Jimmy Carter: US is more an “oligarchy than a democracy”


Share Button

Jimmy Carter: “It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians…What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.”

…by Jonas E. Alexis

 

Jimmy Carter has recently fleshed out his indictment on US politicians by saying that they have made the country more an “oligarchy than a democracy,” and that is not a good direction. How should we move forward?

Carter said: “Keep the peace, promote human rights and tell the truth.”[1] That indeed is an implicit attack on the Israeli regime and its pawn known as the United States of America. The regime in Tel Aviv and its puppets in the West don’t want peace precisely because peace invariably or logically implies a moral or political law which allows opposing parties to come to a reasonable solution. For them, peace is a frightening thing.

Instead, the regime and its puppets want bloodshed; they want to destroy lives, livelihood, and nations at any cost. This is one reason why Carter said in his 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid:

“Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.”

Throughout his book, Carter condemned the regime for establishing “a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.”

This is again true, and these facts, said Carter,

“are largely unknown in America… For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.”[2]

Carter knows that Israel controls the Congress of the United States, and Congress has no intention of challenging the Israeli regime to abide by international law. Carter’s forceful and cogent attack against the regime and its media in the United States is quite stunning:

“It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.

“What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.”[3]

As far as I know, no US president has ever had the moral and intellectual courage to confront the regime in Tel Aviv like Carter. This is one reason why he has been called an anti-Semite in some quarters.[4]

Thought police Deborah Lipstadt says that Carter has a “Jewish problem.”[5] Carter, argues Lipstadt perversely, “has relied on anti-Semitic stereotypes in defense.”[6] According to Alan Deshowitz, Carter had “an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot” as a friend,[7] therefore that seems to make him an “unredeemable anti-Semite” as well.

These people obviously do not want to deal with facts. They want to defend Israel’s colonization because they think that bringing up crazy charges will somehow diffuse constructive criticism about Israel. How else would Israel be allowed to attack Syria on false pretense? How else would the Pentagon summon crazy ideas in order to continue their support for the so-called Syrian rebels? How else would the United States continue to ask for regime change in Syria? US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said at a White House briefing last Friday:

“We’re not going to be satisfied until we see a strong and stable Syria. And that is not with Assad in place.”[8]

Keeping peace also entails having frank dialogue with nations that have opposing views. The Israeli regime does not want that. They want to use the media to denounce any country they do not like as “state-sponsored terrorism.” Benjamin Netanyahu is a classic example. Back in 2015, he told Congress:

“Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.”[9]

We can ignore this mad man here.

————————————————————–

How would Carter deal with Kim Jung-un? “I would send my top person to Pyongyang immediately, if I didn’t go myself,” he said. “Until we talk to them and treat them with respect – as human beings, which they are – I don’t think we’re going to make any progress.”[10]

That’s the spirit. And this again is a pointed rebuke to the Neoconservatives and pawns like Nikki Haley, who still think that threats are the way to achieve peaceful resolutions. The Weekly Standard has published an article by Dan Blumenthal just a few days ago entitled: “Kim Jong-un Must Go. It’s Time For A Korean Democratic Unification.”[11]

Democratic unification? Did that work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria? When was the last time that the Neocons ever actualized their dream of paradise—in the name of “democracy” and “freedom”?

With respect to the Israeli/Palestine conflict, Trump, said Carter, has been a disaster. He is “practically hopeless. I don’t think Trump or his family members are making any process in that respect.”[12] Benjamin Netanyahu, said Carter, has “no intention at all of having a two-state solution.”[13]

This is indeed true. This is one reason why he is supporting any terrorist group that seeks to destroy his opponent. How else was Israel able to support ISIS in Syria?

[1] “Jimmy Carter says US has become more an ‘oligarchy than a democracy’ in speech critical of Trump,” Telegraph, September 13, 2017.

[2] Jimmy Carter, “Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine,” LA Times, December 8, 2006.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Richard Benkin, “Why Jimmy Carter Really is an Anti-Semite,” Canada Free Press, June 15, 2009; Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, “The Moral Disintegration of Jimmy Carter,” Observer, August 11, 2014.

[5] Deborah Lipstadt, “Jimmy Carter’s Jewish Problem,” Washington Post, January 20, 2007.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Alan Dershowitz, “The Real Jimmy Carter,” FrontPage Magazine, April 27, 2007.

[8] “‘Not satisfied’ till Assad gone: US pushes for regime change as war in Syria winds down,” Russia Today, September 15, 2017.

[9] “The complete transcript of Netanyahu’s address to Congress,” Washington Post, March 3, 2015.

[10] “Jimmy Carter says US has become more an ‘oligarchy than a democracy’ in speech critical of Trump,” Telegraph, September 13, 2017.

[11] Dan Blumenthal, “Kim Jong-un Must Go. It’s Time For A Korean Democratic Unification,” Weekly Standard, September 13, 2017.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.