Jimmy Carter’s whine in the IHT about not penalizing the palestinians for voting in Hamas got me to wondering again how low Jimmah can go. So I went over to the Carter Center website to read some of his previous work about Israel, when lo and behold — look what I found:
Rushdie’s Book Is An Insult
By Jimmy Carter
5 Mar 1989This op-ed originally appeared in The New York Times, March 5, 1989.
In preparation for the Middle East negotiations that led up to Camp David and the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, I tried to learn as much as possible about the Moslem faith.
Anwar el-Sadat, Menachem Begin and I had several talks about our common religious beliefs, and Sadat emphasized the reverence that Moslems have for Jesus and the Old Testament Prophets. Although Begin rarely commented himself, there is little doubt that these expressions of good will helped us find common ground in political matters.
Notice how he assumes what Begin thought, even though Begin never said any such thing. Funny how Begin’s thoughts match exactly what Carter wants them to match.
Later, when American hostages were held in Iran, I learned more about the fundamentalist beliefs that separated many Iranians from most other Moslems.
Yes, but he learned the wrong lesson. We learned about the dangers of Muslim fanaticism. Jimmah? Here’s what he got out of it:
Although more difficult to comprehend, their seemingly radical statements and actions are obviously sincere. The melding of fervent religious faith and patriotism during the long war with Iraq has created an environment that has contributed to the furor caused by Salman Rushdie’s book, ”The Satanic Verses.”
Okay, you got that? Their “radical” statements (calling for the author’s death) are sincere. And this means what, exactly? That if you’re sincere, it’s okay to call for someone’s death? It was the war with Iraq that made Iran issue the death sentence. Because the war, melded with religious faith, did, uh, I’m not sure.
A negative response among Christians resulted from Martin Scorsese’s film, ”The Last Temptation of Christ.” Although most of us were willing to honor First Amendment rights and let the fantasy be shown, the sacreligious scenes were still distressing to me and many others who share my faith. There is little doubt that the movie producers and Scorsese, a professed Christian, anticipated adverse public reactions and capitalized on them.
In the above paragraph, Jimmy Carter compares verbal and physical protests by Christians — peaceful protests, I might add, in which exactly zero people were hurt or killed — with the issuance of a fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie’s death over a book he wrote. But here’s where Jimmy gets even worse:
”The Satanic Verses” goes much further in vilifying the Prophet Mohammed and defaming the Holy Koran. The author, a well-versed analyst of Moslem beliefs, must have anticipated a horrified reaction throughout the Islamic world.
Right there, Carter placed the blame squarely on Rushdie’s shoulders. He knew what would happen if he wrote a book like this. Jimmy Carter, uber-liberal, champion of women’s rights and the underdog, is blaming the victim for causing his own death sentence. I wonder if he also believes that Theo van Gogh deserved death for “blaspheming” Islam.
The death sentence proclaimed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, however, was an abhorrent response, surely surprising even to Rushdie. It is our duty to condemn the threat of murder, to protect the author’s life and to honor Western rights of publication and distribution.
I sense a “but” coming on.
At the same time, we should be sensitive to the concern and anger that prevails even among the more moderate Moslems.
You see? Salman Rushdie has every right to write what he wants, BUT he should know there will be consequences. But wait. It gets worse.
Ayatollah Khomeini’s offer of paradise to Rushdie’s assassin has caused writers and public officials in Western nations to become almost exclusively preoccupied with the author’s rights.
Gee. I don’t understand why Western nations would jump to the fore when a country calls for the death of a foreign national on the basis of words he has written in a novel. It was banned in India, South Africa, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Qatar. Oh, and Khomeini offered a $3 million bounty. And after Carter’s words were penned:
In 1991, Rushdie’s Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed at the university where he taught in Tsukuba, Ibaraki, north of Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie’s Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven people died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was burnt down by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie’s Turkish translator.
Before Carter’s column was written,
five people were shot and killed by the police during a protest outside the British consulate in Bombay. Several other people died in Egypt and elsewhere. Muslim communities throughout the world held public rallies in which copies of the book were burned.
But yes, the Western world was far too preoccupied with the Rushdie case. He continues:
While Rushdie’s First Amendment freedoms are important, we have tended to promote him and his book with little acknowledgment that it is a direct insult to those millions of Moslems whose sacred beliefs have been violated and are suffering in restrained silence the added embarrassment of the Ayatollah’s irresponsibility.
