Jimmy Carter used to be the worst President in history. Fortunately for him, his record of economic and foreign policy disasters has been dwarfed by that of the current White House occupant. As a result, he's been bumped up a notch and, apparently, he thinks that's given him the gravitas necessary to offer his opinions again. Maybe he figures that, since he's no longer at the bottom of the barrel, there's now someone who can learn from him!
So, he's offering the world some advice: Hamas is difficult to defeat, so why not simply grant them the political legitimacy they seek?
In a piece co-authored by former Irish President Mary Robinson, Carter claims that:
...the United States and EU should recognize that Hamas is not just a military but also a political force. Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise.
Only by recognizing its legitimacy as a political actor — one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people — can the West begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons.
Yes, Hamas is still designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. However, President Carter seems to think that, once a terrorist organization embeds itself within a region and becomes powerful enough, they should just be recognized politically so they can be bargained with.
This presents a couple of problems.
Incentivizing terrorism
First, you're incentivizing terrorism. Carter is basically arguing that the U.S. stance should shift from "we don't negotiate with terrorists" to "we don't negotiate with terrorists unless they become powerful enough that they're really difficult to take out." If we do that, we encourage terrorist organizations to grow as quickly and as ruthlessly as possible, since - if we don't deal with them immediately - they may become intractable and gain legitimacy under the "Carter Doctrine."
Hamas exists to eliminate Israel and her allies
Second, Hamas exists to eliminate Israel and her allies. It's the basis of their charter. That isn't going to change. If Carter is arguing that they should be granted "political legitimacy" so we can bargain with them, exactly what are the "right incentives" that Israel is supposed to give up? Hamas' stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel. So... How much of Israel does Jimmy Carter think they should be allowed to destroy, in order to reach an "equitable" solution? How many Israeli deaths would Carter deem "fair?"
Carter's ridiculous fallacy - that giving Hamas more power on the world stage will lead to temperance - is shared by much of the left. It's also laughably idiotic.
Of course, Carter's lack of respect for Israel is nothing new, and it continues in his newest piece:
There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defense Forces are conducting this war. Israeli bombs, missiles, and artillery have pulverized large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools, and hospitals.
More than 250,000 people have been displaced from their homes in Gaza. Hundreds of Palestinian noncombatants have been killed. Much of Gaza has lost access to water and electricity completely. This is a humanitarian catastrophe.
Anyone who can write that - while ignoring the inarguable fact that Hamas uses human shields by hiding missiles in homes, schools, and hospitals - is living in a fantasy land of their own creation. Jimmy Carter has been rightfully consigned to the scrap heap of history and, obviously, he deserves to stay there.
Carter has previously complained that Obama isn't interested in taking his advice. ...Perhaps we've finally found something that Obama has gotten right.
