Carter enemy of peace - By Ben-Dror Yemini

Carter enemy of peace

By Ben-Dror Yemini
Maariv
September 8, 2009

Like all "peace activists", the former president engages in revilement against Israel, which feeds Palestinian rejectionism

Israel has become a permanent stop in the travels of the former president of USA Jimmy Carter. It transpires that his approach to Israel is special. Two weeks ago he visited in Israel, this time in a special delegation of the Elders - the Elders of the world's tribe. As soon as he returned to the United States, he published an anti-Israel article in the Washington Post. In this article, Carter mentions the Hanun family, "who were evicted from the house when they had lived in East Jerusalem for 65 years". Really? In fact, the building belonged to Jews who were banished from Jerusalem during the War of Independence. The Jewish ownership of the house is not in doubt, and goes back to the year 1875. A Star of David is etched on at least one of the old structures there. The Hanun family however were not there 65 years ago. They are refugee family from Haifa. (By the way, Haifa Arabs were not banished but left voluntarily) Together with several other families, they were housed in the building in 1956 by the Jordanian authorities. The owners of the property petitioned to realize their property rights. Carter's article mentions not a word of the background.

In Carter's state, Atlanta, thousands of residents have been evicted from their homes because they had no money for mortgage repayments. The rights of the Smith family, who were thrown onto the street in Atlanta, are far more well-based than the rights of the Hanun family. But Carter is not looking for justice; he is seeking to revile.

Criticism of the eviction of the Hanun family can well take the form of justified criticism. Even if the eviction was justified, from the legal aspect, there is room for political criticism. But this is on the condition that if Carter wishes to deprive Jews of property rights, he must clearly state that Palestinians have no right to reclaim abandoned property either. In fact, the property that was confiscated from Jews in Arab countries as a result of legislation, pressure, persecution, flight and banishment exceeds the value of the property that was confiscated as the result of the (self-imposed) exile and banishment of the Palestinians. But there is one difference: The Palestinians suffered (self-imposed) exile and banishment because of a declaration of a war of annihilation against the Jewish state that had barely come into existence. The Jews in Arab countries suffered a similar fate - of banishment and confiscation of property - even though they had not declared war on Arab countries. So whose rights are greater?

Did Carter ever tell the Palestinians of this fundamental truth? We know the answer. Like other "peace activists", he relates to the Arabs as a whole and the Palestinians in particular as if they were retarded children. They must not be told the truth. They must not be told that if they are to have rights, then both Jews and Arabs must have these rights as well. And if not, neither do Jews nor Arabs have any rights. He does not tell them that in those years, the 1940s, tens of millions of people suffered the harsh experience of population exchanges, and there is no reason why the Palestinians, and only them, should have "the right of return". He does not tell on that more Jews fled Arab countries than the number of Palestinians who fled or were exiled from Israel.

It is quite legitimate to criticize Israel with respect to the settlement enterprise. Such criticism is sometimes justified. But Carter, like thousands of other "peace activists", is not bringing peace nearer. Their demonization of Israel is strengthening the position of peace rejectionists. Appearing in the same newspaper after all - the Washington Post - Was Abu Mazen's position on May 29. He stubbornly insisted on demands, which quite clearly imply objection to the existence of Israel. Officially of course, he naturally agrees to a two-state solution, but on condition that one of the states is a Palestinian state and that the other is Palestinian as a result of the realization of the right of return. He received an amazing offer from (former Israel Prime Minister) Olmert, which included the evacuation of 97% of the territories, but rejected it outright. Did Carter issue an announcement condemning Abu Mazen? We all know the answer.

Carter published an Israel-bashing article; one of many. Instead of acting as a critical but honest broker, Carter is becoming part of the incitement campaign against the State of Israel. He has succeeded in achieving success in other regions. For some reason, when he broaches the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he loses his sense of fairness and balance. This does not contribute to the advancement of peace. This is Carter's contribution to strengthening Palestinian rejectionism and making the chances of peace ever more distant.