He appears morally impressive compared to recent Presidents like Obama, Clinton, and Biden. He lived a modest life and did not use his office to enrich himself. To our knowledge, he did not sell out America’s interests to foreign powers. He remained faithful to his wife.
He was personally active in charity, especially his work with Habitat For Humanity.
His personal conduct, for the most part, is admirable. Therefore, we give credit where credit is due.
However, the people elected him to be President, not a compassionate uncle.
In terms of policy, his Presidency was a failure. That was his responsibility; therefore, his failings in this regard must be noted. He bought into the Left-wing climate agenda, appointed liberals to the Federal Courts (Ruth Bader Ginsberg), and presided over terrible inflation.
He did much to promote an energy crisis and help form the prevalent bias against so-called fossil fuels. His famous “malaise speech” suggested Americans should be content with a much lower living standard. He helped develop the idea of the vague notion of “the environment,” which was more important than people as if people are not part of “the environment.”
As an engineer, a graduate of the Naval Academy, and trained in reactor technology, he allowed an ignorant panic to sweep the nation over the events at Three Mile Island. This allowed US nuclear policy to be set by Hollywood (Jane Fonda in the China Syndrome) and set back nuclear power for two generations.
He created the Department of Education. What can we say other than the government has not learned how to improve education.
He gave away the Panama Canal, which has now fallen under the control of China.
Speaking of China, he was the first to extend full diplomatic recognition of the Communist state, beginning the policy of “we will make you rich, and you will become a liberal nation.” Well, we made them rich, we hollowed out our industrial capacity, and China is just as aggressive and totalitarian as they always have been. His policies and those of his successors have not worked out very well.
His conduct of foreign policy was a disaster, giving rise to the militant Islamists in Iran, which have plagued the region and the US ever since the fall of the Shah.
He did, however, host Sadat and Begin in talks that led to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt (Camp David Accords). However, recent events show that Egypt has not honored key elements of that understanding by allowing for the arming of Hamas in Gaza.
After his presidency, he continued to advocate foreign policy recommendations that were damaging to the US.
He promoted the idea of a separate entity called Palestine that is “occupied” by Jews. But “Palestinians” are mostly Arab Jordanians and not distinct people, and the idea of “Palestine” ignores that Jews have lived in the area for thousands of years and are a particular people and religion in the area. Palestinians are genetically, culturally, and religiously not different from other Arabs in the region. They easily could have been assimilated by any number of Arab states but, for cynical political reasons, were left stateless. By this rhetorical trick, Jews, who have lived in Israel for millennia, can become invaders and occupiers of their own land.
Carter has often emphasized the need for a two-state solution regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict and greater U.S. engagement in achieving peace, believing that addressing Palestinian grievances is essential for long-term stability in the region. This insistence on a two-state solution was based on false assumptions. How do you have agreements with someone who wants to kill you and will violate any terms for their quest in doing so?
This false assumption, promoted by Carter, has been the bedrock of failed US policy in the region.
While Carter’s intentions may be rooted in a desire for peace, the perception of bias has had lasting implications for his legacy. His strained relationship with segments of the Jewish community reflects the challenges of navigating deeply entrenched conflicts where historical narratives, identity, and security are profoundly intertwined. Critics argue that Carter’s approach has unintentionally alienated those who might otherwise share his broader vision for peace.
Carter’s 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, marked a turning point in public perception of his stance on Israel and has warped views of the Democrat party to the present day. In the book, Carter criticized Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, comparing them to apartheid in South Africa. This analogy generated outrage among many Israel supporters and Jewish community members. Critics argued that Carter’s terminology was inflammatory, one-sided, and failed to adequately address the complexities of the conflict, including the role of Palestinian leadership and violence against Israeli civilians.
By linking the issue to racism, Carter took the discussion off track, leading to rising anti-Semitism among blacks in the US.
Having traveled both to Israel and twice to apartheid South Africa, we can personally attest that Carter’s comparison is viscously biased. Arab Israelis have full citizenship and even representation in Parliament. They have a standard of living far above their peers in neighboring Arab countries and have complete freedom to practice their religion.
Apartheid South Africa was racially divided, and blacks had little say in government affairs and had to live in segregated areas. They also had a completely different, lower standard of living.
One obvious point is that the Dutch were not native to southern Africa. Jews were in Israel thousands of years before Islam was even founded(610 A.D.) Christians were in the region 600 years before the founding of Islam, and they are under attack as well.
Jews and Christians are either discriminated against in Arab countries or non-existent. On the other hand, Muslims are multiplying rapidly within Israel, causing concern among Jews.
The former president’s framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seemed to align closely with Palestinian narratives, emphasizing Israel’s military occupation and settlement expansion while downplaying Israel’s security concerns. While Carter insisted that his criticism was directed at policies rather than the state of Israel or its people, many saw his rhetoric as contributing to a broader delegitimization of Israel.
The appalling comparison with apartheid has helped fan the flames of anti-Semitism.
Was Carter anti-Jewish or just anti-Israel?
We don’t think disagreeing with the Israeli government is anti-Semitic. However, one sign of anti-Semitism is to require standards of Jews that are applied to no other people. For example, when Jordan massacred militant “Palestinians,” they got a pass. In 1970, the PLO and the Jordanian army fought an open battle for control, and the Jordanian King came down hard on Black September and PLO movements. When Jewish policemen shoot violent demonstrators, is it widely condemned? Why the difference?
Israel is the only state that is supposed to tolerate constant terrorism and rocket assaults and give up land for peace, a peace that never comes. So, those who require Jews to tolerate constant attacks are suggesting Jews should be singled out as a special class of people obligated to accept their own extinction.
In his later years, Carter also met openly with Hamas, always saying he sought “peaceful” solutions. But even at that time, the US government labeled Hamas a terrorist organization. Carter must have known that Hamas was never peaceful, as both its actions and charter made clear. Yet Carter gets a pass because he likes to greet everyone on a Delta flight.
No, someone who singles out Jews, promotes Iranian militants, meets with terrorists, stifles energy production, gives away the Panama Canal, and puts their own country through terrible inflation is not a saint.
He was just a liberal Democrat who conducted himself honorably in his personal life. Save us from fools who, in their personal life, are exemplary.
*****
For more articles like this visit The Prickly Pear.org
