The bookPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006) by former presidentJimmy Carter has been highly controversial and attracted a wide range of commentary. The reception of the book has itself raised further controversy, occasioning Carter's own subsequent responses to such criticism.
Critical response toPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid around the time of release in 2006 was mixed. Some journalists and academics have praised what they regard as Carter's courage for speaking honestly about theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict in a media environment which is hostile to opponents of Israel's policies.[1] Others, however, have been more negative. According to Julie Bosman, criticism of the book "has escalated to a full-scale furor", much of which has focused on Carter's use of the wordapartheid in the subtitle.[2] Some of the book's critics, including several leaders of theDemocratic Party and ofAmerican Jewish organizations, have interpreted the subtitle as anallegation of Israeli apartheid, which they believe to be inflammatory and unsubstantiated.[3]
In his review published on October 15, 2006, Brad Hooper, editor atBooklist, concludes: "The former president's ideas are expressed with perfect clarity; his book, of course, represents a personal point of view, but one that is certainly grounded in both knowledge and wisdom. His outlook on the problem not only contributes to the literature of debate surrounding it but also, just as importantly, delivers a worthy game plan for clearing up the dilemma."[4]Israeli historian and authorTom Segev believes his principal argument is "well-founded".[5]
Raja Shehadeh, a lawyer and author, including ofOccupier's Law: Israel and the West Bank, regardsPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid as a "fresh debate" onIsrael's policies in theWest Bank. Shehadeh believes that "With his well documented book and its provocative title, Carter is working to achieve 'one of the major goals of [his] life' as he makes clear at the outset of his book: 'to help ensure a lasting peace for Israelis and others in the Middle East.'"[6]
Robert Fisk declares that the book is "a good, strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood", adding: "Needless to say, the American press and television largely ignored the appearance of this eminently sensible book—until the usual Israeli lobbyists began to scream abuse at poor old Jimmy Carter, albeit that he was the architect of the longest lasting peace treaty between Israel and an Arab neighbour—Egypt—secured with the famous 1978 Camp David accords."[7]
Carl L. Brown inForeign Affairs writes: "This book offers a historical overview in the form of a personal memoir, tracing developments since the 1970s as Carter experienced and understood them. He may thus be said to be both a source for the historian and himself a historian of theIsraeli–Palestinian confrontation. This little book merits a reading on both counts. Carter concludes that 'Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.' That statement, so out of line with the way mainstream American political figures (even those retired from public office) frame the issue, ensures that the book will be attacked by many. Perhaps it will be read as well."[8]
Ian Black, Middle East editor atThe Guardian, writes "Controversy about the book flows largely from the word "apartheid" in the title: it is wrong if applied to Israel within its pre-1967 borders, where there is discrimination but not institutionalised racism. In the West Bank, with its confiscated land, unequal allocation of water resources, fortress-like settlements, security fence and segregated roads, it is fitting enough. No one who has seen subjugated Palestinians struggling with everyday life alongside armed Jewish settlers can quarrel with it".[9]
In his blog,Tony Karon, a senior editor atTime and a former anti-apartheid activist for theANC, states "The point being that Jimmy Carter had to write this book precisely because Palestinian life and history is not accorded equal value in American discourse, far from it. And his use of the word apartheid is not only morally valid; it is essential, because it shakes the moral stupor that allows many liberals to rationalize away the daily, grinding horror being inflicted on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza".[10]
In an article published on the website of theInstitute for Middle East Understanding,Lena Khalaf Tuffaha finds that Carter's book "eloquently describes the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" and that "his book challenges Americans to see the conflict with eyes wide open."[11]
Writing inThe Nation, Michael F. Brown, a fellow atThe Palestine Center ofThe Jerusalem Fund, characterizes the book's title as "extraordinarily bold—and apt" and suggests: "Perhaps President Carter should send copies of his book to members of Congress. ... [so that] they might learn a thing or two about the long-festering conflict at the heart of so many of our current troubles in the region."[12]
InThe Arab American News, Sherri Muzher, Palestinian-American director of Michigan Media Watch, writes: "Nobody expects instant miracles to come from Carter's book, but hopefully, it will spark the sort of robust discussions that even Israeli society and media already engage in."[13]
