You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Fifth Column
Jimmy Carter: Yield to the Palis!
2003-09-24
EFL
Last week we observed the 25th anniversary of the Camp David Accords, which spelled out the basic relationships between Israel and its neighbors and led within a few months to the inviolate peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Participants in the recent event included nine of the 11 members of the U.S. negotiating team and key advisers to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Wasn't Sadat assassinated as a result of that deal? Hellofajob!
It was intriguing to review the issues we faced then, after four major wars in the previous 25 years, and to assess how current problems have evolved. All of us have retained a deep interest in the peace process and hopes of eventual success. Part of that hope was derived from the calm and relative friendship that prevailed after the successful negotiations at Camp David, those of the Norwegians between Israelis and Palestinians in 1993, and the Palestinian elections of 1996, in which a parliament was formed and Yasser Arafat chosen as president. These were times, although transient, when moderate leadership and sound judgment prevailed, and citizens lived and worked side by side in peace.
Such times were rare indeed. Because Arafat supports the Holocaust.
In each case, radical and violent actions subsequently intruded, exemplified by the assassinations of Sadat and of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and by the unconscionable suicide bombings and other violence that continue today. There is an impressive continuity of unchanging basic issues, expressed most clearly and succinctly in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which was passed unanimously after the 1967 war. It requires, in effect, a withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories, in exchange for ensured peace and recognition from all Arab governments and other organizations.
Basically, it boils down to: "Heil Haman"
It has been recognized that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were a violation of international law and the primary incitement to violence among Palestinians. Our most intense arguments at Camp David were about their existence and potential expansion. The parties agreed that all those in Egypt’s Sinai region were to be dismantled, and there was a strong dispute about their growth in the West Bank and Gaza, then comprising about 4,000 settlers. During the first Bush administration, Secretary of State James Baker said, "I don’t think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace," and the president threatened to withhold American financial aid in order to discourage settlement expansion.
If they're building colonies in the "occupied territories," that would seem to indicate they plan on keeping them. On the other hand, the Paleos' case would be viewed a lot more sympathetically if they weren't exploding in all directions. Countering a bad thing that can be settled through negotiations, with a worse thing that can't be, doesn't seem to make sense.
But during the past two administrations in Washington and with massive financial and political incentives from the Israeli government, the number of new settlers has skyrocketed, with many settlements protected by military forces and connected to others by secure highways. An impenetrable fence is hastily being built, often through Palestinian lands.
He said it was the Pali’s land and his lips fell off.
We Camp David alumni discussed the "road map for peace," published in April 2003 by the United States, Great Britain, Russia and the United Nations, and agreed that it encompasses almost exactly the same proposals expressed in previous proclamations and peace agreements, including dismantling the settlements. The Israeli cabinet rejected a number of its key provisions, the Palestinians have not been able to find a negotiating partner acceptable to Israel and the United States and have failed to control violence, and the other three sponsors are effectively excluded from any role in the relatively dormant process.
No partner we found acceptable because all provided support Hamnn’s agenda, Jamey you beauzeau!
There is an important and fundamental change in the motivation of the United States as mediator. At Camp David we Americans knew that our nation’s strategic interests were directly involved in the peace process. Cold War alliances had resulted in a direct nuclear confrontation between the superpowers as Israel and Egypt fought during the 1973 war, with other aligned nations marshaled to take sides. The Holy Land was the tinderbox for World War III, and peace was vital to our own security.
Posted by:Katz

#10  Having lived through his glorious presidency, any American politician that takes his advice should be imprisoned as a threat to national security.
Posted by: tu3031   2003-9-24 10:44:29 PM  

#9  Not only that, the Carters sell sh*ty seed peanuts. National defense, coinage, and peanut allotments are the only things specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Posted by: Shipman   2003-9-24 9:32:07 PM  

#8  C'mon, guys, he just wants to bring some of that magic that worked so well with the NorKs.
I just wish he'd shut up and build some more homes for Habitat for Humanity. That's the last thing he did that was worthwhile.....
Posted by: Baba Yaga   2003-9-24 8:30:08 PM  

#7  Good essay by Peggy Noonan contrasting Jimmy and Bill with Ike:

http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=142
Posted by: Matt   2003-9-24 6:15:01 PM  

#6  What is it with these Democrat ex-presidents anyway? Nixon didn't say a hell of a whole lot after he was through, nor did Ford, Reagan, or Bush I. But Carter and Bubba, these two guys just can't stay away and enjoy their retirement and leave us the hell alone.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2003-9-24 6:03:10 PM  

#5  Can anyone see anything so obscene as paying someone over $10,000 a month for being a total failure?


What Uday and Qusay would still be doing to pretty girls if Carter'd had his fucking way.
Posted by: Katz   2003-9-24 5:05:42 PM  

#4  I hated Jimmy Carter when he was president, and I still dispize him now. In fact, HIS ELECTION caused me to bail from the Air Force in 1976, only to rejoin after Reagan won in 1980. Carter was an utter failure in the White House: in foreign affairs, in the economy, and in keeping Washington within limits. We will be living with his "legacy" a hundred years from now. The man needs to be locked into a small room with ten rabid wolverines for a month, then have the room burned to the ground. I hate the idea that my taxes pay him his 'retirement' every month. Can anyone see anything so obscene as paying someone over $10,000 a month for being a total failure?
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-9-24 5:03:45 PM  

#3  I'm amazed how upset some folk get about the wall. The wall will stop the killing, something the Pals have been unable/unwilling to do. After that discussions can begin and the Pals may be able to reclaim the territory through negotiations like civilized people.
Posted by: Yank   2003-9-24 4:46:30 PM  

#2  "EEEeeek! A RABBIT!..."
Posted by: mojo   2003-9-24 4:31:13 PM  

#1  Jimmy Carter will cause damage to American and Israeli interests until the day he dies. His ineffectual presidency is a hallmark of those who hate us for our successes and best traits, and who rationalize and excuse the worst trash in our world. This is not the mark of a religious man, it's the mark of a failure trying to bring everyone around him down to his level. F*&k him and his Peace Prize.
Posted by: Frank G   2003-9-24 4:09:38 PM  

00:00