There has been significant talk recently about former President Carter going to meet with Hamas to discuss a possible end to the violence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A representative from my own state has publicly asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to revoke Carter’s passport in response to his outreach mission. Yes, that is exactly how it sounds. Sue Myrick, a North Carolina Representative from the state’s 9th district, has asked the current Secretary of State to revoke the passport of a former president.
Just how childish is this approach?
Remember back to when you were in elementary school. Remember the good – a school sanctioned nap during the day – along with the bad – wetting yourself during your school sanctioned nap. Remember the feelings you had about your classmates. Remember the fear you had toward those different from yourself. Remember how you interacted with your classmates, whether you loved or hated them.
As children, we created – and followed – our own social systems. We made fun of the fat kids. We avoided the foster kids. We made fun of those that brought their own lunch, or those that smelled or dressed bad. If you didn’t like someone, you either made fun of them or you ignored them. If you disagreed with them on nearly any issue, you probably just pretended that they did not exist. You wouldn’t talk to them in class. You wouldn’t play with them at recess. You wouldn’t let them sit at your lunch table. Just for wearing hand-me-down clothes, or because their mother cut their hair, you and your friends deemed them to be a pariah. As kids we could be very mean, from taunting to fighting. These kids that you ignored, for one reason or another, grew to be what some may call unbalanced. The constant exclusion caused internal isolation, leading to depression, or in more extreme cases, violence. In Columbine, students who were consistently ignored and avoided went on to kill 12 of their classmates, a teacher, and themselves. At Virginia Tech, one student’s exclusion led to the massacre of 32 of his peers, followed by his own suicide. One could – very easily – argue that if perhaps they had not been ostracized from their specific society, they would have been less likely to commit such horrible acts of violence.
Over time we learned that those childish approaches were flawed, a lesson taught by parents, teachers, and guidance counselors alike. But even with years of experience telling us that our childish feelings were incorrect, why must we still stick to these same false principals on a global scale?
Why are so many people, most notably Republicans, eager to ignore these simple life-lessons when applied to the world in general? We are told to ignore Hamas, because they are a "terrorist organization." Is it really so far-fetched to apply the same lessons we were taught as children to the difficulties we face every day in our global quest for peace?
For the record, I am not commenting on the overall Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I do not care to hear your opinions on it, and I don’t care to share my own. If and when that conflict is resolved, I can assure you it will have nothing to do with my DKos blog.
The Bush Administration has maintained a closed-door foreign policy, refusing to talk with many of the world leaders with whom they disagree. This lack of real communication, however, does not come without copious amounts of taunting and finger-wagging. Administration officials stand tall and proclaim that another country needs to abandon its reported nuclear ambitions, or correct their human rights violations, or solve their internal political problems. However, when the opportunity arises that someone from the administration could potentially meet with these individuals and hash out concerns face to face, the administration refuses, for one reason or another. Groups labeled as "terrorist organizations" cannot even get a spot at the negotiating table, and are generally shunned.
In some cases, this campaign of isolation has backfired. Considering the Bush Administration’s own dismal record on human rights violations, it was not surprising when, in December 2004, Cuba decided to make their own point. Christmas lights and decorations were displayed at the US Interests area in Havana, along with a large sign featuring the number "75" to represent the number of political dissidents jailed in Cuba that year. In response, Cuba erected huge billboards featuring, among other things, photos of prisoner abuse from Abu Ghraib. This served as a reminder that, while the US can wag their finger while refusing to talk constructively, they are certainly not without fault.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was repeatedly slammed over her visit to Syria, with the White House getting in on the fight. Dana Perino voiced this sentiment, saying "We don't think it's a good idea. We think that someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends." What the White House and political pundits neglected to mention, however, was the Republican-led trip to Syria only days before Pelosi’s own visit. It was also rarely mentioned that even Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert voiced support for Pelosi’s trip. Ironically, it was only a short time later that Condi Rice welcomed Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moallem to the negotiating table in Annapolis, in an effort to broker a Mideast peace deal. Not being politically beneficial, the White House didn’t go out of their way to denounce this meeting with a member of their cabinet.
The latest issue with President Jimmy Carter would be laughably childish if not for its serious implications. Jimmy Carter is not just some jackass with a passport and good networking skills. As President, he led the effort to broker a peace deal resulting in the historic Camp David Accords, when Egypt and Israel found common ground in a peaceful border and resumed trade. This agreement was helped by Carter’s own refusal to allow the parties to leave until a solution could be reached, with the President often running from closed room to closed room to meet with the participants, who were not on speaking terms, to say the least.
Jimmy Carter is once again trying something the Bush Administration has refused. His visit to Syria to meet with Hamas leaders has been blasted repeatedly by the White House, which has gone to great lengths to state that he is acting on his own, and does not represent the US or its stance on Hamas. Given what may be an historic opportunity to help broker even a small amount of peace, the White House would rather continue its own closed-door policy. Considering the White House’s stance on Carter, whom Tony Fratto called "increasingly irrelevant," it’s sadly not surprising that they could care less about any possible peace accord.
Regardless of whether you think Carter was a great or horrible president, it’s difficult to ignore the work he has done to advance peace in a world gone mad for war and hatred. In trying to broker a new deal to prevent more senseless killings over a conflict that will, in all likelihood, never be resolved, Carter is proving that simply ignoring someone in hopes they will go away is a failed policy. While conservatives will talk about how damaging Carter’s actions are, it should be noted that one of his specific hopes is to broker the release of Corporal Galid Shalit, the Israeli soldier held in captivity since 2006.
And now, with all the problems that are currently being faced in this world, North Carolina Representative Sue Myrick, of NC’s 9th district which includes the large city of Charlotte, wants to take Carter’s passport away. Perhaps it’s time Sue Myrick wake up and grow up, and perhaps even bring some of her party around with her. I think it’s important that, just as we will speak up by voting in November, residents of NC’s 9th district do the same in voting Sue Myrick out of office. She seems better suited to eat sand at recess.