RabbiMichael Lerner, the editor ofTikkun, calls Carter "the only president to have actually delivered for the Jewish people an agreement (the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt) that has stood the test of time." He continues: "We know that critique is often an essential part of love and caring. That is precisely what Jimmy Carter is trying to do for Israel and the Jewish people in his new book". He further stresses that "Carter does not claim that Israel is an apartheid state. What he does claim is that the West Bank will be a de facto apartheid situation if the current dynamics continue."[14]
Canadianlabour union leaderSid Ryan writes: "Former U.S. president Carter is just the latest world figure to openly challenge the policies of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. He joins Rev.Desmond Tutu, another Nobel Prize winner. Each time a trade union or church group or world leader steps forward to break the cone of silence around this issue, the more difficult it becomes for the lobby groups to spew their propaganda."[15]
Ali Abunimah, editor of theElectronic Intifada, writing inThe Wall Street Journal, concludes "President Carter has done what few American politicians have dared to do: speak frankly about the Israel–Palestine conflict. He has done this nation, and the cause of peace, an enormous service by focusing attention on what he calls "the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank." Calling Carter "the most successful Arab-Israeli peace negotiator to date", Abunimah praises him for having "braved a storm of criticism, including the insinuation from thepro-IsraelAnti-Defamation League that his arguments areanti-Semitic."[16]
IsraeliKnesset memberYossi Beilin, leader ofMeretz-Yachad from 2004-2008, writes inThe Forward that, while he "disagreed mostly with the choice of language, including his choice of the word 'apartheid' what Carter says in his book about the Israeli occupation and our treatment of Palestinians in theoccupied territories—and perhaps no less important, how he says it—is entirely harmonious with the kind of criticism that Israelis themselves voice about their own country. There is nothing in the criticism that Carter has for Israel that has not been said by Israelis themselves."[17]
South African professor of international lawJohn Dugard observes that while Carter's book "is igniting controversy for its Israel and the apartheid analogy" he understands the deeper rationale for Carter's analogy as follows:
Since 1967Israel has imposed its control over the Palestinian territories in the manner of a colonizing power, under the guise of occupation. It has permanently seized the territories' most desirable parts—the holy sites inEast Jerusalem,Hebron andBethlehem and the fertile agricultural lands along the western border and in theJordan Valley—and settled its own Jewish "colonists" throughout the land. Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has many features ofcolonization. At the same time it has many of the worst characteristics of apartheid. ... Many aspects of Israel's occupation surpass those of the apartheid regime. Israel's large-scale destruction of Palestinian homes, leveling of agricultural lands, military incursions and targeted assassinations of Palestinians far exceed any similar practices inapartheid South Africa. No wall was ever built to separate blacks and whites.[18][19]
Zbigniew Brzezinski, formerNational Security Adviser to President Carter, agrees with the main thesis of the book: President Carter, in my judgement, is correct in fearing that the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid: i.e., two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation. That is an outcome which must be avoided and I interpret his book as a strong plea for accommodation, which needs to be actively promoted by morally responsible engagement especially by America. Brzezinski also condemns the "abusive reactions directed at Carter, including some newspaper ads" for being "objectionable and designed to intimidate an open public discussion."[20]
UCLA professor of English literatureSaree Makdisi writes in theSan Francisco Chronicle that "Carter's apartheid charge rings true", observing: "Israel maintains two sets of rules and regulations in the West Bank: one for Jews, one for non-Jews. The only thing wrong with using the word 'apartheid' to describe such a repugnant system is that the South African version ofinstitutionalized discrimination was never as elaborate as its Israeli counterpart—nor did it have such a vocal chorus of defenders among otherwise liberal Americans."[21]
In an essay published inThe Nation,Henry Siegman, former executive director of theAmerican Jewish Congress, and visiting professor at theSchool of Oriental and African Studies,University of London, begins by observing that the "book's title more than its content" caused an "uproar" even prior to publication, because it "seemed to suggest that the avatar ofdemocracy in the Middle East may be on its way to creating a political order that resembles South Africa's apartheid model of discrimination and repression, albeit on ethnic-religious rather than racial grounds" and provoked such controversy due to "the ignorance of the American political establishment, both Democrat and Republican, on the subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict"; in Siegman's view: "Carter's harsh condemnation of Israeli policies in the occupied territories is not the consequence of ideology or of an anti-Israel bias."[22]
Norman Finkelstein, an assistant professor of political science atDePaul University, defends Carter's analysis inPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid as both historically accurate and non-controversial outside the United States: "After four decades of Israeli occupation, the infrastructure and superstructure of apartheid have been put in place. Outside the never-never land of mainstream American Jewry and U.S. media[,] this reality is barely disputed."[23]
