All the Carter Center will confirm is that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter will lead a study mission to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan April 13-21, 2008, as part of the Carter Center's ongoing effort to support peace, democracy, and human rights in the region.
So far this has been met with criticism from a wide variety of sources both left and right.
The US state department has urged Carter not to violate foreign policy by meeting Hamas's political leader.
Condoleezza Rice has criticised the reported plans.
According to his campaign "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements..."
Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Hamas is a terrorist organization who is responsible for the deaths of countless innocents and almost daily rocket attacks against Israel, Hillary respects former President Carter but disagrees with his decision."
According to an anonymous Israeli official, "Israel is very angry about the idea of former President Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Syria next week."
First let me recognize and praise President Carter's humanitarian and international electoral work.
In the field of international diplomacy he seems to have a much more mixed record. President Carter has often been accused of meddling in affairs of state, operating against the interests and policies of our nation.
It is US policy to isolate Hamas, an organization, reasonably placed, on the state departments list of terrorist organizations. Carter's plans to meet with the leader of Hamas would seem counter-productive to that stated goal.
Former President Carter is a member of the Elders and this was originally supposed to be a visit by Carter, Nelson Mandela, and Kofi Annan (all members of the Elders), but according to the Carter Center the others have decided "that the timing was wrong".
For a look at a real interesting curiosity (I haven't decided what I think about this yet), go to:
http://www.theelders.org/elders/
It is curious that despite widespread advice against this meeting Carter continues to persist with his plans.
I would urge President Carter to reconsider and not to meet with Khaled Mashaal.
However, and I have poked around a bit doing some research, I can find no legitimate reason to actually stop him. He may be misguided and completely off-base, but he has the right to travel to Syria and meet with whoever he pleases as a private citizen, so long as he doesn't provide financial or material aid to the organization it all seems completely legal.
The administration should publicly and loudly avow that President Carter is neither a representative of the US government nor can he speak as such.
Finntann
7 comments:
According to the Carter Library website (still),"Carter committed himself to the safe return of the hostages while protecting America's interests and prestige ... The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter's actions brought freedom for the hostages (in Iran for 444 days) with America's honor preserved." Now that's an interesting way of describing nothing...
On the other hand, I'm happy to see you uphold Carter's right to meddle in the affairs of another nation while lambasting Sir Elton John for doing the same. :)
Sir Elton John is taking an active involvment in the US election. President Carter is going to Syria to talk with Hamas with the goal of achieving peace between them and Israel. I think there is a difference.
Oh... and I forgot to mention... I thought it was the mere election of my favorite president Ronald Reagan that got the hostages freed.I once had the opportunity to talk with a former hostage and as he informed me "the Iranians were scared shitless of Ronald Reagan." Pardon my French, but it's a direct quote.
I'm not defending Hamas, but they are the elected leaders of the Palestinian Authority, so I'm not sure that couldn't be considered 'taking an active involvement". Would you feel better if Elton John went to Baghdad "with the goal of achieving peace" Yikes.
No, no. I agree with you, not the Carter Library. Hey, I was awake and alert in 1979. I'm willing to bet only Carter thinks he freed the hostages through patient diplomacy-- as I said, that's an interesting (perhaps even delusional) way of describing doing nothing.
I fail to see how you can equate being a foreigner and campaigning for an American political candidate with being a foreigner and discussing peace with an elected government. I see one as meddling and the other as diplomacy...albeit not sanctioned by the government.
I think "The Elders" sounds scary. Maybe I could start a conspiracy theory about them... I wonder if they would let George Bush join once he's out of office.
I think Mr. Carter lost some of his credibility with his overly harsh criticism of President Bush. I also personally think he was duped by Chavez's election authority in Venezuela. His one saving grace is that because of him no one can call President Bush the worse president ever.
Post a Comment