Can I help?
Ace FoPo reporter Laura Rozen has an item about Jimmy Carter and the relationship between the Obama administration and Hamas. It's interesting stuff, especially as Middle East Envoy George Mitchell warily explores the potential for new peace negotiations, but I want to walk back the sentiments expressed in this paragraph:
"Just like with President Clinton, Carter is becoming a huge problem and a growing concern for Obama," a Washington Middle East hand said. "They are very pissed with him."
I don't get it. The main evidence for this point is that Carter may ask Obama to take Hamas off the terrorist list, and Obama will repeat his position on that front. How is that a "huge problem"? Carter has been gallivanting all over the world for decades now, making his points about foreign policy. No one thinks he represents the United States government any more, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that he would continue his public work. Especially compared to the Clinton years, when Carter eagerly thrust himself into government policy-making, the current situation shouldn't trouble the Obama administration at all; at worst, he's a distraction. The idea that his conversations with Hamas give terrorists legitimacy is silly. Hamas has legitimacy -- they've won elections, control territory, have the capability to perform terrorist attacks and military actions. They don't need to talk to Jimmy Carter to have influence.
If, as Laura's report suggests, Carter is urging Hamas to accept various preconditions surrounding their participation in the peace process, then he's probably not a problem but a benefit. Figure if you're a Palestinian nationalist who has seen the former president strenuously argue on your behalf on the international stage for years, you might listen when he tells you now is the time to recognize Israel and forswear violence. And if his main message is that Hamas and Fatah need to reconcile in order to move toward a Palestinian state, well, that's kind of conventional wisdom, isn't it?
-- Tim Fernholz
