Thursday, August 03, 2006


Some friendly foreign policy advice from President Jimmy Carter via the Washington Post. While the Post claims he is the founder of the "Carter Center," I think Jimmah is most known for his stellar foreign policy performance during the 444-day Iranian hostage crisis. Jimmy believes that the key to peace in the middle east is unilateral Israeli withdrawals and surrenders (closely resembling Hezbollah's and Hamas' demands), throws in a bit of half-truths and lies, and finishes up with a jab at the Bush administration. Nice, huh?

Militant Palestinians and Lebanese know that a captured Israeli soldier or civilian is either a cause of conflict or a valuable bargaining chip for prisoner exchange.

The only thing that Jimmy says that's worth anything. It's marginally true that Israel's past dealings with terrorist prisoner exchanges have set up the terrorists' beliefs that such exchanges can happen again. However, since the terrorists want to destroy Israel and murder all the Jews, these prisoner exchanges have minimal impact on current terrorist dealings.

The resulting destruction [Israel's attack] brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.

Why is it the Palestinians are always warring with someone? If it's not Israel then they're attacking themselves. Does Jimmy mean here that it's better for the Palestinians to be fighting each other than Israel? Isn't the obvious question "why are they always fighting?"

Hezbollah militants then killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others, and insisted on Israel's withdrawal from disputed territory and an exchange for some of the several thousand incarcerated Lebanese.

Simply bizarre. The Israelis occupy no Lebanese territory, and haven't since 2000. Let's be clear about this - Hezbollah has asked for nothing in exchange for the Israeli prisoners. Iran wanted a distraction from their nuclear program, so Hezbollah went to war.

It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response.

Completely insane. Does Jimmy think that Israel is intentionally targeting Lebanese civilians in the hopes that they will blame terrorists for their misfortune? This is typical far-left propaganda speak. Reading this nonchalant phrase makes people think that this really is Israel's plan. Let's be clear again - Israel is trying to destroy terrorists - it is Hezbollah that is attacking civilians in the hopes that the world will act against Israel.

The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.

How can condemnation of Israel intensify? Arab countries want Israel obliterated and its people annihilated! Iran's insane dictator is on the news every week begging Arab nations and Muslims to wage war and destroy Israel - how can the world's most hated country receive intensified condemnation?

Israel belatedly announced, but did not carry out, a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon, responding to the global condemnation of an air attack on the Lebanese village of Qana, where 57 civilians were killed this past weekend and where 106 died from the same cause 10 years ago.

Jimmy throws in the "10 year" reference for no reason. Maybe we should count how many Israelis Hezbollah terrorists have killed in the past 10 years? Oh, and by the way, it turns out that the Red Cross is reporting only 28 deaths associated with the building collapse (which occured 8 hours after the air strike).

Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal.

Six year absence of effort? This number, of course, ascribes to President Bush's tenure in the White House. However, I would say Israel pulling completely out of Lebanon in 2000 is an "effort" to achieve peace. However, it's hard to achieve peace with someone that wants to kill you - no matter the cost.

Leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus.

Moral equivalence at its best. Hezbollah's leadership = Israel's leadership - they are both "extremists."

...Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative "security barrier" that embarrasses Israel's friends and that fails to bring safety or stability.

What two regions of the world are the only two with complete "security barriers" between them? Egypt and Gaza. Not too many people are embarrassed by Egypt's wall to keep out Palestinians...

The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, U.S. government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal.

More complete Jimmah insanity. Was this man really President? Israel is only violating UN resolutions because more resolutions have been passed condemning Israel than all the other UN resolutions combined. How about Hezbollah and that little UN resolution they're ignoring - that one that says they have to disarm? Jimmah also wants Israel to withdrawal to pre-1967 borders (so does Hamas; oh, and Hamas wants all the Jews to die, too) but Jimmah just said at the beginning of the article that unilateral Israeli withdrawal from disputed territories doesn't work! Which is it, Jimmah?!

A major impediment to progress is Washington's strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject U.S. assertions. Direct engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority and the government in Damascus will be necessary if secure negotiated settlements are to be achieved.

What about Hezbollah? Should we include terrorist organizations in a dialog? Aren't their demands that Israel be destroyed "subservient" demands on Israel's behavior?

Failure to address the issues and leaders involved risks the creation of an arc of even greater instability running from Jerusalem through Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran.

Why does the arc stretch from Jerusalem to Beirut, Damascus, and Tehran? I would rather say the arc of terror stretches from Tehran and Damascus to Beirut and Jerusalem. But that's just me.

Don't drink the Jimmah juice. Maybe he has some lasting problems being rational due to that rabbit attack...

No comments: