Not surprisingly, he comes out swinging with attacks on the Israelis:
"I think the big change is that the Israeli leaders have decided to abandon the two-state solution."Really? And I guess Netanyahu saying "I endorse the two state solution" three years ago has no bearing on your conclusion? What makes you come to this conclusion, Jim?
"Their policy now is to confiscate Palestinian territory, and they've announced publicly that it the Palestinians have to recognize not just Israel but Israel as a Jewish state, even though 20% of the Israeli community are non-Jews. Netanyahu has also decided that even the Jordan valley [sic] has to be under Israeli control. So, those factors indicate quite clearly that Netanyahu has decided that the two-state solution is not what he wants."I guess Carter forgot that there is no such thing as Palestinian territory, nor has Israel confiscated anything since the Oslo Accords. And maybe he never learned that control over the Jordan Valley was never something that Israel has intended to give up (for better or for worse) even going back to the Oslo Accords.
One month before he was assassinated, Yitzhak Rabin appeared in the Knesset on October 5, 1995 and outlined how he viewed the country’s future borders. He first declared that “Israel will not return to the lines of June 4, 1967″ and then stated that “the security border for defending the State of Israel will be in the Jordan Valley, in the widest sense of that concept.”How quickly inconvenient truths are forgotten, wouldn't you agree? As for the Jewish state thing, Carter can whine about that all he likes. But asking the Palestinians to say a few words (and them refusing, even though it should be a meaningless gesture) doesn't prove that Israel has given up on the two-state solution or that they are "confiscating Palestinian territory."
Next up, it's time to praise the Muslim Brotherhood!
"I've known the Muslim Brotherhood leaders for 20 years. They were persecuted by the Mubarak government, imprisoned and so forth, and now they've gone to the people in an honest, fair and safe election. And, of course, they've prevailed because their candidate became President and they have a majority in Parliament. But they're a very moderate group of Islamists, whereas salafists and others are much more radical, at least judging with Western criteria."If you want a counterpoint to this statement by Carter, I suggest you read a newspaper. Now he's finished talking about Israel, and instead went into the Benghazi thing. But I just wanted to show you one last piece of evidence to show how far out of reality Carter has gone:
"In some Muslim countries, if someone says something derogatory about Islam, they can be convicted of blasphemy. That's obviously obnoxious to a Western observer. But each country has a right - depending on whom the voters elect in democratic elections - to impose or not impose the principles of religious law like the sharia."WHAT.
I don't know what is going through Carter's head, but last time I checked he is an American and was elected to uphold American values. And one of those American values is separation of church and state. Imposing (an interesting choice of words, I might add) religious law onto anybody, even if they think that's what they want is antithetical to everything America stands for.
But because we're talking about Muslim countries (i.e. people who aren't Americans) it's totally fine in Carter's mind to sit back and let religious and sexual minorities be oppressed because "that's their culture and we shouldn't criticize it."
I'm sure Saudi Arabia is getting their money worth from him.