- FEBRUARY 10, 2010
-
-
EXCLUSIVE
Is State Dept.'s No. 2 on His Way Out?
-
CRISES CUTS
Who's Really Paying for Haiti?
-
REMINDER
Hill Dems to Obama: Don't Forget Iraq
Obama's Jimmy Carter problem?
Posted By Laura Rozen
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 9:56 PM
Share
When Fox News reported today from Gaza that former President Jimmy Carter plans to urge President Barack Obama to take the Palestinian militant group Hamas off the U.S. terrorist list in meetings later this week, Washington Democrats and the Obama administration collectively cringed.
"The president has addressed Hamas questions, including in the Egypt speech," an administraton official said. "[We] won't have more to say about this."
"Just like with President Clinton, Carter is becoming a huge problem and a growing concern for Obama," a Washington Middle East hand said. "They are very pissed with him."
After observing Lebanon's elections, Carter visited Damascus last week and met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, as well as exiled Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal. This week, he met with Israeli settlers in the West Bank and toured Gaza with top Hamas leader Ismail Haniya as his guide. His trip to Damascus came a day ahead of that of Obama Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell.
Carter's objectives in Gaza, a Washington Middle East expert familiar with the matter told The Cable, are "to open up Gaza, and to see what he can do to pave the way to some [sort of] engagement between Hamas and the U.S.," the expert said, on condition of anonymity, cautioning that he didn't think any such engagement would happen anytime soon. "And to see whether Hamas can shift its position, and the U.S. can shift its position. ... I think he is smart enough to realize they aren't going to come off the terror list."
"Don't forget people in Gaza were spreading rumors last week that Carter was bringing Hamas a letter from Obama," the expert added. "It's absurd, but it made the rounds for a day."
Don't overreact to an unconfirmed news report, agreed veteran U.S. Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller. "This is Jimmy Carter being Jimmy Carter," Miller said by email. "I didn't see any confirmation that Carter intends to ask the administration to remove Hamas from the terrorism list; more likely he'll urge Obama at the right time to consider opening up a dialogue with Hamas."
"But that's a key to an empty room right now given everything that Obama is trying to do with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin ] Netanyahu and [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas," Miller continued. "In fact, the way to lose both of them and much of Congress to boot would be to do precisely what the former president recommends."
Seeking to deflect a potential firestorm from the unconfirmed report, the National Jewish Democratic Council's Ira Forman suggested that instead of taking Hamas off the terrorism list, people should put Carter on a list of people one shouldn't pay attention to. "When someone is saying something so outrageous, even if they're a Democrat, we can't take them seriously."
Mitchell didn't directly address Carter's mission at his first State Department news conference Tuesday. But asked about recent statements from Hamas officials urging that the United States to talk to them without preconditions, and asserting that they seek a Palestinian state in land confined to that seized by Israel during the 1967 war, Mitchell said Hamas is welcome to join talks if it agrees to what he called a "democratic dialogue," which he later specified to be the so-called Quartet conditions. "We made our position clear," Mitchell said. "We welcome the participation of any party that meets the requirements of a democratic dialogue."
Like Mitchell, White House officials and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have repeatedly said Hamas members could join a Palestinian unity government if they agree to renounce terror, recognize Israel and abide by past agreements, the conditions set out by the so-called Middle East Quartet made up of the United States, Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union. Hamas's 1988 charter calls explicitly for the destruction of Israel.
Carter himself has reiterated that message to Hamas, according to reports. "I called on Hamas leaders that I met with in Damascus and I told Hamas leaders in Gaza today to accept these conditions," the former president reportedly said after his meeting with Haniya. "They made several statements, and showed readiness to join the peace [process] and move towards establishing a just and independent Palestinian state."
Behind the scenes, there have been some debates in mostly left-leaning Washington and European Middle East circles about whether there should be a softening of conditions to facilitate Hamas members joining a Palestinian unity government. Those who advocate it are concerned that with Fatah only representing the West Bank, and Gaza controlling Hamas, there is not a sufficiently representative Palestinian entity that the United States can push Israel to negotiate with for a two-state solution. One option being floated in the region by independent Palestinians would be to relax conditions in order to achieve a Palestinian technocratic unity government that would mainly prepare for Palestinian elections scheduled for early next year, and then dissolve.
But there's no sign that such ideas have any traction inside the Obama administration.
