Dhimmi Carter
A member of Hamas
Dhimmi and Rosalyn Carter with Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in happier days (1984)
Nobel laureate and former President Dhimmi Carter spread more malaise yesterday when he said in Geneva that "the present administration in Washington has been invariably supportive of Israel, and the well-being of the Palestinian people has been ignored or relegated to secondary importance. . . . Without a resurrection of strong and unbiased American influence, Israeli and Palestinian extremists will prevail. . . . There is no doubt that the lack of real effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a primary source of anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and a major incentive for terrorist activity."
The aging Dhimmicrat statesman never mentioned, of course, why many people who support a two-state solution in principle have had their hopes dashed again and again: not because of Israel, but because of the jihadist intransigence of groups such as Hamas, which have consistently blocked or destroyed any negotiated settlement. As Hamas's charter says:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [a religious endowment, as delineated by Islamic law] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
And even worse:
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Luckily, Dhimmi Carter got the response he deserved from the Bush administration. Asked one official: "Does anyone really care what Carter has to say?"
Yesterday was a black day for Israel and its supporters around the globe: both Jews and non-Jews with the Geneva accords media bathos. Former President Carter's speech castigates Israel for defending its people against Jihadist terrorists and islmaikazes by building a security fence. His speech virtually toes the pro-Palestinian line almost completely. Dhimmi Carter suggests that Israel give soveriegnty over a portion of now unified Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority, its kleptocrats and murderous militias. Dhimma Jimma inveighs the apartheid manque of his Arab Muslim benfactors of the Carter Center by insinuating that Israel has consciencously pursued a policy of "colonizing the West Bank and Gaza." That should make the Zayed foundation of the UAE happy about the honorarium that it paid Carter. Dhimmi Carter suggests that Israel commit demographic suicide by agreeing to take back "millions" of alleged refugees to their homes and villages "lost during the 1948 and 1967 wars" in exchange for recognition by Arab/Muslim states. Wasn't this the core of the tattered Beirut plan of the Saudis ballyhooed by Tom Friedman of the Nwe York Times. I shudder to think of what journalistic travesty that Friedman will natter in his news columns this week from his bastion in the elevators of the hotel in Geneva. Looks to me, despite his Nobel laureate and human rights, democracy building track record, that dhimmi Jimma's gone delusional on us. In effect his speech at the "signing" of the phony Geneva accords in Switzerland yesterday was very "Chamberlainesque." There he was sandwiched on the rostrum between unauthorized and, I might add, arrogant former Israeli Labor Party Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin, who orchestrated the failed Oslo and Taba peace process, and some expendable no account Palestinian representative moderated by Hollywood actor and Peace Now nik, Richard Dreyfuss (boy does his last name hurt!). Carter effectively said in his remarks that Israel should slit its own throat and disappear as a Jewish state in the middle east.
So what we have here is Munich 1938 with Israelis as the Czechs awaiting the takeover of the Country by the Nazis (read Palestinian islamists and their Arab muslim cohorts) in March of 1939 after cession of the Sudeutenland by the appeasing French and British (read EUrabia and US).
Here's the rationale for his delusional remarks from the ertswhile Carter Center website.
The Geneva Initiative: A Path to Peace in the Middle East?
26 Nov 2003
It started with a question posed to him from Alexis Keller, a Swiss professor, after Yossi Beilin had delivered a guest lecture to Keller's class in Geneva. What would have happened if you had more time during the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in 2001?
Read more about President Carter's support for the Geneva Accord in his USA Today op-ed.
Beilin, the former Israeli justice minister and a member of the Israeli negotiating team in 2000 and 2001, told Keller that he believed the Israeli delegation and his Palestinian counterparts would have reached a peace agreement if the negotiations had not been halted early. Together Beilin and Keller developed an exercise to test that theory. They recruited Yasser Abed Rabbo, at the time a member of the Palestinian Authority cabinet and another veteran of the 2000-2001 talks, to join the exercise. Each put together a small team of negotiators and together they began hammering out a model peace agreement.
That was more than two years ago. They finalized the agreement Oct. 12. The Geneva Initiative, as it is being called, isn't official, but it does provide a framework and hope for a political solution. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has called the agreement the "best chance for peace" in the Middle East. He and the Carter Center's Conflict Resolution Program Director Matthew Hodes will attend the accord's signing in Geneva Dec. 1.
Hodes attended two of the negotiation sessions in support of the process and provided advice when requested.
The agreement lays out the following:
the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza
secure borders for Israel based on the 1967 border but with adjustments through territorial exchange with the Palestinians that permit the retention of Israeli settlements in the immediate area around Jerusalem and the removal of others using a formula that only requires a deviation of 2-3 percent of territory from the 1967 border
a vision for the future of Jerusalem and the holy sites, which includes Palestinian sovereignty over Temple Mount and Israeli sovereignty over the Wailing Wall, under an international security force, and
a fair resolution to the question of final status for Palestinian refugees, including repatriation to the new Palestinian state and compensation for expropriated property.
"The conversations were alternatively positive and contentious," Hodes said. "The discussions were exceptionally candid. I took it as a reflection at how deeply felt the positions were, how firmly they were prepared to protect their underlying interests and how hard it was for them to acknowledge the need to compromise. While the agreement is not official, the parties understood how significant this could be so they held their core values to heart."
Now the negotiation teams will publicize the agreement to stimulate debate and educate the public, Hodes said.
"The Oslo agreement and the road map to peace suggest a path to peace but without specifying what the final resolution will look like, but the Geneva Initiative lays out the specifics such as borders and settlements and the status of Jerusalem," he said. "That's a major difference. People can now see that there are potential partners for peace and that there is a vision of what that peace can look like."
Op-Ed: Middle East Accord Offers 'Best' Chance for Peace
By
Jimmy Carter
3 Nov 2003
This op-ed was published in the Nov. 3, 2003 issue of USA Today.
Although it has received little attention in the U.S. media, a detailed, soon-to-be-released Middle East accord struck by a group of influential Israelis and Palestinians paves the way to the region's best, and perhaps last, chance for peace.
Its plan is an alternative to the "Quartet" road map fashioned by the U.S., the European Union, the United Nations and Russia. That also offered an encouraging prospect for peace, but even its first basic phase has been substantially rejected. Key obstacles have been Israel's insistence on colonizing Gaza and the far reaches of the West Bank, and the Palestinians' insistence on the withdrawal of all Israeli settlements, a return to the pre-1967 border and a right to unlimited return for refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars.
The Quartet's plan is now a dead issue. Instead, there are continuing violent attacks by Palestinian terrorist groups and increasingly harsh reprisals from Israel. With apparent acquiescence from the Bush administration, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently announced that additional settlement units will be built and the Israeli dividing wall farther intruded into Palestinian land.
Supporting such policies is the worst thing America could do for Israelis who want peace. There also is no doubt that the obvious lack of real effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a primary source of anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and a major incentive for terrorist activity.
Determined negotiators
For more than two years, the group of Israelis and Palestinians, many of whom played key roles at earlier discussions under President Clinton at Camp David and later at Taba, Egypt, has held difficult, tedious negotiations. Working without government support, both sides have made constructive concessions without contradicting the concepts of the Oslo accords of 1993, the Clinton proposals and the Quartet road map.
Their work is not a substitute for official government action. It does, however, present a clear picture of a final, comprehensive peace agreement that could bring the terrible Middle East conflict to a peaceful conclusion. The final result of this heroic effort soon will be revealed in Geneva.
Their plan proposes a two-state solution. It would settle the conflict's most critical elements, including precise border delineations, Israeli settlements, the end of excessive occupation of Palestinian lands, the future of Jerusalem and its holy places and the extremely troubling question of Palestinian refugees.
The proposed plan permits more than half of Israeli settlers to remain permanently in the West Bank, strictly limits the return of Palestinian refugees and provides for a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank, connected to Gaza by a secure highway. Highly-developed Palestinian land near Jerusalem now occupied by Israeli settlers would be swapped for equal areas of remote, uninhabited Israeli land. Satellite imagery has defined a border to the level of individual homes. Unrestricted access by specific routes is guaranteed to East Jerusalem's holy places.
Not yet resolved, but ...
There inevitably will be modifications to this breakthrough proposal. With full backing from Washington, follow-up negotiations could finally reach the goal of a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors.
Presumably - and as already pledged by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - such an agreement would induce all Arab nations to recognize Israel's rights to live in peace and to take action to prevent further violence initiated by naysaying Palestinian groups. Such a commitment should be a prerequisite to a final agreement.
Current U.S.-Israeli strategies must change. Demanding an end to all terrorism before final negotiations only guarantees they never happen. Such extremist groups as Hamas do not want a negotiated settlement and are out of the Palestinian Authority's control. Half-hearted, step-by-step approaches let violent acts on either side subvert the peace process.
Real moves toward peace demand bold actions by leaders. This initiative can provide indispensable guidance. It is unlikely that we will ever see a more promising foundation for peace.
Former president Jimmy Carter chairs the non-governmental Carter Center in Atlanta, which advances peace and health worldwide.
Failed presidents continue to muck around in world affairs to compensate for their track records while in office. Compare Jimmy Carter and Clinton to Ford, Bush I, Reagan.
Jimmy Carter, what a liberal. Look at his foreign policy when he was president. Let see, oil prices went up, Iran to American hostiges, plus screwing up the rescue, Afghanistan invaded, sighned away the panama canal(to be taken over by the china is 2000). Soft on Cuba and North Korea. Communst govenrment in Nicarqua(Sandinistas)took over. Mind you that taxes went up and a depressing and stated that our kids would not live better than our parnets. That is why he only served one term. The man should just retire and stay out of politics or move to Europe, he would blend in there.
Do you have any useful pro information regarding the Geneva Accord, which was posted in December? I am a student in Moutain Lakes NJ in the Utited States, and I am performing a debate on Monday, and I need some helpful information.
-Francois Vandame