Saturday, April 19, 2008
Even Hamas says that Jimmy Carter subverts American policy
There is a reason why former presidents, with the single exception of citizen-of-the-world Jimmy Carter, do not conduct their own foreign policy. Their actions are widely seen as subverting the United States government. Not being a Third World country, we do not appreciate it when our defeated politicians undermine the government by means other than persuading American voters to choose differently.
Jimmy Carter is the great exception to this rule. He met with Hamas three times this week, which Hamas itself trumpeted as having cracked the foundation of America's policy in the region:
"Political isolation (of Hamas) by the American administration has begun to crumble," Mohammed Nazzal, a senior Hamas official in Syria, told The Associated Press after Friday's meeting at Mashaal's Damascus office.
Indeed it has. But when did that policy of isolating Hamas begin?
The US government has no contact with Hamas after designating it a terrorist organization in 1995 - an official label that means any financial or business transactions with the group are illegal. The government has also blacklisted Mashaal and his deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk, making it illegal to conduct any transactions with them.
The really important fact in that paragraph is in bold type; George W. Bush has continued a policy put in place by Bill Clinton in his first term. Jimmy Carter, whose approach to the West's long confrontation with radical Islam contributed mightily to the position we are in today, is intentionally subverting the policies of American administrations spanning both political parties. How would the press react if a Republican did that?
In any case, enterprising reporters now have an interesting question for both Hillary and Barack: Do you support the Clinton administration's policy toward Hamas, or Jimmy Carter's defiance of that policy?
12 Comments:
By 
ff11, at
Sat Apr 19, 09:30:00 AM:
Carter has done this before. He went against conventional wisdom and talked to enemies of Israel, bent on it's destruction, and in defiance of the world's declaration that it couldn't be done, managed to bring about the first true and lasting peace between Israel and an Arab neighbor.
Well, once again the world says it can't be done ...
By Eric, at
Sat Apr 19, 10:08:00 AM:
Tigerhawk,
Haven't Clinton and Obama both already said they disagree with Carter's maverick foreign policy dealings? I wouldn't reasonably expect a stronger reaction from them. Carter has to be accounted for given his stature, but I'm not convinced that any party involved actually takes President Carter seriously beyond the fame of his stature as an ex-President. He doesn't officially represent anyone other than himself, he can't offer any incentives nor enforce any agreement.
As such, I think Carter can be productive. As far as ff11's reference, which glosses over major differences between Egypt then and Hamas now, there is the question: with its stance on Israel that Hamas has now, can Hamas ever become a rational actor for a Palestinan nation-state? Fatah certainly has filled the role poorly and a 2-state solution presumes that the Palestinans have a viable state. Carter, as an unoffical and self-appointed envoy, can make inroads answering that question without any actual movement on the part of US or Israeli policy.
Which is to say, it is proper for Bush and the next President to disagree with Carter's actions, but I also hope when President Carter comes home, President Bush brings in his predecessor to their past and present home for a de-brief.
By 
, at
Sat Apr 19, 11:12:00 AM:
Truly, this isn't about peace, or Palestinian rights, or American policy. It's about Jimmy Carter. He would be pathetic if he weren't so self-aggrandizingly evil.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Apr 19, 11:13:00 AM:
ff11: Anwar Sadat initiated that, against the intention of US diplomacy to use an international conference. (because those are worthless) Himself. Personally. Not Carter. And he paid for that initiative with his life when he was assassinated in 1981 for daring to make peace with the Zionist enemy.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_sadat_1977.php
Carter likes to claim credit, and Americans like to give him credit because it makes it seem like we did something good and lasting, but it isn't true. His actual contribution had to do with leaning on both parties at the Camp David Accords, esp. on Prime Minister Begin, but it was a bilateral effort initiated by the Egyptian President. Period.
