Since leaving the White House, Carter has devoted his life to humanitarian causes. The Carter Center is "dedicated to promoting peace, freedom, human rights, and the alleviation of suffering." For this activity, he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Both as US President and afterwards, one of the causes for which he has always worked is that of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. For some time, this goal seemed close to realization, but more recently, "many of the promises have been broken and there have been constant cycles of bloodshed and a rising tide of mistrust and hatred." [p 249] His most recent book,
Palestine Peace not Apartheid was written "to examine the root causes of the continuing conflict and to spell out the only clear path to permanent peace and justice in the Holy Land." [p 249]
This book does not pretend to be an exhaustive or a definitive history of the events it describes. It is rather a personal act of witness, in the religious as well as in the political sense. For over thirty years, even before his presidency, Carter has traveled extensively throughout the Middle East, has met with most of the important leaders of its nations. He has made many visits to that country he describes as the Holy Land, to which he has always been drawn by his religious faith as well as his commitment to peace and justice. This book is the story of how that hope, once bright, has been sadly dimmed by events, and of his own efforts to renew it.
I was struck most forcibly in reading it by the contrast between two the Israels he describes: one young and full of promise for the future, the other brutalized by fear and hate, full of extremists and dissention. In 1973 Carter visited Israel for the first time as the guest of Yitzhak Rabin. There, he was struck by the nation's confidence and energy. He admired the kibbutz system and enjoyed a congenial lunch with the Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders of Nazareth, who seemed to be united in their vision of progress. This visit was after the Six Day War and the occupation of the territories of the West Bank and Gaza, but he saw few signs that the Israeli leaders intended to retain these lands.
We left convinced that the Israelis were dominant but just, the Arabs quiescent because their rights were being protected, and the political and military situation destined to remain stable until land was swapped for peace. I was excited and optimistic about the apparent commitment of the Israelis to establish a nation that would be a homeland for the Jews, dedicated to the Judeo-Christian principles of peace and justice, and determined to live in harmony with all their neighbors. Although aware of the subservient status of the Palestinians, I was reassured by the assumption that Israeli would withdraw from the occupied territories in exchange for peace. I was reminded of the words of Israel's first president, Chaim Weizmann: "I am certain the world will judge the Jewish state by how it will treat the Arabs." [p 34]
Ten years later, he found the atmosphere changed for the worse.
The sense of unanimity among Jewish citizens and the relaxed confidence of 1973 were gone. Despite their military triumph in Lebanon, many Israelis were deeply concerned that the flame of victory had turned to ashes. . . .
Men and women in uniform were now seen everywhere, and the tensions between different kinds of people was obvious. The former stream of visitors from Jordan had dried to a trickle, and visits from Egypt were almost nonexistent despite the peace treaty that had established open borders and free trade. Even among the most optimistic public officials, there seem to be little hope for any permanent agreement that could bring peace and stability. [pp 107 - 108]
He also had a disturbing personal experience of Israeli brutalization of the Arab population when he saw his Israeli guards unnecessarily strike the newspapers from the hands of some old Arab men as they passed them.
Carter makes his opinion of the reason for this alteration clear. In the intervening years, and particularly with the rise of the Likud Party, the Israeli leaders had adopted the attitude that "Jews were the natural rulers of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, with a right and obligation to continue populating the area." [p 109] Instead of trading land for peace, they were now determined to keep the land for themselves, and to dispossess the Palestinian population. Thus, Carter's view of "the two basic causes of continuing conflict: Land and Palestinian rights." [p 110] He was also disappointed by the increasing tendency of the Israeli leadership to violate the provisions of the peace accords they had accepted at Camp David.
Carter clearly has a positive, optimistic opinion of the human race. In describing his meetings with world leaders in the Middle East, he strives always to see the good in them, not the bad, although he is quite aware of their individual flaws. In many cases, while he believes they are not opposed to peace, he has found them to be prisoners of political circumstances, unable to act as they might have wished. The leaders he most admires are those who, like Anwar Sadat, are willing to defy those circumstances, to act despite the opposition to peace from their constituents and allies. Among the current generation of both Palestinian and Israeli leaders, however, he has not found those with that dedication to peace, and in particular he seems to find the Israelis determined to obstruct it. He is also concerned with the recent tendencies of US leadership to stand in the way of negotiations. He sees the "Roadmap," which the Palestinians have accepted but the Israelis have agreed to only with extensive qualifications, as designed to postpone forever any final peace agreement between the parties.