George Bisharat, a professor at theUniversity of California, Hastings College of Law, begins his "Commentary" on the book inThe Philadelphia Inquirer of January 2, 2007: "Americans owe a debt to former President Jimmy Carter for speaking long hidden but vital truths. His bookPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid breaks the taboo barring criticism in the United States of Israel's discriminatory treatment of Palestinians. Our government's tacit acceptance of Israel's unfair policies causes global hostility against us."[24]
Michael Scheuer, the former head of theCentral Intelligence Agency'sAlec Station and professor of security studies atGeorgetown University, criticized the negative response to the book, writing, "By God, even former American presidents like Carter are viciously attacked in public if they make negative comments about Israel." Scheuer pointed toDeborah Lipstadt,Jacob Olidort, andMona Charen as examples of the "American takfiris' attack on President Carter for his book."[25]
In "It's Not Apartheid", published inThe Washington Post, columnistMichael Kinsley states that Carter "makes no attempt to explain [the use of the word 'apartheid']" which he calls "a foolish and unfair comparison, unworthy of the man who won—and deserved—the Nobel Peace Prize." To start with, no one has yet thought to accuse Israel of creating a phony country in finally acquiescing to the creation of a Palestinian state. Palestine is noBantustan. Furthermore, Israel has always had Arab citizens. No doubt many Israelis have racist attitudes toward Arabs, but the official philosophy of the government is quite the opposite, and sincere efforts are made to, for example, instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children.[26][27]National Review editorRich Lowry says that "Carter always finds a way to point a finger at Israel." Yes, there are two sides to every dispute, and heaven knows the Palestinian people have suffered throughout the past six decades, but Carter apes the Palestinian position and calls it evenhandedness. Lowry feels the "book marks Carter's further disgraceful descent from ineffectual president and international do-gooder to apologist for the worst Arab tendencies", citing a passage from the book.[28]Mona Charen writes in theNational Review that "awkward phrasing is found throughout this slapdash work." Charen presents examples of what she regards as "simplistic, naïve, or tendentious" ideas in the book about theSix-Day War,Hezbollah, andOslo Accords.[29]
In "Jews, Arabs and Jimmy Carter", deputy foreign editor ofThe New York TimesEthan Bronner draws attention to what he describes as "the narrowness of Carter's perspective" and argues that Carter fails to highlight legitimate objections to Israel's current policies in the course of "simply offer[ing] a narrative that is largely unsympathetic to Israel" while engaging in some "misrepresentations ... [which] are a shame because most of what Carter focuses on is well worth reading about." To Bronner, "Carter's picture feels like yesterday's story, especially since Israel's departures from southernLebanon andGaza have not stopped anti-Israel violence from those areas. ... This book has something of aRip van Winkle feel to it, as if little had changed since Carter diagnosed the problem in the 1970s." Despite his own disagreements with aspects of the book and his acknowledgment that Carter overstates his case in it, Bronner finds that others have criticized the book "unfairly": "Their biggest complaint against the book—a legitimate one—is the word "apartheid" in the title, with its false echo of the racist policies of the old South Africa. Butoverstatement hardly adds up toanti-Semitism."
The Economist reviewedPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid and found it to be "a weak one, simplistic and one-sided ... Israeli expansionism gets the drubbing it deserves; Arab rejectionism gets off much too lightly."[30]
In "What Would Jimmy Do?", published inThe Washington Post Book World,Jeffrey Goldberg describes Carter as a "partisan of thePalestinians" who has offered a "notably benign view ofHamas" and who, he alleges, creates "sins to hang around the necks ofJews when no sins have actually been committed" as Carter "blames Israel almost entirely for perpetuating the hundred-year war between Arab and Jew."[31]
In "The Question of Carter's Cash",Claudia Rosett writes, "Even in Carter's long history of post-presidential grandstanding, this book sets fresh standards of irresponsibility. Purporting to give a balanced view of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, Carter effectively shrugs off such highly germane matters as Palestinian terrorism. The hypocrisies are boundless, and include adoring praise of the deeply oppressive, religiously intolerant Saudi regime side by side with condemnations of democratic Israel."[32][33]
Prior to the book's publication, during theU.S. midterm election campaign period in the third week of October 2006, several prominent Democrats criticized both the book and the author, a fellow Democrat. Specifically,Democratic National Committee ChairmanHoward Dean issued a statement: "While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict. On this issue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of theDemocratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors."[34] Then-House Minority LeaderNancy Pelosi stated: 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.
