Jimmy Carter’s presidency has always been known for two things – economic malaise and losing Iran. Now he can add a third achievement to that dismal legacy – losing Egypt.
Carter has always taken great pride in the fact that he was the midwife at the birth of the Camp David Accords, which were signed by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat on September 17, 1978.
Now it turns out that Carter’s proudest achievement is just as disastrous as his other achievements.
The Jerusalem Post has the pathetic particulars:
“After Camp David, all the Arab world sees that we are no longer a leader. Camp David made us a slave”
Like many at Tahir square on Tuesday night, 26-year-old Mohammed Salama of Cairo spoke of an eagerness for Egypt to shelve its nearly three decade old peace agreement with Israel, but insisted he does not want the country to go to war with Israel. In his hands he held a sign reading in Arabic “Netanyahu is worried about Mubarak”, which he said he wrote because “this is my country and my leader, I don’t want him to care about Israel, only about my country.”
… Salama’s friend, Hazan Ahmed, 29, said the years of peace with Israel are tinged with the sting of humiliation, and that Egyptians still feel they’re country is not completely free of the Israeli occupation of the Sinai which ended under Camp David.
“The Egyptian army can’t enter Sinai, we feel that it is still Israel. There are Israeli people there all the time, but when we go, we have to stop at checkpoints and we get turned back. We don’t feel that Sinai is Egyptian.”…
Ahmad Ragab, 42, spoke more vehemently towards Israel saying “look, all Egyptian people hate Israel, only Sadat wanted Camp David …”
Nice work, Jimmy. You so-called peace plan has been festering in the hearts of Egyptians for 30 years.
Maybe you should write another anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic book that explains how the Jews caused this problem.
Source: Jerusalem Post
This post was last modified on November 20, 2021
View Comments (24)
Here's some good news on Jimmy Carter!
Jimmy Carter being sued for alleged falsehoods
$5 million lawsuit against former US president alleges one of his books on Israel intended to deceive public, promote anti-Israel agenda.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=206458
Carter has done more then any living person to eff up the world. He sucked as President, & he does'nt understand how to leave the stage gracefully. He's an attention whore, & sadly, he will only stop being a pain in the ass when he assumes room temp.
I tell this story every few times we do a Jimmy Carter story, but it always bears repeating. I know a retired admiral who served under Carter during his early days in the Navy. He always says two things: "Carter's a vindictive little son of a bitch" and "His wife calls the shots."
I would'nt doubt a word of that story. Carter is very small man does'nt understand that almost everything he stands for fails, has failed, or will fail. The man is never right about anything, & the eliteists of the world kiss his ass to no end. He really should just go back to Habitat For Humanity & shut up.
Habitat is screwed up too. Yes, they build some houses but it's more of a corporate shake down for the management and employees of H4H to maintain their jobs.
Such a relief...I was beginning to think this was Bush's fault.
Miss a day at IHTM and you really do miss a world of information.
BTW any openings in the marketing dept.?
;-)
Marketing department? Hah! That's the funniest question we've ever heard, which means that by asking it, you have proven yourself capable of joining our editorial department.
Are you actually a marketing guy?
No, I am not a marketing guy. Just trying to get a laugh.
People tell me I am not a comedian either.
;-)
Sounds like Cater's Nobel Peace prize was based on the same firm foundation that Obummer's was. They really are in a battle for who's the worst President ever. Right now, I still give it to Carter, but BO is stinking-up a very close 2nd.
What me worry?
Okay elightenme I feel your pain here but I got one for you from the article: "Like many at Tahir square..." The proper arabic word is Tahrir, liberation. It's from the two letter verb HaRa in its fifth measure taHRara -- twoHRur, meaning: to become free; to be freed, be liberated ((min) = (from)); to be emancipated; to be written, composed. Yeah I know, Arabic's weird. (interjection here; in the parentheses the arabic preposition min or from in english has several other meanings besides from but in this case it's the prep. from). Tahrir is the fifth measure verbal noun meaning, in this case, liberation. That “r” sometimes makes a big difference; for example, the difference between a comment being a rat or *rat, (brat). As far as I know, there is no arabic word Tahir. Might mean eat *hit and die in Farsi though! Does that help?
Again Jimmy Carter and his foolish ideas have come back to bite the US People. Obama's will do the same. However this time the enemy is stronger and the battle to beat them back will take longer and be harder.
As for not supporting the Shah and forcing him out, that lies right at the feet of none other than Andrew Young. He pressed Carter to "encourage" the removal of the Shah and we all see the results of it today.
Yeah, I remember something about that...Carter, what a wanker! Andrew Young, what a marxist!
(I posted this in another thread, but I see it really applies here as well).
This Stratfor report is a few days old, but is a very interesting read about how understanding the Iranian Revolution will to help understand the Egyptian Revolution.
This was distributed free but they also have full coverage of Egypt and other geopolitical issues for a subscription at http://www.stratfor.com/theme/egypt-unrest
Intelligence Guidance: The Situation in Egypt
January 27, 2011
Note: The following is an internal STRATFOR document produced to provide high-level guidance to our analysts. This document is not a forecast, but rather a series of guidelines for understanding and evaluating events, as well as suggestions on areas for focus.
