Alan Dershowitz: Carter's ISIS Stand Is Hypocritical
Friday, 10 Oct 2014 12:27 PM
Suddenly Jimmy Carter has become a hawk. Sitting in the comfort of his retirement, he has criticized President Obama for not doing enough to stop ISIS. This from the man who constantly berates Israel for doing too much to stop Hamas — which is Israel's ISIS on its border.
Carter has said that we cannot destroy ISIS without boots on the ground, having criticized Israel for sending soldiers into Gaza to destroy the terror tunnels that directly endangered thousands of Israeli civilians.
The very idea that former President Carter, who presided over a foreign policy that enabled Iran to overthrow the Shah and substitute the first radical Islamic terrorist regime, would say that President Obama did not do enough to prevent the growth of ISIS would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.
There is a simple explanation for Carter's doublestandard . He hates Israel, he despises the Israeli government, he has never encountered an Israeli prime minister he has liked, and until ISIS, he never met a terrorist leader he didn't like. He loved Yassir Arafat, who he advised to reject the two-state solution offered to the Palestinians by former President Bill Clinton and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000-2001.
He regarded the murderous Hamas terrorists as a legitimate political party. He has been soft on Iranian terrorism. But suddenly, when he has an opportunity to criticize a sitting president, he accuses President Obama of being too soft on ISIS. At the same time, he criticizes the president for employing drone strikes against terrorists, especially those Americans who have committed treason by taking up arms against the United States. Carter's hypocrisy is unbounded. So is his cupidity.
Carter has long been a shill for the oil-rich Arab nations of the Gulf. His foundations have received fortunes of money from some of the most oppressive Arab regimes. These regimes, such as Qatar, support the terrorists who attack Israel. So Carter supports them, too. But they oppose ISIS because ISIS threatens them, so Carter also opposes ISIS, because his flow of money would be interrupted by an ISIS takeover from oil-rich nations.
If you want to predict how Jimmy Carter will come down on any issue, there are two basic rules. Rule One: Follow the money. Carter's heart seems to be influenced by his wallet. When Saudi Arabia began to infuse large amounts ofoil money into the Carter Center, suddenly the Carter Center stopped reporting on massive human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. That pattern persists with regard to other countries as well.
Rule Two: Whichever side Israel is on, Carter will be on the other. While Carter claims to be a liberal, his liberalism stops at the Israeli border. He supports Hamas, which represses women, expels Christians, murders gays, denies any semblance of civil liberties, shoots dissenters, and generally suppresses all human rights.
Israel, on the other hand, elects women to high positions in government, has had gays in the military for a long time, affordscomplete equality to Christians and Muslims, has one of the best judicial systems in the world, and is a vibrant democracy. Yet Carter always seems to come down on the side of Hamas rather than Israel.
Any public figure whoseactions are so easily predictable, based on money and hatred, should not be taken seriously in the court of public opinion. Yet Carter has been honored by a Nobel Peace Prize, though he has blood on his hands for having advised Arafat against making peace with Israel. He has also repeatedly undercut American foreign policy by publicly criticizing sitting presidents and supporting and advising America's enemies. His most recent foray into foreign policy is just another example of a failed president who was unelected by the people, second guessing the person who was elected.
If only Carter, when he was president, had followed his current advice and implemented a more muscular foreign policy against nascent Islamic extremism, we would not be in the mess we are in now. But Carter was soft on Ayatollah Khomeini and his revolutionary thugs until they took American diplomats hostage. When he finally tried to rescue them, the mission failed. He should hardly be lecturing the current administration about how to be tough on Islamic terrorists.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School. His latest book is an e-book entitled: "Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel’s Just War against Hamas."
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.Carter has said that we cannot destroy ISIS without boots on the ground, having criticized Israel for sending soldiers into Gaza to destroy the terror tunnels that directly endangered thousands of Israeli civilians.
The very idea that former President Carter, who presided over a foreign policy that enabled Iran to overthrow the Shah and substitute the first radical Islamic terrorist regime, would say that President Obama did not do enough to prevent the growth of ISIS would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.
There is a simple explanation for Carter's double
He regarded the murderous Hamas terrorists as a legitimate political party. He has been soft on Iranian terrorism. But suddenly, when he has an opportunity to criticize a sitting president, he accuses President Obama of being too soft on ISIS. At the same time, he criticizes the president for employing drone strikes against terrorists, especially those Americans who have committed treason by taking up arms against the United States. Carter's hypocrisy is unbounded. So is his cupidity.
Carter has long been a shill for the oil-rich Arab nations of the Gulf. His foundations have received fortunes of money from some of the most oppressive Arab regimes. These regimes, such as Qatar, support the terrorists who attack Israel. So Carter supports them, too. But they oppose ISIS because ISIS threatens them, so Carter also opposes ISIS, because his flow of money would be interrupted by an ISIS takeover from oil-rich nations.
If you want to predict how Jimmy Carter will come down on any issue, there are two basic rules. Rule One: Follow the money. Carter's heart seems to be influenced by his wallet. When Saudi Arabia began to infuse large amounts of
Israel, on the other hand, elects women to high positions in government, has had gays in the military for a long time, affords
Any public figure whose
If only Carter, when he was president, had followed his current advice and implemented a more muscular foreign policy against nascent Islamic extremism, we would not be in the mess we are in now. But Carter was soft on Ayatollah Khomeini and his revolutionary thugs until they took American diplomats hostage. When he finally tried to rescue them, the mission failed. He should hardly be lecturing the current administration about how to be tough on Islamic terrorists.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School. His latest book is an e-book entitled: "Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel’s Just War against Hamas."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.