Jimmy Carter: “I oppose a Palestinian State”

Jimmy Carter: “I oppose a Palestinian State”
By Jeff Ballabon

This was Carter, THEN:

"… I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my
own judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle
East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in
the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States
interests. (Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young
Leadership Conference, February 25, 1980)."

"…we oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The
United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship
of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible
with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of
America’s own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel’s
security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer
to the world. A strong Israel and a strong Egypt serve our own
security interests.We are committed to Israel’s right to live in
peace with all its neighbors, within secure and recognized borders,
free from terrorism. We are committed to a Jerusalem that will
forever remain undivided with free access to all faiths to the holy
places. Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and
committments. (Source: First anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli
Peace Treaty / White House joint conference, March 23, 1980)."

What has changed in the last 25 years? Not Israel’s 1948
independence. Not the 1967 war. Not the cynical, ignominous treatment
of Arab refugees by the Arab world.

So why, 25 years later, is Israel’s right to exist a matter of
debate, while Palestine’s right to exist is presumed by everyone from
the United Nations to Jimmy Carter to George Bush to Ehud Olmert?

Why, when the Palestinian leaderships - PA and Hamas - the first
imposed and the second popularly elected, demonstrate that their
chief characteristics are, respectively, corrupt thuggery and bloody
holy war, why then is endless-concession-making, negotiating,
retreating, disengaging, humanitarian-aid-giving, appeasing Israel
viewed as the “destabilizing factor?”

Did a massive land-grab by Israel precede Carter’s new book? On the
contrary: a massive land-surrender preceded the book. And, in fact,
when it retreats, morally, intellectually, politically, physically,
Israel does become the destabilizing factor - or at least surrenders
its role as the stabilizer of the world’s most volatile region.

What has changed is Israel’s own resolve. Why should anyone else
fight to support a nation whose political elite takes every
opportunity and advantage we give it and squanders it? Why should
anyone else fight for a nation which sacrifices its soldiers rather
than vanquishes its enemy? Why should anyone else fight for a nation
which has ceased believing in itself? Which cravenly begs forgiveness
on the rare occasions it actually defends its citizens? Why should
anyone fight for a Jewish homeland which seems bent on denying its
Jewishness? Why should anyone care about a state which retreats from
its victories? Which sheds its democratic veneer to brutalize and
displace its most patriotic and committed citizens, its idealists,
its pioneers? Why should anyone care for an Israel that is willing,
even eager, in its quest for a “secular revolution” to declare that
the Jewish heritage is an albatross, that Judea and Samaria are a
burden, and that Jerusalem is negotiable? That the State of Israel
is, in fact, seeking to disengage from the Holy Land?

The turning point, perhaps the catalyst, was Oslo; the Bill Clinton/
Ehud Barak plan to (in Clinton negotiator Dennis Ross’ terminology)
dispense with the “mythologies” in order to negotiate. How very
modern and enlightened and liberal and civilized. And how very
destructive and foolish and deadly. The ideas, the principles, the
vision, the morals, the truths which they disdain as mythologies were
and are the very heart of Israel’s national aspiration. It was the
vision that kept Jews alive through millenia of diaspora and
dispersion, crusade, expulsion, forced conversion, blood libel and
pogrom, and, finally, Holocaust And the heart may be romanticized as
the seat of emotion, but only the hopelessly deluded excises it and
thinks the body will survive. Only the deluded excises the heart. Or
the suicidal.

What has changed, in consequence, is the resolve of Israel’s enemies
as well. And, because they are not burdened by the selfish inanity of
modern liberalism, they have not lost their willingness to suffer and
to sacrifice. The suicides they are committing are anything but
deluded; their terror is a winning strategy. Rather than eliciting
disgust and fury, rather than being condemned as unutterably
barbaric, the use of civilians as targets, children as bombs and
grandmothers as bunkers has even brought them the sympathies of the
deluded West. Not only in the corridors of the UN or the salons of
Europe - but even in those enlightened liberal precincts in Israel
where the stubborn, unruly Jewish “mythologies” have long since been
relegated, surrendered, sublimated to an oh-so-superior modern
Israeli multicultural consciousness.

[UPDATE: New ending added on December 4]

In the end, what is most frustrating is also that which is the
greatest cause for hope. Israel, but for its recent governments’
moral blindness and appetite for appeasement, really is in a position
of strength. Its military still is excellent, its weapons still
superior, its citizens still doughty.

It lacks just one element to recapture the momentum in its struggle
against its enemies and that is resolve. And, as we witnessed this
summer, even that resolve is just a moment away, waiting for the
right leadership with a bold message.

This summer, Olmert hampered and ultimately reined in the IDF. But
before he did so, when Israel first seemed poised to respond with
force, Israeli morale skyrocketed.

Was it a successful “peace” negotiation? Diplomatic recognition by a
heretofor implacable enemy? A truce with Hamas? Quite the contrary:
it was an uninstigated assault by Hizballah. Israeli soldiers were
kidnapped. Rockets came raining down on major population centers. 1
million Israelis had to live in bomb shelters. A war was being waged
in the North and the South and terror activity was up in the West.

But morale was higher than at any time since before Oslo. The
knowledge that it was embarking on a mission, no matter how perilous,
to defend the homeland, unified and electrified the nation.
“Finally!” declared pundits on the Israeli Right and Left. Record
numbers of citizen-reservists showed up to fight, far more than the
IDF had even called. It was a return to moral clarity.

But it was short-lived. Within days, hope was turned to despair as
Israel’s apologetic, retreat-oriented, pretentiously post-
ideological, post-moral government, defeated the Israeli people and
the IDF. And today, Israeli morale is at an all time low.

Even before Iran’s nuclear threat, the question more and more of
Israel’s friends have been asking is “Will Israel still exist in ten
years?”

If Israel’s leaders continue to travel the path of Oslo, of phony
peace processes, of concession and retreat and halfhearted military
objectives, surely not. For Israel will never appease its enemies. It
will vanquish them or it will die.

“If you will it,” said Herzl, “it is no dream.”

“If you will it…” today, as then, it remains the only question.