This is the kind of intercultural wound that is difficult to heal. Western leaders should make it clear that in protecting Rushdie’s life and civil rights, there is no endorsement of an insult to the sacred beliefs of our Moslem friends.
To sever diplomatic relations with Iran over this altercation is an overreaction that could be quite costly in future years. Tactful public statements and private discussions could still defuse this explosive situation.
We must remember that Iranian and other fundamentalists are not the only Moslems involved. Around the world there are millions of others who are waiting for a thoughtful and constructive response to their concerns.
Once again, Carter’s inerring ability to be, well, wrong, comes into play. There was never any chance of ratcheting down the fatwa. In fact, successive regimes over the years have supported Khomeini’s original decree.
In 1999, an Iranian foundation placed a $2.8 million bounty on Rushdie’s life, and in February 2003, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards reiterated the call for the assassination of Rushdie. As reported by the Sunday Herald, “Ayatollah Hassan Saneii, head of the semi-official Khordad Foundation that has placed a $2.8 million bounty on Rushdie’s head, was quoted by the Jomhuri Islami newspaper as saying that his foundation would now pay $3 million to anyone who kills Rushdie.” [3]
In early 2005, Khomeini’s fatwa against Rushdie was reaffirmed by Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwa on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it.
Take a look at this year’s model.
On February 14, 1989, Khomeini issued a fatwa calling on all Muslims to kill Rushdie for writing the controversial novel The Satanic Verses.
In a statement carried by the official news agency, the government-run body Martyrs Foundation announced, “The fatwa by Imam Khomeini in regards to the apostate Salman Rushdie will be in effect foreverâ€.
“The book The Satanic Verses was the incarnation of the satanic plots of the World Arrogance (United States) and the occupying Zionists which appeared through the sleeves of this apostateâ€, the statement said.
He was wrong about Iran. He was wrong about the Soviet Union. He was wrong about Salman Rushdie. Why is it, then, that we should believe anything he has to say about anything, let alone the situation in Israel? Because he’s an ex-President?
Not working for me. Jimmy Carter is a has-been that should have been a never-was, and would have been, if Gerald Ford hadn’t pardoned Richard Nixon. That’s how he lost my vote.
I wonder what the world would be like today if Ford had been in office when the Iranian “students” took over the U.S. embassy.
Electing Jimmy Carter President of the United States was as close as the American people have ever come to picking a name out of the phone book and giving him the job.
This man should be an embarrassment to any loyal American.
However, the sad fact is that many of his fellow Democrats (and some Republicans) are just recognizing the Islamic threat to the West.
Except folks like John Kerry call it “nuance.”
Carter’s backers would not have let anything be done even if Dhimmi had not been in office. He probably is trying to forget that it was his micromangement that messed up the rescue mission to begin with.
Unfortunately, the Jackass Party of that time controlled Congress and emasculated the intel and defense establishments. In fact, JC Himself was considered a relatively conservative Jackass. So, who knows whether Ford would have allowed the dying Shah (a bloody dictator in his own right)to shoot and bribe mullahs. Once the “human rights” angle was played, the hostages were taken, and human rights in Iran have been steadily winnowed away.
chsw
I wonder if Carter bothered to find out a wee bit more about the supposed respect of Muslims for Jesus? Their view is that he was teaching Islam and the stupid Christians and Jews didn’t understand it, or deliberately corrupted his teachings. Also the Muslims hold that Jesus did not die on the cross. Since this is the central event of Christianity, and Jesus’ death is what atones for mankind’s sins, that is tantamount to saying Christianity is a load of superstitious garbage. Some respect.
One thing that always should be kept in mind is that Carter is absolutely a dyed-in-the-wool fanatic antisemitic hatemonger. I saw him once in an interview with Bill Moyers when he let the mask drop completely and let fly.
First he berated American Jews for not being more sympathetic to the Palestinians. That was bad enough, but then it got worse, much worse. He began sarcastically referring to Jews as the “Chosen People”, his voice dripping with venom and contempt. I couldn’t believe I was hearing this from a former President of the United States. Louis Farrakhan or David Duke would have done a better job of concealing their bigotry.
So when Carter supports Hamas, it’s not because he’s a “dhimmi” or an “idiotarian”. It’s not because he is naive or misguided. He knows full well that he’s supporting a group whose purpose is to threaten the lives of Jews everywhere.
Is this the same military genius who decided that he could invade Iran using only 8 helicopters?
And the same intellectual giant who forgot that there is “a lot of sand” in the Iranian desert?
And the same Economic wizard who gave us the highest inflation rate in US history?
And people pay attention to him because….?