His greatest recent disappointment, which has led to the writing of this book, is in the massive wall the Israelis call a "security fence." Carter has harsher words for it: "imprisonment wall," [p 174] and "segregation barrier." [p 192] He explicitly compares this barrier to South Africa's apartheid system, and declares that its intended outcome is to make it impossible for a Palestinian state to exist and to make any peace agreement with them unnecessary. This, he claims, is against the interests of both the Palestinian and the Israeli people.
It is obvious that the Palestinians will be left with no territory in which to establish a viable state, but completely enclosed within the barrier and the occupied Jordan River valley. The Palestinians will have a future impossible for them or any responsible portion of the international community to accept, and Israeli's permanent status will be increasingly troubled and uncertain as deprived people fight oppression and the relative number of Jewish citizens decreases demographically(compared to Arabs) both within Israel and in Palestine. This prospect is clear to most Israelis, who also view it as a distortion of their values. [p 196]
Carter is clear both about the root causes of this endless conflict - "occupation of Arab land, mistreatment of the Palestinians, and the acceptance of Israel within its legal borders." [p 202] - and the necessary conditions for its solution, that there can be no peace without justice. Despite the failure of the official leadership on both sides, he sees the possibility of hope in such agreements as the Geneva Initiative, the Palestinian "Prisoners' Document" and even some statements from the head of Hamas.
The obstacles to permanent peace are two:
1. Some Israeli believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravate Palestinians; and
2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.
In turn, Israel responds with retribution and oppression, and militant Palestinians refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Israeli and vow to destroy the nation. The cycle of distrust and violence is sustained, and efforts for peace are frustrated. [p 206]
The conditions for peace that he proposes are these:
a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed.
b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israeli's permanent boundary.
c. The sovereignty of all Middle East nations and sanctity of international borders must be honored. This condition necessarily implies the mutual recognition of Israeli and Palestinian states. Above all, he urges all parties to fulfill the conditions of UN Resolutions 242 and 338.
In addition, Carter charges that recent policies of the United States, condoning illegal Israeli actions and their refusal to honor their previous agreements, have contributed to the perpetuation of the violence and impeded the quest for peace.
It will be a tragedy--for the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the world - if peace is rejected and a system of oppression, apartheid and sustained violence is permitted to prevail. [p 216]
Having read this book promoting peace, it was with dismay that I observed the negative reaction of Democratic Party's leadership to its publication. I present one such account in its entirely, in accordance with the author's permission:
Democrats Ignore Subjugation of Palestinians in Vilifying Carter's Book
by Michael F. Brown, The Palestine Center - Friday, 17 November 2006, 17:22
President Jimmy Carter's courageous new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is due on bookstore shelves November 14, 2006. In it, Carter reportedly states, "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement." As a result of such excerpts - and the title itself - Democrats in the U.S. Congress made significant efforts in October to distance themselves from their former leader who nevertheless maintains his standing as the conscience of the party.
Several have publicly lambasted him and in doing so shown a profound disregard for basic facts pertaining to Israel's subjugation of millions of Palestinians.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (the next Speaker of the House of Representatives) took the lead in responding to questions about Carter's book during an online Israel Working Group Town Hall. "With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel. Democrats have been steadfast in their support of Israel from its birth, in part because we recognize that to do so is in the national security interests of the United States. We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever. The Jewish people know what it means to be oppressed, discriminated against, and even condemned to death because of their religion. They have been leaders in the fight for human rights in the United States and throughout the world. It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously."
Days later when anti-Arab MK Avigdor Lieberman joined Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's coalition, there was no comment from Pelosi's office despite a request for one. Nor did her office make any comment on the November 8 shelling of Palestinian civilians in Beit Hanoun despite two telephone calls regarding the matter. Rep. Pelosi apparently is oblivious to the fact that there is a dual system of law at work in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza). Notwithstanding the fact that Pelosi represents one of the most progressive districts in the country, she appears able to look directly at an Israeli system of "ethnically based oppression" and claim that she does not see it. So far as Israel is concerned, Democrats under Pelosi seem strikingly similar to Republicans under Bush.
Similarly, incumbent representatives Jerrold Nadler and Steve Israel provide no hope that Democrats will recognize the discriminatory policies pursued by Israel. Rep. Nadler said, "Carter's views on Israel and the Middle East are fundamentally wrong." For his part, Rep. Israel argued to the Israel Working Group Town Hall, "One book by one person does not pose a danger to Israel, even though I disagree with what the book said."
Many activists who stood with Congressmen Charlie Rangel and John Conyers against apartheid in South Africa were presumably disappointed to hear them denounce Carter's book while turning their backs on the discrimination faced by Palestinians. Rep. Rangel was relatively mild in his criticism. "Words like these may sell papers and books, but they do little to advance the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. For diplomacy to have a chance, we must create an environment that will allow both sides to come together and make the necessary but difficult steps to stop the violence and improve the lives of everyone in the region."
