Carter's Comfort for Hamas

Michael Kraft

Former President Jimmy Carter’s plans to meet with a major Hamas leader do not technically violate U.S. policy against negotiating with terrorists, but they counter the principle and may well undermine his professed desire to support Middle East Peace efforts. AIt is long standing U.S policy not to negotiate with terrorists. There are nuances to the policy; it does not preclude contacts and talks. But the bottom line has been that terrorists should not be rewarded for their criminal actions, such as taking hostages. True, the policy was violated by the Reagan Administration when NSC staffer Ollie North spear-headed the secretive effort to trade TOW anti-tank missiles for Americans kidnapped by Lebanese terrorists during the 1980’s.

Carter, of course, is no longer in a position to officially negotiate for the U.S. government. Nor he is carrying water for the Bush Administration. Indeed the State Department says it has advised him at least twice against the planned meeting in Damascus with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

Following Carter's television interview Sunday in which the former president said he was ”quite at ease” with his planned meeting, National Security Advisor Steven Hadley responded:“The State Department made it clear we think it is not useful for people to be running to Hamas at this point and having meetings.”

In his ABC Television interview from Nepal where we was observing the elections there, Carter said his goal was to “support fully the peace efforts in the Middle East.

But Hamas is a terrorist organization that conducts premeditated politically motivated violence deliberately targeted against non-combatants (the definition used by the State Department which has officially designated Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization, making it illegal for American residents to provide it with material support.) Furthermore, despite repeated public and behind-the scenes efforts to persuade the groups to change its stance, Hamas refuses to renounce terrorism and its policy calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Along with its continued incitement against Israel and Jews as “pigs and monkeys” in its media, Hamas engages in an extensive military campaign of firing rockets and mortars from Gaza at civilian targets in Israel even though Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza strip. It continues to smuggle long range Iranian-missiles through tunnels originating in Egypt in order to supplement the relatively crude home made rockets. There is every reason to believe that it would use a ceasefire to continue building up it its arsenal in an effort to provoke an even bloodier conflict.

For a high profile person like Carter to publicly meet with Hamas leader Mashaal at this stage only encourages Hamas to believe that if it remains steadfast in its “resistance” and rhetoric, the West will try to make deals or concessions without Hamas having to yield on its support for terrorism and opposition to Israel’s existence. And why should Hamas expect anything but "understanding from a man who writes a book that so blatantly and erroneously tries to pin the “Apartheid” label on Israel?

Carter tried to justify his plans by saying that he has met with Hamas before. But relatively low profile meetings before Hamas staged its coup against the Palestinian authority and launched large scale rocket attacks against Israel and continued to build up- its arsenal are in a different category.

Whether or not Western officials or even Israelis think that eventually they will have to talk to Hamas, is beside the point. Cautious private low-key-talks through intermediaries are different than a high-profile visit that will just provide a propaganda platform for one of the leading Palestinian rejectionists.

Carter’s well publicized plans amount to a reward given to terrorists in advance without any negotiations.

I was in the State Department Counterterrorism office during the Lebanon hostage crisis. Carter’s actions remind me only of Jesse Jackson’s publicity grabbing efforts to “help” obtain the release of American hostages in Lebanon whenever Iran and Hezbollah decided let one go. Those terrorists, who were trying to force the release of their relatives imprisoned in Kuwait for attacks on Kuwait installations and the U.S and French embassies during the Iran-Iraq war, gained a propaganda platform. Jackson got some publicity, and the terrorists seized another hostage to replenish their “hostage bank.” It was clear that the decisions were made by the hostage takers and their Iranian backers not any high profile publicity seeker that they decided to let become the escort.

Carter’s actions are also reminiscent of the European Union’s actions in pumping hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars into Arafat’s PLO “to help the Palestinians” without insisting on strict accountability to minimize the corruption. The widespread corruption in Fatah, fed in part by at the EU money, was a major reasons that Gazan voters reacted against Fatah and Hamas won the Parliamentary elections in January 2005. Thus, well meaning but foolishly indulgent attitudes helped lead to the situation that Gaza is in today.

A high profile meeting between Carter and the Hamas commander-in-chief for death and destruction in the Israel-Palestinian conflict will likely prolong and exacerbate it, rather than help the peace process.