December 4, 2006

I was in the gym yesterday re-acquainting myself with the treadmill. When I saw that ex Pres Jimmy Carter was on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, I decided to see what he was saying. Literally. I really wasn’t much interested in hearing Carter’s voice - I was listening to a CD - so I watched the closed captioning scroll to catch his remarks.

Of course the topic that occasioned his visit to Meet the Press was his recent book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”

Mr. Carter happily wrapped himself in the cloak of being provocative.

Well, well, maybe it’s provocative. That’s—I prefer that. I don’t look on provocative as a negative word. If it, if it provokes debate and assessment and disputes and arguments and maybe some action in the Middle East to get the peace process—which is now completely absent or dormant—rejuvenated, then—and brings peace, ultimately to Israel, that’s what I want.

Russert asked him mildly challenging questions, but unfortunately pulled his punches.

First he asked him about his use of the term apartheid and allowed Carter to claim that he was only talking about the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza not elsewhere. This, of course, is problematic because Israel physically offloaded Gaza in 2005 and allowed the Palestinians self government since 1996 elsewhere. Carter himself (dishonestly) certified the elections of Arafat in 1996 and Hamas in 2005 as clean and legitimate. (He also certified the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela demonstrating that he is fully complicit in legitimizing tyrants.)

But then the highlight of the show was when Russert showed a 30 year old clip of Governor Carter talking about the Middle East on Meet the Press.

I would not recognize the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO, nor their leaders under any circumstances, diplomatically, until they recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace in their present location in the Far East—in the Middle East. I think that ultimately Israel might have to withdraw to—from some of the boundaries, toward their 1967 boundaries. There’s some that I would not cede if I were the premier of Israel. One would be control of the Syrians—by the Syrians of the Golan Heights and I would not relinquish control of the, of the Jewish and Christian worship places in Jerusalem, but I think the recognition of the Palestinians as an entity and as a nation will be an integral part of the future of Middle Eastern settlement.

Carter congratulated himself on his perceptiveness and then has the gall to claim that his views are the same as they were 30 years ago. Russert though didn’t follow up with the most obvious way that Carter’s views had changed. Later Carter would say

FMR. PRES. CARTER: OK. First of all, I think that the United States should stop their horrible abuse of the Palestinian people in a generic sense. I mean, all Palestinian people. Because they voted for Hamas candidates last January, we have cut off all aid to, to the Palestinian people, humanitarian aid and otherwise. We don’t let contributions from other nations go to the Palestinian people. They don’t have enough money to pay their, their teachers, their nurses, their policemen, their firemen, anybody on their public payroll, just because the Palestinian people voted for Hamas candidates. So I would stop that and let humanitarian aid go into Gaza and to the West Bank.

Earth to Jimmy, Hamas has never accepted Israel’s right to exist. If a condition for talking to the PLO in 1976 was acceptance of Israel’s right to exist why isn’t that a condition for dealing with Hamas now? I don’t believe for a moment that Hamas and the PA don’t have money for salaries, they just don’t want to spend their own money, they want foreign aid for the salaries. There’s no reason to enable them further giving them that aid.

And as bad as Carter was when he talked of Israel, he compounded his sins by brining up the Jewish lobby. Here Russert didn’t even make a pretense of challenging Carter.

FMR. PRES. CARTER: That’s part. The Jewish lobby may be part of it. I didn’t say that in the book, but I think that’s part of it. But even—you know, I don’t think that The Washington Post or The New York Times or NBC or others are intimidated by, by the Jewish lobby. But I think there’s a reticence, even in public fora, to describe both sides of the issues in the West Bank.

Reticence? A reticence to publish Peace Now’s dubious charges that Jewish lands are largely taken from private Palesitnians? If that’s the result of intimidation, it’s not very intimidating. Both sides do get discussed plenty. The fact that Carter could make this claim and not have Russert follow up is a disgrace.

In the last part of the interview Russert plays nice and allows Jimmy Carter to play ex-President. He lets him say how important he is because the President Bush consults him. And finally he gives Jimmy Carter the softball he no doubt was waiting for, he asks him his thoughts on the Iraq war. Carter gets the chance to respond that it was a mistake etc. etc. etc.

Russert must have been great for Carter’s ego allowing him to strut his dubious stuff while barely laying a glove on him. I don’t usually watch Russert but I’ve heard that he’s often on the ball. Yesterday, he was much too deferential.

Conservative Politics looks at Carter’s comments about supporting Hamas. Red Wave Musings takes an extended swipe at Carter. On the other hand the Boc Blah Blog considers Carter a “centrist.”

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.Blogdigger tags: Jimmy Carter, Israel, Meet the Press, Tim Russert, Apartheid.