Dhimmi and Rosalynn Carter with Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer in happier days
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses Dhimmi Carter’s atrocious Camp David Accords, which Egypt has violated once again today, and their lingering negative effects:
Many Americans and Europeans still believe what was recently articulated by a poster at this website, who wrote: “I don’t fault Jimmy Carter for attempting to get Israel and Egypt to talk. At that time, it made a lot of sense to broker a peace deal, bring stability to the region and look like a good guy in the process. And for a second or two, it appeared as if he had succeeded.”
Jimmy Carter, the man who addressed Khomeini as a “fellow man of faith,” and whose every statement since has further revealed him to be an unctuous, holier-than-thou fool and a menace to this country (and certainly the worst president in our history) did not “attempt to get Israel and Egypt to talk.” Anwar Sadat decided he wanted to get Israel to give up, for the second time, the entire Sinai. And so, having first assured himself discreetly that the Israelis would indeed not only give it to him (something that was not required of them under any known theory of international law, or any of the precedents long observed, most recently after World War II), but that the entire country of Israel would give him a hero’s welcome as a Prince of Peace, he initiated the process. And that hero’s welcome was exactly what those endlessly sentimental, desperate and foolish Israelis, forgetting entirely their own self-respect and their own rights, proceeded to give him.
What most analysts continue to refer to as his “brokering” of a “peace deal” was an atrocious several months of constant wearing-down of Menachem Begin. Begin, so eager to be liked (“Sadat and Carter like me, they really like me”), paid for his new friendships in the coin of Israel’s rights and Israel’s security. For a handful of promises about ending hostile propaganda and similar attitudinal changes from Egypt, Israel handed over tangible assets in three tranches, all within a few years. What they gave Egypt represented a gigantic buffer against possible Egyptian invasion (which today could happen at a moment’s notice), together with oilfields discovered and exploited by the Israelis, three major airfields, roads, and much else.
Carter showed at every opportunity that he understood nothing of Israel’s plight. He was, and remains, sickeningly unsympathetic to the Jewish state. Do not forget those remarks he made to the effect that “I’m sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust.” That was his response to the admittedly not-very-photogenic, or very soothing, or very crowd-pleasing Begin (a man from a different time and space altogether). Carter pushed Israel again and again for concessions while worshipping Saint Sadat, the man who had been pro-Nazi during World War II, and had been a loyal aide to the megalomaniac Nasser and the whole Nasserite enterprise, and who launched a surprise attack on Yom Kippur against Israel, and who, internally, treated the Copts terribly (leading Pope Shenouda II to go into internal exile) and who even resurrected the fortunes of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, the members of the Ikhwan were far from grateful. They later assassinated Sadat at one of those grandiose Aida-like military parades designed to celebrate the “victory” of what the Egyptians call “the October War” — a “victory” which led to a severe Egyptian defeat, once the Israelis recovered from being initially caught by surprise, and would have led to a crushing loss for Egypt had Kissinger and Nixon not insisted on preventing Ariel Sharon from destroying Egypt’s Third Army.
There is no such thing as a “successful” peace deal to be brokered between Muslims and non-Muslims. This is true whether those non-Muslims are in Israel, or India, or the southern Sudan, or anywhere else. There can be no permanent peace between Believers and Infidels. The model for all Muslim treaties is the agreement made by Muhammad with the Meccans, the so-called Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, which, as Majid Khadduri notes in “War and Peace in Islam,” was broken by Muhammad just as soon as he felt his forces had become strong enough to allow him to do so. To suggest that there could ever be a permanent peace so that Infidel sovereign states could exist permanently, when it is the duty of Muslims to spread Islam until there are no barriers to its rule, its dominance, all over the globe, is simply to misunderstand Islam.
Carter knew nothing about Islam. Brzezinski knew nothing about Islam. In their cases, so hostile were they, in so many ways, to Israel and its rights that one suspects had they understood the meaninglessness of any Muslim promises under such treaties, they would not have cared.
But what is the excuse for those who, today, have still not bothered to study the Islamic jurisprudence on treaties between Believers and Infidels, when the answers may be unpleasant to realize, but are absolutely clear?