agreement during his public life, and who even tried to undermine negotiations in the past, "could not find the time" to meet the American president who is a signatory to the peace agreement with Egypt. President Shimon Peres agreed to meet Carter, but made sure that he let it be known that he reprimanded his guest for wishing to meet with Khaled Meshal, as if the achievements of the Carter Center fall short of those of the Peres Center for Peace. Carter, who himself said he set out to achieve peace between Israel and Egypt from the day he assumed office, worked incessantly toward that goal and two years after becoming president succeeded - was declared persona non grata by Israel.

The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world. Recently, he was involved in organizing the democratic elections in Nepal, following which a government will be set up that will include Maoist guerrillas who have laid down their arms. But Israelis have not liked him since he wrote the book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."

Israel is not ready for such comparisons, even though the situation begs it. It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel's control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted. The interim political situation in the territories has crystallized into a kind of apartheid that has been ongoing for 40 years. In Europe there is talk of the establishment of a binational state in order to overcome this anomaly. In the peace agreement with Egypt, 30 years ago, Israel agreed to "full autonomy" for the occupied territories, not to settle there.

These promises have been forgotten by Israel, but Carter remembers.

Whether Carter's approach to conflict resolution is considered by the Israeli government as appropriate or defeatist, no one can take away from the former U.S. president his international standing, nor the fact that he brought Israel and Egypt to a signed peace that has since held. Carter's method, which says that it is necessary to talk with every one, has still not proven to be any less successful than the method that calls for boycotts and air strikes. In terms of results, at the end of the day, Carter beats out any of those who ostracize him. For the peace agreement with Egypt, he deserves the respect reserved for royalty for the rest of his life.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html

Yeah, sure but Jimmy living in the past....He's on a "mission" he wasn't asked to go on, and one that neither the U.S. Govt nor the Israeli government wants him to be on.......

He's emboldening Hamas and giving them more status and importance than they deserve.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Yeah, sure but Jimmy living in the past....He's on a "mission" he wasn't asked to go on, and one that neither the U.S. Govt nor the Israeli government wants him to be on.......

He's emboldening Hamas and giving them more status and importance than they deserve.

There are a growing number of Israelis (as well as others around the world) who strongly disagree with the "don't talk to Hamas" opinion.

As the article sums it up:

Carter's method, which says that it is necessary to talk with every one, has still not proven to be any less successful than the method that calls for boycotts and air strikes. In terms of results, at the end of the day, Carter beats out any of those who ostracize him.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'm game for talking with Hamas. Might as well give it a shot. If it doesn't work out, then we can try "killing 'em all" but at least we can say we tried. As I see it, one way or the other, we can end it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.

[kaydee457 13]

The point is that we can't have ex-Presidents, congress people (Nancy Pelosi), second class ministers (jesse Jackson), and others projecting the wrong image, and in effect producing a parallel foreign policy.

If this trend continues it certainly will be chaotic!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... a parallel foreign policy.

Don't the people they're meeting with know that they don't represent the US government and that their statements do not represent official policy?

Of course they do.

And since they do, there's no way this will be construed as parallel foreign policy.

[HAL 9000 96]

... a parallel foreign policy.

Don't the people they're meeting with know that they don't represent the US government and that their statements do not represent official policy?

Of course they do.

And since they do, there's no way this will be construed as parallel foreign policy.

Exactly. He is going as an EX-US President and someone interested in resolving what roadmaps and Cold War-minded warmongers have failed to do- bring people together by the power of the pen. I for one am interested in what information, if any, he brings back.

[simple_male 1]

I thank Haaretz for the editorial. Only reason the Israeli leadership is snubbing him is President Carter does not hesitate to talk about Israel's wrongdoing. Plus his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" pretty much killed any good will gesture toward President Carter from Israeli leadership. But he is the only US President who pursuaded Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty (Still holding well today) about 30 years ago.

[desert_fox 32]

Jimmy Carter...probably the worst pres of this century. I only say probably, because I was getting 18% interest on a money market acount due to his lack of control of the economy.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The point is that we can't have ex-Presidents, congress people (Nancy Pelosi), second class ministers (jesse Jackson), and others projecting the wrong image, and in effect producing a parallel foreign policy.

If this trend continues it certainly will be chaotic!

You'd actually call Jesse Jackson second class--gee, I thought more like 13^TH.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Jimmy Carter...probably the worst pres of this century. I only say probably, because I was getting 18% interest on a money market acount due to his lack of control of the economy.

he blew as commander in chief. my first duty assignment in the army, we had more vehicles than people.

[amiquechu 0]

Haven't they been fighting for centuries? And some senile old man who $hits in his Depends is going to change anything?

[kaydee457 13]

... a parallel foreign policy.

Don't the people they're meeting with know that they don't represent the US government and that their statements do not represent official policy?

Of course they do.

And since they do, there's no way this will be construed as parallel foreign policy.

Pretty naive....Meeting with an ex-president in their minds, and some in the world, lends legitimacy to their cause.

[kaydee457 13]

Jimmy Carter...probably the worst pres of this century. I only say probably, because I was getting 18% interest on a money market acount due to his lack of control of the economy.

I hear you! Unfortunately the yung'ens in this forum have no perspective in terms of what's bad.....They think $3 gas is bad, and it does hurt, but try NO GAS during Carters tenure, and long lines to get a gallon, or two.....

All a matter of perspective.