Eric: But this 'self appointed envoy' can cause terrific damage as well. Reference his negotiations with the North Koreans. Clinton ended up making a deal with them on the basis of Carter's 'work,' a generous deal that the North Koreans violated in order to produce an atomic bomb. If he's going to "help," he needs to do it alongside the State Department, not in spite of it.
By Escort81, at
Sat Apr 19, 12:32:00 PM:
DF82 is of course correct regarding the substance of the Egypt-Israel peace accords, and the extent of Carter's contribution. Helpful, but not the significant heavy lifting. One tries not to be cynical regarding Carter's claims, and one hopes that this falls under the category of "success has a thousand fathers, and failure is an orphan."
Sadat and Begin and their staffs got it done, all in the context of the aftermath of a couple of military conflicts in the preceding dozen years, neither of which were particularly helpful to the Arab cause.
It is well and good that Egypt and Israel are at peace, but that hardly solved the overall crisis. Sometimes, a piece-meal approach does not work, though it always seems to make sense to try and break a complex problem down into its component parts. I realize I am setting an impossible goal here, but truly remarkable statesmanship at that moment in time would have solved the problem for Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in one fell swoop, or at least very quickly built upon the momentum of the first deal.
A show of hands -- who believes the overall problem is worse now that it was when Carter, Sadat and Begin signed the document? Who believes it is better?
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Apr 19, 03:55:00 PM:
A show of hands -- who believes the overall problem is worse now that it was when Carter, Sadat and Begin signed the document? Who believes it is better?
It depends on who you are. Israel's existence is no longer threatened by invasion, which is a huge benefit. Egypt is no longer at risk of annihilation for pushing too far. It drove a wedge between Egypt, the largest Arab country, and the rejectionist states. The Palestinian Arabs and the Lebanese, however, are probably worse off.
By Escort81, at
Sat Apr 19, 04:46:00 PM:
TH - the Yom Kippur War lasted 20 days in October 1973, and despite some early sucesses for the Arab military forces, there was a marginal net gain for Israel in the Golan Heights. Some IDF officers' heads rolled in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, but by September 1978, I think it would be a stretch to say that Israel felt "threatened by invasion" in any meaningful way, at least by conventional armed forces. The Camp David Accords may not have actually done anything to reduce a feeling in Israel of being threatened, but it certainly documented what was already baked into the equation -- that Egypt was done fighting the Israelis, primarily because they were not terribly good at it. The downside is that ever since that point in time, Israel has lived in fear of non-conventional attacks by a variety of irregular forces (although to give Hezbollah its due, it is looking more and more like the well-trained, well-equipped adjunct to Iranian special forces that they really are), so it's somewhat a case of pick your poison.
That said, your point is well taken: "it depends on who you are."
My overriding problem with Carter is not that he didn't do enough with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, it was his fecklessness in dealing with the beginnings of Islamic extremism in Iran. It is hard to read Mark Bowden's book "Guests of the Ayatollah" and not feel as though his administration was clueless.
I think that in November 1980, most PU undergrads felt that way (Carter was clueless) and voted for Anderson as a vote against the Democratic incumbent. I don't have any data to back that up, although I think the Prince archives would have a poll supporting that vague recollection. What do you remember about that election on campus that year?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Apr 19, 06:31:00 PM:
"A show of hands -- who believes the overall problem is worse now"
Overall problem? There are many problems in the Middle East, and many of them are inter-related, but I'm afraid I don't quite understand how you mean 'overall problem' here.
The Egyptians and Israelis are certainly better off with peace between their nations, and from their perspective that's who matters.
By Escort81, at
Sat Apr 19, 07:09:00 PM:
DF82 - that phrase might be too nebulous, OK. I really meant the secure and peaceful existence of Israel and the acceptance of same by her Arab neighbors, including the Palestinian Arabs.
