Could there possibly be a more naïve person on the globe than former president Jimmy Carter?  Or is Carter simply seeking the Neville Chamberlain award to put beside his Nobel Prize?

After meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, Carter claimed the terrorist group accepts the Jewish state and is ready for peace.  Either Carter misunderstood what was said at this meeting or chose to misunderstand, because the statements emanating from the Hamas camp stand in stark contrast to Carter’s public remarks.

Hamas leaders state categorically that they will not recognize Israel, but will offer the Jewish state a ten year truce if it evacuates the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, including Temple Mount.  Moreover, and most significantly, the terror group will not annul its stated goal of annihilating Israel. 

It was also noted that Israel must allow the “right of return” for millions of refugees, a formula most sensible people recognize for the destruction of the Jewish state.  So let me get this right: In return for a temporary truce, Israel is obliged to commit suicide.  This is what Carter calls peace in our time.

One Hamas spokesman made his claim transparently clear: “For any truce to take effect, Israel would need to evacuate every centimeter of the West Bank and every centimeter of east Jerusalem.” It is instructive that not one peace plan put forward by Fatah or even Israel’s leftist parties calls for so extreme a plan.

Speaking in Israel Carter offered his Trojan horse of a peace plan by claiming Hamas has agreed to “accept” Israel.  “There’s no doubt that both the Arab world and the Palestinians, including Hamas, will accept Israel’s right to live in peace within the 1967 borders,” he added.  Before Carter could finish his misguided claims, Fawdi Barhoum, Hamas spokesman, said, “We stand by our line, which means no recognition of Israel.”

Is Carter deaf or just a dupe?  Even the so-called ten years truce is described as a “hudna,” a Koranic term used to describe a respite from war so that troops can be assembled for the final assault.  It is also the case as half a century of negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors attest, that deceit is part of the Arab strategy—a point, among many, Carter chooses to ignore.

In addition to his conversation with Khaled Meshaal, Carter met with President Bashar Assad of Syria.  Here too President Carter asserts that Syria is ready to “make peace” with Israel.  “All” Israel has to do is give up the Golan Heights.  In fact, Carter was “impressed” with Assad’s eagerness to consummate a deal. Rather than broach this anticipated deal with President Olmert, Carter met with Yossi Beilin, leader of the extreme left Meretz party, and prevailed on him to be the catalyst for such an accord.

While President Carter claims he is a private citizen representing only the Carter Center in these diplomatic discussions, he also claims the U.S. government would support “any” peace agreement reached among the principal parties.  Not only is this claim fatuous, but as the contradictory arguments of Hamas leaders suggest patently false.  “Any agreement” means the elimination of the state of Israel either now or later.  How could any sensible leader in the United States or Israel agree to these terms?           

To suggest that Carter can negotiate an accord where others have failed is to underestimate past deliberations or overestimate what is now being discussed. In Carter’s case there is evidence of an ego without limit, a rube without guidance and a naïve diplomat without an appreciation of history or facts on the ground.

-Herb London is president of Hudson Institute and a member of Insight's Editorial Advisory Board.