Let’s use the Iranian rising of 1979 as a model. It had many elements involved, from Communists, to liberals to moderate Muslims, and of course the radicals. All of them were united in hating the Shah, but not in anything else.
The Western press did not understand the mixture and had its closest ties with the liberals, for the simple reason that they were the most Western and spoke English. For a very long time they thought these liberals were in control of the revolution.
For its part, the intelligence community did not have good sources among the revolutionaries but relied on SAVAK, the Shah’s security service, for intelligence. SAVAK neither understood what was happening, nor was it prepared to tell the CIA. The CIA suspected the major agent was the small Communist Party, because that was the great fear at that time — namely, that the Soviets were engineering a plot to seize Iran and control the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, Western human rights groups painted the Shah as a monster and saw this as a popular democratic rising. Western human rights and democracy groups, funded by the U.S. government and others, were standing by to teach people like Bani Sadr to create a representative democracy.
Bani Sadr was the first post-Shah president. He was a moderate Islamist and democrat; he also had no power whatsoever. The people who were controlling the revolution were those around Ayatollah Khomeini, who were used by the liberals as a screen to keep the United States quiet until the final moment came and they seized control.
It is important to understand that the demonstrations were seen as spontaneous, but were actually being carefully orchestrated. It is also important to understand that the real power behind the movement remained opaque to the media and the CIA, because they didn’t speak English and the crowds they organized didn’t speak English, and none of the reporters spoke Farsi (nor did a lot of the intelligence agency people). So when the demonstrations surged, the interviews were with the liberals who were already their sources, and who made themselves appear far more powerful than they were — and who were encouraged to do so by Khomeini’s people.
It was only at the end that Khomeini ran up the Jolly Roger to the West.
Nothing is identical to the past, but Iran taught me never to trust a revolutionary who spoke English; they will tend to be pro-Western. When the masses poured into the streets — and that hasn’t happened in Egypt yet — they were Khomeini supporters who spoke not a word of English. The media kept interviewing their English-speaking sources and the CIA kept up daily liaison meetings with SAVAK — until the day they all grabbed a plane and met up with their money in Europe and the United States. The liberals, those who weren’t executed, also wound up in the United States, teaching at Harvard or driving cabs.
Let’s be very careful on the taxonomy of this rising. The Western human rights groups will do what they can to emphasize its importance, and to build up their contacts with what they will claim are the real leaders of the revolution. The only language these groups share with the identified leaders is English, and the funding for these groups depends on producing these people. And these people really want to turn Egypt into Wisconsin. The one thing I can guarantee is that is not what is going on.
What we have to find out is who is behind this. It could be the military wanting to stage a coup to keep Gamal Mubarak out of power. They would be doing this to preserve the regime, not to overthrow it. They could be using the demonstrations to push their demands and perhaps pressure Hosni Mubarak to leave voluntarily.
The danger is that they would be playing with fire. The demonstrations open the door for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is stronger than others may believe. They might keep the demonstrations going after Hosni leaves, and radicalize the streets to force regime change. It could also be the Muslim Brotherhood organizing quietly. Whoever it is, they are lying low, trying to make themselves look weaker than they are — while letting the liberals undermine the regime, generate anti-Mubarak feeling in the West, and pave the way for whatever it is they are planning.
Our job now is to sort through all the claimants and wannabees of this revolution, and find out who the main powers are. These aren’t spontaneous risings and the ideology of the people in the streets has nothing to do with who will wind up in power. The one thing to be confident of is that liberal reformers are the stalking horse for something else, and that they are being used as always to take the heat and pave the way.
Now, figure out who is really behind the demonstrations and we have a game.
Figuring out who is behind this doesn't matter as much as figuring out how to put the right people in front of it. My point is that the only group that might possibly be pro US is the one group we know didn't start this (or at least I find it doubtful), and that is the Egyptian military.
The best possible outcome as far the US is concerned is a military coup in my opinion. The career soldiers know that their pay checks get cut based on US aid and that they will be the ones who suffer the most if islamofacists take over and demand a war with Israel.
Cool! You pretty much summed up whatever I was going to add to this.
As always, there is more to learn in 5 minutes at IHTM than (then?) spending 24 hours watching the media. Thanks for your efforts and I wish you much success.
Omar, can you Enlightenme as to why you have lost the point of this post, which is, IMO, to drive yet another nail in the coffin of the Carter presidency? Carter is, was, always will be a fool.
"Carter is, was, always will be a fool."
I don't disagree with you there. 30 years later and we still see the results of that.
Imagine how long we will be living the consequences of the Obama presidency after he's retired.
"...Imagine how long we will be living the consequences of the Obama presidency after he’s retired."
My wish is that he doesn't 'retire', but rather that he gets FIRED.
Both DoE's, Department of Education & Department of Energy, would have served America better had they both been DOA's. As for a case in point on the former, one ought not go around "educating" others unless one gets his facts correct first:
their = possessive adjective
theirs = possessive pronoun
That "s" sometimes makes a big difference; for example, the difference between a comment being a hit or *hit. :)
You can't really complain about the DoE on this one since the article ran in the Jerusalem Post.
My bad. LOL. :-D
"they're" is still incorrectly used in the article though.
They're = contraction for "they are"
Their = possessive pronoun
Jimmy Carter also gave us the department of education. Worked out well, didn't it?
LOL
There, there=don't worry, it'll be alright.