Neal Sher

Jimmy Carter is at it again

The former president's blame of Israel is so unfounded that it would be laughable if it weren't so disturbing

Last week, former President Carter published an op-ed in The New York Times urging President Obama to recognize a Palestinian state, blaming Israel, and Israel alone, for the stalemate in talks. With all the bloodshed and terror in the Middle East, it seems that the biggest threat is posed by the construction, or proposed construction, of homes and apartments.

Carter’s proposal has been heavily criticized by experienced experts, including Aaron David Miller, who spent decades working on Middle east issues for both Democratic and Republican administrations.

In 2014, Carter addressed a fundraising dinner for the Islamic Society of North America, which federal prosecutors claimed was a fundraising front for Hamas. Alan Dershowitz has blasted Carter as being an all out supporter of Hamas, even suggesting that he was flirting with violating US laws, which outlaw providing material support to terror groups.

Ten years ago, after Carter published his book accusing Israel of being an apartheid state, I wrote an article detailing how, while I served as the head of the Justice Department’s Nazi prosecution office, former President Carter went to bat for an SS guard who had been deported from the US.

Carter is at it again, and his support for a Nazi criminal is worth remembering.

Indeed, since my article was first published, Carter has continued along that same path. For example, his center has received over $1 million from the Bin Laden family and has been supported by that bastion of humanity and civil liberties, Saudi Arabia.

* * *

It was the spring of 1987 and the Office of Special Investigations, the Justice Department’s Nazi prosecution unit, which I headed at the time, was in the midst of one of our most productive and historic periods.

On April 27, as a result of an in-depth OSI investigation and despite resistance at the State Department, Austrian President and former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, who had served as an officer in the Nazi army, was barred from setting foot ever again on US soil.

One week earlier, after eight years of bruising litigation, we deported to the Soviet Union one Karl Linnas, who had been chief of a Nazi concentration camp in Estonia. To do so, we had to outmaneuver concerted attempts to block the deportation by Patrick Buchanan, the Reagan White House’s communications director, and my boss, US attorney general, Ed Meese.

A month later, OSI announced the loss of citizenship and removal from the United States of a former Chicago resident. Martin Bartesch admitted to our office and the court that he had voluntarily joined the Waffen SS and had served in the notorious SS Death’s Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp where, at the hands of Bartesch and his cohorts, many thousands of prisoners were gassed, shot, starved and worked to death. He also confessed to having concealed his service at the infamous camp from US immigration officials.

In Bartesch’s case, OSI researchers uncovered iron-clad documentary evidence of his direct, hands-on role in the Nazi genocide. Among the SS documents captured by American forces when they liberated Mauthausen was what we described as the Unnatural Death Book, a register of prisoners killed, along with the identity of the SS guard responsible for the murder.

So powerful was this evidence that, in postwar trials conducted by the US military, the book served as the basis for execution or long prison sentences for many identified SS guards.

An entry on October 20, 1943, registers the shooting death of Max Oschorn, a French Jewish prisoner. His murderer was also recorded: SS man Martin Bartesch. It was a most chilling document.

Bartesch’s family and “supporters,” seeking special relief, launched a campaign to discredit OSI while trying to garner political support. Indeed, OSI received numerous inquiries from members of Congress who had been approached.

After we explained the facts of the case, however, the matter inevitably was dropped; no one urged that Bartesch or his family be accorded any special treatment.

Well, there was one exception — Jimmy Carter.

In September 1987, after all of the gruesome details of the case had been made public and widely reported in the media, I received a letter sent by Bartesch’s daughter to the former president. Citing groups that had been exposed for their anti-Semitism, it was an all-out assault against OSI as unfair, “un-American” and interested only in “vengeance” against innocent family members.

It’s axiomatic that the families of every person prosecuted under the criminal or immigration laws are affected and subjected to hardship. It was obvious, I thought to myself, that no reasonable person could genuinely believe that the Bartesch case was worthy of special dispensation.

On the contrary, it would be a perversion of justice to accede to the family’s demands and grant Bartesch relief to which no one else would be entitled. Not even the staunchest and most sincere devotee to humanitarian causes could legitimately claim that an SS murderer who deceived authorities to obtain a visa and citizenship was somehow deserving of exceptional treatment.

That’s why I was so taken aback by the personal, handwritten note Jimmy Carter sent to me seeking “special consideration” for this Nazi SS murderer. There on the upper-right corner of Bartesch’s daughter’s letter was a note to me in the former president’s handwriting, and with his signature, urging that “in cases such as this, special consideration can be given to the families for humanitarian reasons.”

Unlike members of Congress who inquired about the facts, Carter blindly accepted at face value the daughter’s self-serving (and disingenuous) assertions.

As disturbing as I found Carter’s plea, and although his attempted intervention has always gnawed at me, I chalked it up at the time to a certain naiveté on the part of the former president. But now, in light of Carter’s most recent writings and comments, I am left to wonder whether it was I who was naive simply to dismiss his knee-jerk appeal as the instinctive reaction of a well-meaning, but misguided, humanitarian.

His latest book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” and his subsequent defense of it, leaves no doubt that Carter has a problem with Israel and its American Jewish supporters. His blame-Israel approach through the distortion of easily verifiable facts; his whining about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby; and even the whiff of plagiarism have been exposed and are now spread upon the public record for all to see.

Kenneth Stein, who resigned his 23-year association with the Carter Center at Emory University, described it this way: Carter’s book “is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.”

Some believe that there’s a venal element at work. To be sure, Carter and his publisher and editor knew that, if nothing else, the intentionally provocative, misleading and insulting title would be good for sales.

Moreover, Carter and his center appear to care little about how they fill their coffers. After all, among the most generous contributors to the Carter Center — at least a million dollars each, according to the center’s published accountings — are Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz, best known for having offered $10 million to New York City after the September 11 attacks, an offer that was rejected by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani after the prince implied that the attacks may have been justified because of US support for Israel; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the Saudi Fund for Development; and, most interestingly, the Bin Laden Group.

Make no mistake, these are not simply benevolent donors looking for a good cause; they expect something in return. And Carter gave them exactly what they paid for: an unequivocal stamp of approval from a former, if failed, US president for their decades of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic ramblings. It’s a diplomatic and public-relations dividend that likely will far exceed their investment.

The exposure of Carter’s views on Israel and the Jewish lobby has shed a clearer light on his attempt to influence me in the Bartesch case. We know from his own confession that he has had lust in his heart. Unfortunately, he has given us ample reason to wonder what else is lurking there.

Neal Sher, a New York attorney, previously served as Director of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations and is a former Executive Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

About the Author
Neal Sher, a New York attorney, previously served as Director of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations and is a former Executive Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Related Topics
Related Posts