This is not the first diary I have written concerning Jimmy Carter's influential new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid But today I have seen my views and sentiments confirmed in a moving tribute to Carter by prominent Israeli historian Tom Segev, in today's Ha'aretz.
It is titled "Memoir of a Great Friend," for Segev also recognizes in Carter a man who has a profound friendship for Israel and has always wished the nation well, as he wishes for all peoples of the Holy Land.
Segev writes:
The book is causing an uproar among those in America who consider themselves as "friends of Israel," for one thing because of its title: "Palestine - Peace Not Apartheid."
Predictably, some are accusing Carter of anti-Semitism. Carter is closely following the responses, including on the Internet, and responding to his critics. He is prepared to lecture for free about his views - but Jews don't want to hear, he complains. An Israeli reader won't find anything more in the book than is written in the newspapers here every day.
Carter has much praise for the public discourse in Israel, saying that it is more open to debate over a withdrawal to the Green Line than is the public discourse in America. It's become something of a fashion there lately to claim that the Jewish lobby stifles all criticism of Israel; in fact, it isn't difficult to find criticism there, too. Surveys show that a majority of Jews in America support a withdrawal in return for peace, as do at least half of the inhabitants of Israel. Carter isn't calling for anything more than that.
Segev, too, has noted that Carter's book is not intended to be a definitive history of the MidEast, but rather a personal memoir of his time in the MidEast. "He has written a very personal and very Christian book, in the first person - I and the Middle East - that starts with his first visit to Israel in 1973."
He has a good reason to be mad at Israel: Thanks to him, it achieved the first peace agreement in its history; and relations with Egypt are holding steady. This was "his" agreement, the one that brought him the Nobel Peace Prize.
It's no wonder that Carter sees it as key: Had Israel adhered to the Camp David Accords and not built settlements in the West Bank, it could have realized a comprehensive and lasting peace with Arabs who would recognize its legal borders, he contends. The expulsion of the Arabs reminds him of the expulsion of the Native Americans who once lived in Georgia and were forced to go west to Oklahoma via the Trail of Tears; his family farm was built on the land of those who were expelled.
Many critics of Carter, some less informed than others, have criticized his book as flawed and full of errors. Segev, more than almost any other person in the world, is qualified to judge the accuracy of his historical account. He is not entirely uncritical. He does note a few errors, that he considers inconsequential. This is not the book that Segev would have written -- but then, Segev has written his own books and must allow Carter the freedom to express his own views.
Above all, he feels that Israel owes a great debt of gratitude to Jimmy Carter, and while his plan for peace may contain no great novelties, there is no falseness at its heart.
The book appears to include a few errors: It's doubtful whether "cardinals" were included among the heads of the Christian communities who came to see him in Jerusalem; the capital of Yemen is not Tirana and UN Resolution 242 does not call for Israel to return to the 1967 borders.
...
These are small things; ...
But the principal argument is well-founded, and backed up by the reports from B'Tselem, Peace Now, Israeli newspapers and even many articles that appear in The New York Times (as opposed to the theory, which Carter cites, that says Israel's critics are being silenced). Like many others, Carter points out the ongoing and systematic violation of the Palestinians' human rights; the injustices of the oppression perpetuate the conflict. It's bad for everyone, the United States included.
The security wall is adding to the hardships for the Palestinians; its route is not meant solely to increase Israel's security, but to take a bite out of territories in the West Bank and annex them to Israel. Carter demands that Israel's right to exist in security and peace be ensured; he calls on Palestinians and the Arab states to accept this; he denounces terror. Time is pressing: Radical Islam is growing stronger, Israel has nuclear arms: This detail is mentioned in the book quite casually, as if it's something that everybody knows.
One reason the book is outraging "friends of Israel" in America is that it requires them to reformulate their friendship: If they truly want what's good for Israel, they must call on it to rid itself of the territories. People don't like to admit that they've erred; therefore, they're angry at Carter. But the belief that a withdrawal to the Green Line will bring peace has been around ever since the Six-Day War. What else is new?
Israel has remained in the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights mainly because the United States has not compelled it to withdraw. As optimistic as only a God-fearing person can be, the former U.S. president also essentially only propose that we all try to be nice to one another, in the spirit of the upcoming Christmas holiday. He has no new ideas to offer and thus his book is something of a let-down, though this does not justify a rebuke. Not to Carter. We owe him for the peace with Egypt.
Segev's point is quite clear: Jimmy Carter is a better friend to Israel than the so-called "friends of Israel" who are denouncing his book and making anti-semitic accusations against him. And Americans who wish the best for Israel would be better-advised to demand that the US support Carter's program than the failed policies of successive Israeli governments in refusing to relinquish the Palestinian territories.
True friends of Israel should listen to Carter.