"Poor Jimmy Carter. All he wanted to do was talk peace. But all he got was the shaft, from the Bush administration, the secretary of state, the Israeli government, the mainstream media, and the presidential candidates.....
The U.S. media generally did not report that Carter was denied any Israeli security protection while in Israel and on the West Bank and that he was refused permission to visit Gaza. It would be churlish to suggest that some Israeli leaders might have wanted something to happen to Carter while unprotected by the Israeli secret service, but the denial of security speaks for itself. It also demonstrates that billions each year in assistance from Washington to Israel doesn't buy much if one is an ex-U.S. president. It doesn't buy much even if one is a current president.
Most discouraging were the comments from Barack Obama, who has been widely seen as a possible agent for change in U.S. foreign policy. Speaking to a group of American Jewish leaders gathered in a Philadelphia synagogue, he criticized Carter, saying, "Hamas is not a state, Hamas is a terrorist organization. They obviously have developed great influence within the Palestinian territories, but they do not control the apparatus of power." As Obama has frequently evinced a willingness to enter into discussions with nearly everyone and Hamas is actually a political party representing most of the Palestinian people and constituting a majority in the national parliament, the parsing is curious. If holding the position of prime minister after a democratic election is not controlling "the apparatus of power," it is not clear what the litmus test might be. Obama also went on to describe his friendship for Israel with obligatory effusiveness, saying that "he would make sure that it [Israel] can defend itself from any attack," though again the word choice was interesting, as he did not pledge the U.S. to go to war on behalf of Israel, as John McCain and Hillary Clinton have done......."
The U.S. media generally did not report that Carter was denied any Israeli security protection while in Israel and on the West Bank and that he was refused permission to visit Gaza. It would be churlish to suggest that some Israeli leaders might have wanted something to happen to Carter while unprotected by the Israeli secret service, but the denial of security speaks for itself. It also demonstrates that billions each year in assistance from Washington to Israel doesn't buy much if one is an ex-U.S. president. It doesn't buy much even if one is a current president.
Most discouraging were the comments from Barack Obama, who has been widely seen as a possible agent for change in U.S. foreign policy. Speaking to a group of American Jewish leaders gathered in a Philadelphia synagogue, he criticized Carter, saying, "Hamas is not a state, Hamas is a terrorist organization. They obviously have developed great influence within the Palestinian territories, but they do not control the apparatus of power." As Obama has frequently evinced a willingness to enter into discussions with nearly everyone and Hamas is actually a political party representing most of the Palestinian people and constituting a majority in the national parliament, the parsing is curious. If holding the position of prime minister after a democratic election is not controlling "the apparatus of power," it is not clear what the litmus test might be. Obama also went on to describe his friendship for Israel with obligatory effusiveness, saying that "he would make sure that it [Israel] can defend itself from any attack," though again the word choice was interesting, as he did not pledge the U.S. to go to war on behalf of Israel, as John McCain and Hillary Clinton have done......."
No comments:
Post a Comment