Indeed, administration officials have indicated that Omar Suleiman, the Egyptian intelligence chief and the lead negotiator on Palestinian unity government talks, has explicitly urged them in meetings not to soften the conditions for Hamas to join a Palestinian unity government. (Some veteran Middle East hands say that neither Egypt, concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood of which Hamas is an affiliate, nor Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, is enthusiastic about including Hamas in a Palestinian power-sharing government and may be happier if one doesn't materialize.)
Mitchell told journalists today that he would plow ahead with comprehensive Middle East peace talks with the parties that show up in the room, and meet the conditions that have been established.
For its part, Hamas has welcomed Carter's attention. "Someone as high-profile as Carter, coming to the region to meet with Hamas and the government of Ismail Haniya but also [Palestinian Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas, is very positive," the Christian Science Monitor quoted Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef. "He can convey messages to President Obama about the situation in Gaza and in the West Bank and the consequences this blockade has had on our lives. Carter is the messenger that we trust - and that the world community trusts."
What's prompting the recent stream of Hamas interviews and requests for dialogue with Washington? "I think they are intrigued by Obama," the Washington Middle East expert familiar with the matter said. "They saw his [Cairo] speech that had both things that they couldn't swallow and things they are extremely intrigued by. For the first time they are a bit curious, even very curious. And in some ways, they don't know how to deal with him and don't know what to do."
But perhaps not yet quite curious enough or convinced they're going to get left behind to find a way to agree to Obama's conditions for dialogue.
Photo by Muhammad Alostaz/Hamas via Getty Images
Carter has called it correctly all along the way
"Worse than Apartheid". That is how Former president Carter (and Desmond Tutu) describe the Israeli settlements.
Now, While I applaud Obama for his dogged approach so far towards putting an end to the worlds only violently enforced colonial settler movement, It's imperative that he begins to define the settlements and the ethnic cleansing that is inherent in their growth (such as the 88 Palestinian houses that are to forcibly razed to the ground) in REAL terms. Terms like those that much braver men and women, who are currently unencumbered by political pressure, have used.
The Iraq study group? They stated CLEARLY that the war on terror will go no where until the Israeli Palestinian conflict is solved. Who were the Iraq Study group? A bi partisan group of experts who are NOT in active politics.
The head of the Bin Laden group at the CIA? Pins our terror problem squarely on our perceived complicity for the ongoing settlements and the treatment of the Palestinians.
Tony Blair? Told Congress after 9/11 that there will NEVER be an end to the war on terror ( I hate that term) until the Israeli Palestinian conflict is solved.
Even Bill Clinton, during a charlie Rose Interview after 9/11, said that the Philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorist recruitment is the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Obama needs to take a cue from those that are free of the fear of political reprisal and start to call the settlements what they really are: a morally reprehensible settler movement that is based on ethnic cleansing and apartheid, and one that is doomed to bring about nothing but terror, suffering and war for all sides, INCLUDING the US.
To believe that the conflict between Israel and the Arabs of former British Palestine is at the core of the terrorism issue is to be quite ignorant of reality. If the Arabs achieve their final goal - the destruction of Israel - the Islamic terrorism problem will continue. Israel is one of their enemies. The other enemies are us - Europeans, North and South Americans, Asians, Australians - that are not Muslim and do not intend to submit to Islam or to become second-class citizens on a worldwide Islamic empire. Jimmy Carter said, commenting on Netanyahu´s speech, that Israel can´t insist on being recognized as a Jewish state since 20% of its population is non-Jewish. To follow this logic, he should tell the United Arab Emirates to stop calling themselves Arab, since the majority of its population is not made up by Arabs. But he, of course, won´t. He prefers to be sitting with and smiling to the Hamas anti-semitical (not merely anti-Zionist) leadership, and (my interpretation of the picture shown above) receiving as a gift a picture of Jerusalem - of a city Arabs are trying right now very hard to deny a historical Jewish presence in. I thought Carter knew his Bible - at least that.
Your language gives away your ideological bend very blatantly: "the Arabs of former British Palestine". I see how fair it is for you to insist that the Arabs recognize Israel as a Jewish state while you don't even recognize that Palestinians ever had any claim whatsoever to the land.
Then you go on to characterize Arabs and Muslims as bloodthirsty Taliban like extremists bent on world domination. If that is the case how do you explain those millions of non-Muslim visitors to Muslim countries every year? Wouldn't the savage Muslims kill them all in your imaginary world?
I'm sorry Yakov but it seems you are the one who is completely ignorant of the situation. Arabs and Muslims have watched the Palestinians be humiliated, displaced and murdered by Israeli occupation for more than 40 years now and it IS in fact the biggest propaganda tool used by radicals in the Middle East. The main reason there is antagonism towards the US is because the weapons used by Israel all say "Made in USA" on them.
If this problem is solved and Palestinians get a state and have some hope of a normal life then we could start to move on to a new era of Arabs accepting the existance of the Jewish state. I'm not saying it would happen overnight. But after ten years it would be hard to keep up the propaganda against Israel if Israel isn't actually killing any Arabs anymore. The extremists would be completely robbed of their favorite grievance. I don't think continuing this conflict just for the sake of keeping the Israeli settlers happy is really worth it anymore.
You ALSO refuse to directly discuss the validity (actually the lack thereof)of the settlements. However, I suppose it's natural to want to avoid discussing support for a subject which makes you sound like a racist fanatic.
The Settlements comprise the worlds ONLY violently enforced colonial settler movement. Let me repeat, THE WORLDS ONLY one.
Why do you suppose that is? Because it would ludicrous, unnatural, even bizarre, for the US to associate itself with a nation that was engaging in ethnic cleansing and apartheid for both religious and ultra nationalist reasons.
The settlers use an army to help clear land of people of the wrong ethnicity, and progressively claim more and more of it themselves. That is ethnic cleansing.
The settlers state VERY PLAINLY that all of East Jerusalem and the West Bank belong to them, and they have acted on this by expanding settlements into both areas literally every day for more than 40 years. Yet, the OTHER residents of those areas are NOT treated as citizens, but rather in the most unimaginably violent and harsh ways by both the IDF and the violent, radical settlers who terrorize and murder the Palestinians on a shockingly regular basis. This is what Carter refers to as WORSE than Apartheid. The UN agrees, the CIA agrees, other former presidents agree. THE US agrees (although in not as strong language). ONLY Israels settlers and their supporters disagree.
That is why more than 4 to 1 Palestinians have died during this conflict, and also why such a shockingly high number of them are children.
The term "Settlers" is a distortion, evoking, warm and fuzzy images -- as intended. The correct term would be Squatters.
A balanced view keeps talking about settlements, to which I have to agree. Israel needs to halt all settlements in Palestinian territory. But what is conveniently left out is all of the destruction caused by Palestinian militants. Why talk of the death caused by Israelis and leave out death casued by Palestinians? Because it makes the situation easily blamed upon Israel and the U.S. If I remember correctly Israel has been invaded several times by its neighbors over the past 60 yrs, why not mention this fact? Why not mention the suicide bombings or the rocket attacks? Perhaps the reason why the U.S. supports Israel militarily is because if we did not the state would have failed long ago. The Palestinians need to prove to the world that they can coexist with Israelis before Israelis can be expected to give up any security.
If I remember correctly Israel has been invaded several times by its neighbors over the past 60 yrs
No, you do not remember correctly.
The settlements INSPIRE most of the resistance
Over the last 40 years, the settlements program has relied on the occupation to both safeguard the settlements and assist in their growth by either forcibly removing Palestinians and by protecting and even assisting the settlers in harassing, harming, and even killing Palestinians in order to constantly intimidate them into compliance through fear and hopelessness (which also breeds terrorism).
It is the settlements and the occupation that have caused millions of Palestinians to live in horrid conditions, and in general statelessness and without basic human rights. In other words, they are attacked EVERY DAY by the growth of the settlements and its personal thug squad in the territories, the IDF.
Terrorist acts in response to this have ebbed and waned over the years, with very long periods of total calm.
because of this, most Israelis live lives much like ours here in the US. Conversely, millions of Palestinians are living in conditions that are almost uniquely squalid and hopeless, and have for every day of the last 40 years of occupation.
Lets be clear, if Georgia decided that it should allow natural growth into florida, and started taking florida land and claiming it as their own after cleansing areas of Floridians, There would be war between the two states for as long as such behavior persisted.
Resistance to the utterly inexcusable actions of the settlers and their thugs in the territories is the reaction that such behavior would meet anywhere in the world. The day that it stops, is the day that peace can begin in the middle east. Furthermore, when settler supporters (read apartheid and ethnic cleansing proponents) such as Netanyahu and Lieberman say that they will not stop the growth of settlements, they are saying that they could really care less how many Israelis, Palestinians, Europeans and Americans die as the result of the terror that the internationally condemned settlements inspire. They are saying "please, bring on more 9/11s. We don't care."
Wow....lots of fear mongering, distortions and blatant racism in your language.
It appears that Carter is already on the Obama Administration's
Shit list.
This was written in the NY Times Sunday magazine in an article on former President Clinton...
