Jimmy in Geneva

Recently, when celebrating the signing of the “Geneva Accord,” former U.S. president Jimmy Carter once again demonstrated the skills that earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. His speech was far tougher on Israel – and the United States – than it was on the Palestinians. Unfortunately, beating up your natural allies and buttering up democracy’s enemies passes for courage in Carter’s amoral universe – and has earned him glory worldwide.

Since leaving the White House in 1981, dialoguing with dictators has become his specialty. His turn-the-other-cheek diplomacy emphasizes reaching out to the world’s outlaws – from North Korea to Syria, from Somali warlord Mohammad Farah Aidid to his buddy, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

For Carter, no autocrat is too heinous to woo. In his zeal to show tolerance for the terrible, Carter often disdains democrats. Such moral blindness masquerading as evenhandedness is his defining diplomatic tool. But it’s not only morally questionable, it’s counterproductive. Rationalizing terror and demonizing settlements only feeds Israeli insecurity and makes peace more elusive.

The most basic tenet in negotiation is that people compromise when they feel comfortable. A good mediator understands both sides’ hopes and fears and learns how to satisfy enough of each side’s desires without exacerbating insecurities.

Carter carefully soothed the Palestinians. He defined the conflict’s “most critical issues” as a moderate Palestinian would, mentioning “border delineations, Israeli settlements, the excessive occupation of Palestinian lands, the future of Jerusalem and its holy places, and the extremely troubling question of Palestinian refugees.”

Most Israelis would add terrorism and the Arab desire to exterminate Israel to that list, but Carter rationalized Palestinian violence while limiting responsibility for it by saying: “There are continuing violent attacks by Palestinian terrorist groups and increasingly harsh reprisals from Israel.” That is, Israel the country is bad, but only Palestinian renegades are problematic.

Carter also excoriated Israel for “build[ing] an enormous barrier wall on Palestinian land” and ended his speech with two paragraphs attacking settlements – treating them as the main obstacle to peace – while devoting only two lines to the Palestinian need to “renounce violence,” despite their decision to derail Oslo by turning away from negotiation and toward terror.

Carter also failed to address the other major Israeli insecurity and the Geneva Accord’s greatest weakness. Most Israelis, who have consistently been willing to sacrifice land for peace, don’t understand why this plan will work if Palestinians rejected compromise in 2000. Nevertheless, ignoring Arafat’s post-Oslo campaign of incitement against Israel, Jews, and Zionism and oblivious to suicide bombs that killed hundreds of Israelis even before Arafat began his war against Oslo, Carter celebrated the days “after the Oslo agreement of 1993, and during and after the Palestinian elections of 1996” as “times when moderate leadership and sound judgment prevailed.”

Carter also burnished his credentials as Europe’s favourite American by claiming “the lack of real effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a primary source of anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and a major incentive for terrorist activity.” Yet, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden made it clear in his 1998 fatwa declaring war on America that he cared more about the loss of Spain in 1492 to the “Crusaders” – meaning Christians like Carter – than about the loss of Palestine 50 years ago.

Tragically, Carter missed an important opportunity in Geneva. Having spent so much time building credibility with the Palestinians, he could have confronted them with uncomfortable truths and pushed for a true peace. Instead, he preferred to preserve his popularity in the Arab world.

Carter remains a shrewd politician and knows his constituency well. It includes the perverse essayist in the Montreal Gazette who recently reached back to Baruch Goldstein’s murder of 29 Muslims in 1994 – roundly condemned by most Jews – to explain that “the Istanbul bombers” of two synagogues “have evened the score at last.”

Carter’s constituency also includes suburbanites who live in gated communities to protect their possessions but begrudge Israelis a security fence to protect their lives. It includes Canadian leaders who get angrier at Israel for warning about threats than they do at Hamas recruits planning to export their violence to North America. It includes Americans and Canadians who would scoff at uniting their own countries, but demand that Israelis and Palestinians ignore their respective national dreams to live in an absurd one-state entity.

Sadly, today’s topsy-turvy world offers no Nobel Prize for truth-telling and few kudos to democracy’s defenders. Carter the peacemaker should know what Israelis have tragically learned – that only honesty, clarity, and mutual respect can bring a true peace.