Is Israel in fact better off now than it was before the Camp David Accords? The question really goes to whether Israel is better off dealing with conventional attacks by nation-states or the constant drip of terrorist attacks. Israel's international standing is certainly worse than 30 years ago (at least in the eyes of the West, except for the U.S.), and it is no more or less secure (perhaps less, if the threat from Iran is factored in), and a significant majority of Palestinian Arabs do not want Israel to even exist (hence the success of Hamas in the elections). It's nice that Egypt won't attack, but they weren't going to anyway, by 9/78. I hope Egypt is better off as compared to 30 years ago, but I am not sure (and it's not as if Israel was going to attack them under any circumstance except to preempt an imminent attack by Egypt, as she prepared her forces to strike at Israel, as was the case in 1967.)
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Apr 19, 09:25:00 PM:
Conventional wars and international opinion are not the be all of the story. There was a lot more to Israeli/Egyptian conflict than the published Big Wars. Many people forget the 1956 war, and almost no one outside specific the study of the Mid East has ever heard of the War of Attrition or knows that the Egyptians used to train, arm, and coordinate Palestinian guerillas and terrorists. At least now, Palestinians can't gear up in Egypt at Egyptian expense, cross the border, kill people, and then recross the border into the waiting arms of the Egyptian Army. (they did this in Jordan for many years, and still do it in Syria; their doing this in Lebanon triggered the 1982 invasion)
But if strategic considerations are what you consider important, Egypt was (and is) the single largest Arab country and their influence was (though less now) quite large. For comparison, Egypt has now a population of 81m. Syria has 19.7m, Jordan has 6.2m, and Lebanon has about 4m, totaling 30m. (from the CIA factbook) Egypt has more than 2.5 times the population of all of Israel's other neighbors combined and its military reflects that. Making peace with such a large, dangerous, and influential opponent was a big deal.
You said that 'it's not like Egypt was going to attack in '78 anyway.' No, probably not. But what if its peace feelers had been rejected? Not only would Israel still occupy a hostile Sinai they would have been guilty of turning away a peace initiative from one of their most implacable enemies (talk about bad press) and the Egyptians would have (rightly) concluded that the only way to get their land back was to fight for it. There would have been another war. At least one. And in pursuit of this, Egypt would have likely reversed its policy of realignment and gone back into the Soviet camp. After all, we couldn't possibly choose them over Israel were they to come to blows, and they would need great power backing to have any hope of defeating the Israelis.
Given this alternate series of events, the peace treaty really was the best choice, by far, for just about everyone but the Russians and the Palestinians.
By Escort81, at
Sat Apr 19, 09:49:00 PM:
DF82 - OK, good points all, and your geopolitical context is a reasonable one. I agree the treaty was the right thing to do, and even given the benefit of hindsight, both parties would do it again. I am just not sure that this solid diplomatic success has been built upon in any meaningful way that either improved Israel's overall security, or helped the Palestinian Arabs. Also, the case could be made that Islamic radicalism has increased in Egypt, so I am not sure that the segment of your point "at least now, Palestinians can't gear up in Egypt at Egyptian expense" is completely accurate, though I have not seen a pie chart of where Palestinian militants get their cash from today.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Apr 20, 11:38:00 AM:
"Also, the case could be made that Islamic radicalism has increased in Egypt, so I am not sure that the segment of your point "at least now, Palestinians can't gear up in Egypt at Egyptian expense" is completely accurate"
I suppose it could, but that's true all across the Middle East. Also, the man who killed Sadat was already an Islamist. In fact, the ideological grand-father of Al-Qaeda, Sayyid Qutb, was executed by Nasser in the 60s. Egypt was already home to a significant Islamist political opposition in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. (which was promptly outlawed) But the growth of Islamism in general is typically seen to be a by-product of the abject failure of Pan-Arab Socialism to accomplish its objectives.
As for the Palestinians' resources and their origins, I guess there's no way to know for sure unless you're in the terrorist organization itself. But I assume that the presence of smuggling tunnels from Egypt to Gaza that the Egyptians discover and blow up from time to time means that overt methods are frowned upon. But it would be naive to believe that some Egyptians don't actually help. Hatred of Israel is still strong.
