Jimmy Carter on Israel and Palestine
There’s been a lot of reaction to Jimmy Carter’s new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, so I checked it out.
Pro-Israel opponents of the book claim that Carter is equating Israel’s painful Palestinian conflict with the former white government of South Africa’s exploitative policy of apartheid. Other critics have pointed out other signs of a biased attitude towards Jews in the book. I’ve checked it out, and it seems to me these charges are unfounded.
Jimmy Carter knows a lot about the Israeli-Arab conflict. As the broker between Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat in the 1970’s, he demonstrated great leadership and finesse. There’s no strong evidence that the former President has a biased attitude towards any group. What about the comparison to apartheid? Well, it’s a harsh criticism, but Carter is calling the shots the way he sees them.
29 years ago, Jimmy Carter showed the world where his convictions lie: with peace, with compromise, with a humane sense of justice. Israelis and Palestinians are both well-served by Carter’s book, and I hope many in Israel and Palestine will read it.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Bravo! I salute your fair-minded appraisal. Israeli-Palestinian peace is, and always has been, the key to resolving Al Queida-style extremism. But there are times in history when one issue is so overwhelming, it must be confronted above all others. This is such a time - the issue is war, and how to stop it.
According to NPR news ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7085638) ethnic cleansing, systematic genocide, is being carried out in Baghdad, as we speak. And we’re paying for it, to the tune of $10 million per hour. The US-installed Shia government is permitting Shia militias to forcibly remove and/or kill Sunni residents around the clock. And our tax dollars are paying for it. This has to stop. Every inch of print must address this double-edged atrocity, until it is stopped. We must quit funding this war. We must do that now.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Levi, knowing your zeal for literature as well as politics, I knew it was only a matter of time before you reviewed Carter’s latest book. I heard an interview with Jimmy Carter recently on NPR, about this book, and he certainly seems to know what he is talking about.
Let me ask you this, because I haven’t read it yet. Is Carter calling on Isreal to give up some or all of the land they are fighting for?
February 6th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Hi Bill — well, I think Carter is calling for both Israeli and Palestinian sides to move towards compromise solutions, and since a likely compromise solution will involve moving and defining borders, I think the answer to your question is “yes”.
Various areas now dominated by the “wall” are an example, as is East Jerusalem (it’s hard to imagine a long-term peaceful solution that doesn’t involve sovereignty over the areas of Jerusalem that are considered holy in the Muslim religion).
April 13th, 2007 at 5:56 am
Two questions:
Is it fair to say that Carter’s conclusion is that Israeli policies and practices are the primary obstacle to Palestinian and Israeli peace and security?
If so, do you agree?
April 16th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Jim, it’s been a few weeks since I read the book, but as I read the book I didn’t get the impression that Carter’s conclusion was that Israeli policies are the primary obstacle to a peace settlement. I did think he was focusing more on missteps by Israel’s government than on missteps by Palestine’s government, and probably didn’t focus sufficiently on the many ways Palestine’s leadership has also failed to find a way to peace. But, we can all see how fractured (and, therefore, weak) Palestine’s government is, and I am not deeply disturbed by the fact that Carter holds Israel to a higher standard.
As for whether or not I agree: no, I would not agree with Carter if he said that Israel’s policies and practices are the primary obstacle to peace. Sadly, Israel’s current “build a wall” policy seems to have actually helped to reduce the intensity of attacks and back-and-forth violence.