So, Jimmy Carter is under fire again. By now, he must be used to this sort of thing.

As in the previous episode, which was over his book about the Middle East, this one also concerns Israel/Palestine. Carter has committed the heresy of meeting top Hamas leaders, including head Khaled Meshaal, in Syria. Hamas is an entity so loathed by Israel and the United States that both nations refuse to have anything to do with it.

Now, one can debate the utility of meeting with Hamas. The organization is an anti-Semitic, violence-propagating outfit. Reasonable people can differ on whether such an entity can be expected to renounce violence or to keep its word.

But certainly an effort can be made to prod it in that direction. No less an establishment figure than Henry Siegman, a former executive head of the American Jewish Congress and a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, has contended that in spite of the hateful rhetoric that characterizes Hamas, it can be made to act more moderately. Two years ago in the New York Review of Books, he described a conversation he had with a senior Hamas leader and concluded: “Members of Hamas's political directorate do not preclude significant changes over time in their policies toward Israel and in their founding charter, including recognition of Israel.” And Hamas is willing to negotiate so long as the “pre-1967 border” is the “starting point.”

Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery has also dismissed the notion that Hamas is beyond the pale, saying that it has repeatedly indicated that it is open to a cessation of hostilities with Israel and that it will abide by the will of the Palestinian people.

Avnery praised Carter's visit. "I am writing to you on behalf of Gush Shalom, The Israeli Peace Bloc, to congratulate you on your wise and courageous decision to meet in Damascus with Hamas leaders and talk with them on the ways to promote peace in our region. I believe this is an act whose time had come - or rather, is already long overdue."

Carter says he got Hamas to agree to a two-state solution if the Palestinian people confirmed this arrangement in a referendum. Subsequently confusing statements by Hamas spokespersons have been seized upon by Israel to dismiss Carter’s efforts.

But whatever the value of Carter’s labors, he certainly doesn’t deserve all the vilification he has received from a number of members of Congress for his trip. Sue Myrick of North Carolina (whom I’ve known about, alas, since my days in North Carolina) has suggested that his passport be revoked. Joseph Knollenberg of Michigan, trying to be Mr. Smartypants, has perhaps coined the worst acronym ever in introducing the Coordinated American Response to Extreme Radicals (CARTER, get it?) Act to cut off all federal funding for the Carter Center. And Gary Ackerman of New York from Carter’s own party came up with this defense: “The man is entitled his idiotic, moronic, nonsensical, anti-commonsensical, foolish opinions. And all that being said, he is still entitled to have them. I don’t think we should be cutting off funding for any ex-Presidents to do things.”

Carter seems to have taken all this in stride. When asked in a BBC interview about Barack Obama’s criticism of his initiative, Carter replied that he knew the exigencies of the American political system meant that no candidate running for public office could afford to approve of what he’s done.

I recently met with Carter in Atlanta, and was impressed with his sincerity and with what he’s trying to accomplish at an age when a lot of folks are well into retirement dotage. (See my interview for a fuller description of his and the Carter Center’s work.) Just before his visit to the Middle East, Carter went to Nepal to oversee a pivotal election there, one of the dozens that the Carter Center has monitored since its inception.

But due to the reflexively pro-Israel stance of pretty much the entire U.S. establishment, this is the thanks that he gets for all his efforts. Some reward.