"So far, the former president has avoided causing trouble for the new one. Before Hillary Clinton was picked for secretary of state, some Obama advisers were wary of bringing a freelancing Bill Clinton inside the tent. But to their surprise, Clinton has done nothing to complicate Obama’s life so far. As of early May, Clinton had never been mentioned during the daily White House senior staff meetings as an issue to be dealt with, according to two officials who attend. By contrast, one of them said, Jimmy Carter had come up twice already."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/magazine/31clinton-t.html
Apparently this trip makes three times.
What it all boils down to is that JC continues to stick his nose into business that creates problems for and subsequently ill-will from sitting US Presidents regardless of whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
What this means is that while Jimmy boy may continue to get headlines, access to power, and as such, the means to actually obtain results, is nil.
Which just turns his junkets into a personal ego boost and false promises to his hosts.
Is it even legal for Carter to be doing this?
It sure is, and thank God he is brave enough to do it. He actually CARES about both US and Israeli peace and security, and as such, he is working to get the illegal, terror inspiring settlements shut down forever, in the same way that South Africa's Apartheid regime was finally put to rest.
Israel supported the Afrikaner regime until the last, as did many in our house and senate. Clearly, their opinions on matters of morality or the actual security of the US or Israel is suspect.
Do you agree or disagree with Jimmy Carter? - Palestinians are being treated 'like animals'.
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5543
.
Jimmy Carter's right to free speech
The underlying theme of this piece seems to b: Carter troubles George Bush's conscience, perfectly okay; Carter troubles Obama's (and, it seems, Clinton's) conscience(s), what a dman pest.
Whether Carter's right or wrong, I'm too ignorant to say. Whether he's right to say Ï've looked into this issue to the best of my ability, and here's what I think", no question: that's his duty.
The tone of this article is much similar to the top mullah's statement in Tehran this week: Hush, don't make a disturbance. Muggers want much the same thing.
President Carter: The Naive Diplomat
by Daniel R. DePetris
Casting President Carter’s successes aside, I was absolutely shocked to learn about the former president’s main policy recommendation from his trip overseas. According to sources very-well informed about White House activities, Mr. Carter is prepared to recommend a policy that goes against the very fabric of America’s counterterrorism agenda: remove Hamas from the U.S.-designed terrorism list. While this recommendation may very well be an attempt by Carter to coerce Hamas into recognizing Israel’s legitimacy, it has been historically proven that a “carrots” approach is unlikely to work with the movement’s fundamentalist ideology. With that being said, asking the Obama administration to remove one of the most lethal militant groups from the list is not only dangerous, but potentially devastating to America’s global campaign against terrorism. Imagine what the reactions of other terrorist organizations around the world would be if the U.S. decided to embark on this path. Such a decision would certainly not help America’s image as an unwavering superpower in the face of an asymmetric enemy.
To show how dangerous Hamas fighters are to regional stability, let’s list a few “accomplishments” that they are most known for:
1) In 1988, Hamas publishes its official manifesto, declaring that “Israel will exist until Islam obliterates it…Jihad is the only solution for the Palestinian question.”
2) Hamas sends suicide bombers into Israeli cities to oppose and undermine the highly-acclaimed Oslo Accords.
3) Hamas militants perform a round of shootings and bombings throughout Israel in 1994.
4) Two suicide bombings in Jerusalem claim the lives of 45 people. Hamas admits responsibility for the attacks.
5) Suicide bombers in Jerusalem kill 14 and injure 150 Israelis. Once again, Hamas claims responsibility.
6) 140 people are killed in a Tel-Aviv nightclub bombing n June of 2001
7) Hamas suicide bombers kill 20 innocent civilians on an Israeli bus, including six children.
8) Hamas boycotts the 20005 Palestinian presidential elections due to the success of the pro-western candidate, Mahmoud Abbas.
9) In 2006 and 2007, Hamas wins the Palestinian Parliamentary elections while taking control of the Gaza Strip by force. The movement pledges to continue its campaign of resistance against Israeli occupation.
With such a barbaric list of violent attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, did President Carter sincerely believe that U.S. assurances would turn anti-Jewish zealots away from terrorism? Apparently so.
One day after Carter’s “historic” visit to the Gaza Strip, Hamas officials have already made it publicly known that any recognition of Israel would be labeled as unacceptable and meaningless towards a comprehensive peace. One can only hope that the former president will learn from his mistakes.
Note to self: Negotiating with ideologues is a waste of time.
Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
Read More
January/February 2010
-
Cover Story
-
Dispatch
-
Feature
(15)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE