It initially read like a Christmastime edition of the satirical newspaper, The Onion. Jimmy Carter, apologizing to Jews for his slamming of Israel?

There were two major errors with this Carter apology stunt. The first, was calling it an apology. The second, was sending it only to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, who fancy themselves the hub for global Jewish news.

The latter bespeaks incredible naivete and ignorance by Mr. Carter.

Being supportive of Israel’s right to defend herself isn’t strictly a Jewish issue. It is a moral, ethical and human rights issue. There are 40 million evangelical Christians in America who are ardent supporters of Israel. To think that Mr. Carter believes Jews are the only people who are at odds with his point of view on Israel makes this gesture seem like he’s interested only in flattering Jews.

A man with as much power as Carter could have spent few resources on sending press releases out to the top ten major dailies, some of the major Jewish publications, some of the Israeli publications and television stations.

Some are saying that the timing was too suspect; while his grandson was stumping for a political position in Georgia. Taking an extreme left position on Israel might be seen as a political liability in say, Miami or Brooklyn, but likely not Georgia. In any case, I almost never examine a person’s motive or intentions, because no one is wise enough to have a looking glass into another man’s mind. The connection might be coincidental. Sadly, the public has developed a reflex of suspicion when politicians indulge in what would otherwise be called damage control.

                Notwithstanding, it’s no apology. I’m arguing that his recent statement is insufficient, given the damage he has done to Israel’s reputation, and the ammunition he has supplied an endless array of Israel-baiters and anti-Semites.

                 Here is the apology:

“I have the hope … Israel will flourish as a Jewish state within secure and recognized borders in peaceful co-existence with its neighbors and with all the Moslem States…

I have the hope and a prayer that the bloodshed and hatred will change to mutual respect and cooperation, fulfilling the prophetic aspiration that the lion shall lie down with the lamb in harmony and peace. I likewise hope that violent attacks against all civilians will end, which will help set a better framework for commencing negotiations. I further hope that peace negotiations can soon commence, with all issues on the negotiating table.

I have the hope and a prayer that just as Chanukah is the Festival of Lights, the State of Israel will fulfill its destiny as a light unto the nations.… we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel.

As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so.”

 One must ask if any of this comes off as disingenuous - even two-faced - in light of recent articles written by Carter, adding to that the slurs of his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” The former president has spent years being an apologist for Hamas – and even meeting with them, and frequently pointing the finger solely at Israel while shilling for the ideologies of the Islamofascists seeking to destroy her. One need not look far to find how anti-Israel his positions are. Tellingly, he refused to debate his book with Alan Dershowitz, who wrote The Case for Israel, and The Case for Peace.

It’s bad enough that the apology fails to do what an apology is supposed to do. But the timing couldn’t be worse, in light of Carter’s anti-Israel op-ed in London’s Guardian, days before his “apology.”

He said that the peace process has stalled because Israelis build settlements, making no mention of the Islamic terrorist entities – only “Palestinian recalcitrance.” And if “Israel has rejected the [settlement] freeze”, as he contends, then why were so many news agencies reporting a freeze?

Carter accused Israel of wonton destruction of schools and hospitals with “precision bomb missiles” during the Gaza incursion, conveniently disregarding the fact that terrorists used such structures as civilian bunkers for their attacks.

Not to put too fine a point on it, though on Nov. 6 – six weeks before his “apology” - Carter published an Op-Ed in the International Herald Tribune where he called the security barrier – all but three kilometers is fence – the “impenetrable wall”, thereby perpetuating a lie and anti-Israel propaganda.

With it, he peddled a seemingly imaginary statistic, saying 40,000 homes in Gaza were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. That’s four times as many as Al Mazen Centre for Human Rights - an anti-Israel Palestinian NGO - and about twenty times as many according to NGO Al-Dameer-Gaza. The Arab League's report on Cast Lead cited about 3,000 homes were destroyed and over 11,000 damaged.

                What does one call it when it is so easy to obtain and speak the truth, but one articulates otherwise? In this case, slander.        

                A kosher apology has three elements: it must be expeditious, specific, and promise through words and actions not to repeat the mistake. It is ideal if the apology was given right away, as soon as the mistake was made, or realized. In the absence of expedience, the onus is on the person apologizing to offer extra repentance. Apologies are similar to court cases in that entering a swift guilty plea and mea culpa in court ensures less of a punishment than a drawn out case. 

Still, with a good apology, it is better late than never. 

But what is Carter apologizing for, exactly? That’s the $64,000 question. His “al het” sounds more like a Kumbaya wishful prayer, reminiscent of a Hallmark card, than an actual apology. An apology recognizes wrongdoing, unconditionally and specifically acknowledging harm done.

An apology has to match the transgression. One cannot demonize the state of Israel, give fodder for anti-Semites, and endorse Hamas and then send a 200-word letter of “apology” without expressing remorse for actual specific items.

Carter, at the end of his letter, offers up this namby-pamby wishy-washy airy-fairy dish: “for any words or deeds of mine that may have [stigmatized Israel.]” It’s up to you, folks, to determine anything that may have offended you, and in that case, Carter offers his regrets, in the general sense of the word. Did he change his mind on anything, or admit his words or deeds were in anyway misguided and hurtful? No way.

It’s not possible to take the apology seriously so few days and few weeks after Carter’s villainizing Israel for the nth time. For certain, he cannot fulfill the third, and most crucial criteria of a kosher apology: a guarantee through words and actions never to repeat the harm done.