Rep. Conyers, probably the next chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, cut at Carter far more vigorously than Rep. Rangel. Rep. Conyers insisted that Carter's use of the term apartheid "does not serve the cause of peace and the use of it against the Jewish people in particular, who have been victims of the worst kind of discrimination, discrimination resulting in death, is offensive and wrong."
Carter would have been wrong had he compared the Palestinian predicament to the savagery of the Nazis. But he did no such thing. In comparing the Palestinians' situation to apartheid South Africa he is joined by the authoritative Bishop Tutu who in 2002 stated, "I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa."
Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean joined the scrum when he asserted, "While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Dean has apparently learned some lessons from his failed run for the Democratic presidential nomination: Do not be fair-minded when it comes to Israel and Palestine. The one-time frontrunner for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, his campaign started sliding shortly after eminently reasonable remarks on the conflict in September of 2003. As detailed by Michelle Goldberg in Salon, at a campaign stop in New Mexico on September 3, 2003, Dean stated, "It's not our place to take sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Six days later he told the Washington Post that U.S. policy toward the Palestinians and Israelis should be "evenhanded."
The next day, September 10, Goldberg notes that Rep. Pelosi and 33 other Democratic members of Congress wrote Dean an open letter. "American foreign policy has been -- and must continue to be -- based on unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror ..." they declared. "It is unacceptable for the U.S. to be 'evenhanded' on these fundamental issues ... This is not a time to be sending mixed messages; on the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement." Three years later Dean is squarely in Pelosi's court when it comes to Israel. And both are in solid alignment with AIPAC.
Phone calls to a handful of members of the Progressive Caucus brought no response to the criticism of Carter's book and no comment on Avigdor Lieberman's joining the Israeli governing coalition. What remains of the progressive left on the Hill is thoroughly cowed on this issue, unable or unwilling to defend President Carter or denounce the racism of Avigdor Lieberman. Democrats may move haltingly on Iraq but cannot be expected to do the same on Israel and Palestine. Indeed, many will be intent on proving themselves to be more hawkish on behalf of Israel than the Republicans. The willingness of both parties to contribute to the subjugation of the Palestinians is breathtaking and suggests more bleak days are ahead for the region.
Michael F. Brown is a fellow of The Palestine Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund. This report may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the author.
If Jimmy Carter's position on peace in the Middle East does not represent that of the Democratic Party, then shame on the Democratic Party. Shame on Representative Pelosi for denying the truth about Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. Shame on her for declaring that Carter opposes Israel's right to exist free from terror, when he clearly affirms this right. But then it is almost certain that Pelosi and the rest of these Congressional leaders of the Democratic Party have not actually read Carter's book - beyond the term "apartheid" in the title. Why would they need to read the book, when AIPAC will tell them what they ought to say about it?
AIPAC does not represent the values of the American people. It does not represent the values of the American Jewish people, who have always supported the liberal values of justice and peace. AIPAC does not even represent the interests of the Israeli people. Gidon D. Remba, a current member of AIPAC, writes in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz http://www.haaretz.com/...
AIPAC claims that it champions the policies of the elected Israeli government, whatever they may be. But it does not faithfully live up to this promise: Over the past 20 years, it has supported right-wing governments in Israel wholeheartedly, while being halfhearted, or worse, about the policies of left-wing administrations. And when Israel is ruled from the right, AIPAC's credo makes supporting Israel synonymous with lining up behind policies which many American Jews - and often the other half or more of the Israeli public - think baneful for Israel's quest for peace and security.
Indeed, AIPAC sometimes tries to be more Israeli than the Israeli government, urging American Jews and their elected representatives in Washington to oppose moderate, responsible positions on Israel, while hewing to the hardest line on the Israeli and American Jewish political spectrum.
In short, AIPAC's positions are those of the neoconservatives in George Bush's administration, which the American people has just soundly repudiated in the recent elections. Compare the statements denouncing Carter by the Democratic leadership to the tirade by John Bolton, denouncing the recent draft resolution by the UN General Assembly, condemning the violence in Gaza:
This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist.
The language is exactly the same. Yet the UN resolution no more opposed Israel's right to exist than Carter's book, which clearly affirmed it.
I would remind these Democratic leaders of one thing that the recent election has show us: You can not lie forever to the American people. You can not hope to keep the truth from them indefinitely. Carter's book will help open their eyes, and eventually they will come to realize how justice and peace have been subverted through the corrupt influence of the AIPAC lobby in Washington on their representatives. Eventually they will go to the voting booth and demand justice and peace - and representatives who are committed to these principles, instead of AIPAC.
Comments are closed on this story.