Mourning For Ethics

Jimmy Carter was once synonymous with an uncompromising commitment to principles of democracy, human rights and peace. Whether or not one agreed with his tactics or approach, there was never a question about Carter's sincerity or his unwavering faith in humanity and the standards he held himself to.

The preceding ideas do not identify a man who expresses the role of Israel in conflict with the Palestinians as "Apartheid." How quickly did former President Carter forget the celebrations by fanatics in the streets of Gaza and Ramallah, while our genuine and sincere ally was dispatching their terror response team before the towers turned to dust in the streets of lower Manhattan.

A man, a leader and a peacemaker, has shown his back to the ideals he once swore to uphold as President. Carter appears to have surrendered the integrity which was once his trademark and greatest quality. Even Carter's detractors were unable to dismiss his credibility as a force for decency and honor in the world.

About ten years ago, some large flaws began to appear in Carter's integrity, from his sanction of the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to his budding relationships with Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe. At the time there was room for accepting Carter as a dignitary with the objective of furthering America's image at home and abroad, owing to his connection with Habitat for Humanity and pivotal role (with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias) in the Central American Peace Process.

It is telling that during a joint interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, even his former Vice-President Walter Mondale expressed reservation concerning Carter's recent book. Vice-President Mondale showed great grace and tact, deferring specific commentary until he had the opportunity to articulate his concerns to Mr. Carter in private. Mondale revealed the quality of man that he is, and the continuing level of reason that he brought to the discourse.

To equate the issues of Palestinian statehood with Apartheid diminishes the value of the long struggle of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress to bring justice and human rights to a long-oppressed majority in South Africa. There is no relationship between a fundamentally peaceful movement (in South Africa) and a militant Intifada.

There has been, from the outset, recognition and an atmosphere of protection for the rights of white South Africans. While there have been instances of retribution in South Africa, the transition to Majority Government cannot be characterized as a systematic process designed to abase a population which had abused its authority for so long.

In contrast, the Palestinians have relied solely upon violence as their bargaining chip. No concession has been made for the Israeli right to exist peaceably. Should Israel take steps to defend herself from military operations undertaken with the tacit economic support of nations such as Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Israel is accused of tyranny.

Hamas and Fatah are not friends of democracy, peace, nor human rights. As so many in America have stated eloquently, the only people who would survive nonviolence are the Palestinians. Were Israel to unilaterally demilitarize on Monday, Israel would cease to exist by Friday.

The question as it exists for Palestinian statehood is that such a condition depends upon Palestinian willingness to bring statehood. Intifada is not only apart from a path to statehood, it is an obstacle the size of the Pacific Ocean. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Junior, and Nelson Mandela succeeded through nonviolence and acceptance that coexistence is fundamental.

A people cannot be seen as human if they deny the humanity of their neighbors. Stateless people are not awarded an existence as a nation in the modern world by virtue of espousing an ideology of hatred and retaliation. Sometimes people, such as the Kurds and the Tibetians, are deserving of self-determination and fulfill their obligations as peaceable nations in a much broader context of oppression than the Palestinians face. Yet these worthy and dignified peoples are denied repeatedly.

Carter, as a native of Georgia, should have a better understanding of the devastation that occurs when a nation divides upon itself violently, and a people refuses to accede to even the most basic recognition of human existence for some part of the population. Atlanta burned in 1864 as southerners reacted violently to the will of the broader nation, and exactly 100 years later the same horror revisited the Deep South during the nonviolent Civil Rights movement.

The success of Civil Rights in the 1960s, or India in the 1940s, or South Africa in the 1980s owes everything to nonviolent perseverance. Israel's only option is to contain a violent threat to her existence that disavows the recognition of that right. Until Palestinians embrace Israel's right to exist and decide for themselves that self-determination cannot come about without peaceful action on their part, nothing can change.

The time has come to acknowledge the tremendous restraint that Israel has shown to Palestinians who have chosen to wreak havoc upon civilians of both populations. To contain a bellicose group is a rational and responsible action of a threatened nation. Until Palestinians desist from wanton action and come to peaceful existence with the Jewish state, Israel has no choice but to contain the Palestinians.

It is regrettable that Jimmy Carter, a man who established himself as a peacemaker, has chosen a path that puts him at odds with the very ideals that he once brought to the table. The violent action of Palestinians has brought about the current situation, and only Palestinians can bring the change that ends containment and confinement.

The Palestinians can outlaw Hamas and Fatah more quickly than Israel can. Individual Palestinians can choose a path of nonviolence. Israel has elected to demonstrate the restraint so often denied to Jewish populations, and coexist with her neighbors as long as those neighbors do not take steps to attack.

Reason is on the side of the Jewish state. Israel has never committed an unprovoked atack upon a sovereign neighbor, and has taken steps to find peaceful relationships with the hostile states surrounding her. The Palestinians have failed to govern themselves ethically or peacefully, with infighting as rampant as terrorism against Israel.

Tragically, the Palestinians need the old Jimmy Carter; his integrity; his commitment to peace and human rights; his decency...and he is nowhere to be found.