In an "Op-Ed" published on December 4 inThe Jerusalem Post, David A. Harris, executive director of theAmerican Jewish Committee (AJC), says that he finds it "startling that a former president who prides himself on his ongoing contribution to world peace would write a crude polemic that compromises any pretense to objectivity and fairness": "Carter leaves out what any reasonable observer, even those that share his basic views of the conflict, would consider obvious facts, but does include stunning distortions".;[35] Harris "cite[s] just two of the numerous examples" of what he calls "such mendacity".[36] The first of these, Harris says, is that "Carter discounts well-established claims that Israel accepted and Arafat rejected a generous offer to create a Palestinian state." The second "manifest distortion", according to Harris, is that "Carter states that Israel plans to build a security fence 'along the Jordan River, which is now planned as the eastern leg of the encirclement of the Palestinians'"; whereas well-informed observers know that "Israel has modified the projected route of the security fence on numerous occasions (the current route roughly tracks the parameters that Clinton advanced to the parties in negotiations) and that there is no plan to hem the Palestinians in on the eastern border." In omitting "these well-known developments", Harris argues, Carter is "leaving readers to think that a route that was once contemplated in proposed maps but never adopted or acted upon represents current reality."[36]
In an unsolicited handwritten letter replying to Harris, former PresidentBill Clinton expresses gratitude for Harris' articles on behalf of theAmerican Jewish Committee critiquing the book: "Dear David, Thanks so much for your articles about President Carter's book. I don't know where his information (or conclusions) came from, butDennis Ross has tried to straighten it out, publicly and in two letters to him. At any rate, I'm grateful. Sincerely, Bill Clinton."[37][38]
On January 11, 2007, according to theAssociated Press, "Fourteen members of an advisory board to Jimmy Carter's human rights organization," theCarter Center, "resigned ... to protest his new book." In their "letter of resignation," as reported by the AP, the "departing members of the Center's Board of Councilors told Carter ... 'You have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side'."[39][40][41] The Carter Center's Board of Councilors, from which the fourteen members resigned, consists of over 200 members.[42] Prior to those fourteen resignations, Kenneth W. Stein had already resigned from the board in protest against what he states are the book's "errors".[43]
TheCentral Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), canceled a planned visit to Carter's human rights center, stating thatPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid unfairly criticizes Israel: "The book contains numerous distortions of history and interpretation and apparently, outright fabrications as well. Its use of the term 'apartheid' to describe conditions in the West Bank serves only to demonize and de-legitimize Israel in the eyes of the world."[44] Representatives of the CCAR assert that President Carter's "attempted rehabilitation of such terrorist groups as Hezbollah and Hamas demonstrated either a clear anti-Israel bias and criticizes him for implying that there has been "a 'Jewish conspiracy' at work to discourage conversation about the Palestinians' plight."[44]
On December 11, 2006,National Public Radio reported that "RabbiMarvin Hier, the founder and dean of theSimon Wiesenthal Center, says his organization has received over 20,000 letters of complaint, so far, against President Carter."[45]
Dennis Ross said in an interview onThe Situation Room onCNN that Carter's interpretation of the maps inPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid is "just simply wrong."[46] Whereas in his book Carter presents the maps as an "Israeli interpretation of the Clinton idea", according to Ross, who played a key role in shaping the Clinton administration's efforts to bring peace to the region, the maps in fact represented Clinton's proposals exactly.[46][47] Responding to a question posed by CNN anchorWolf Blitzer, Ross stated that Carter was also "wrong" to suggest that Israel had rejected the American proposals atCamp David: "[T]his is a matter of record. This is not a matter of interpretation."[46] Ross concluded: "President Carter made a major contribution to peace in the Middle East. That's the reality. I would like him to meet the same standard that he applied then to what he's doing now."[46]
Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law atHarvard Law School, claims that Carter's book is "riddled with errors and bias."[48] Dershowitz argues that there are factual inaccuracies inPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid, including its statement that "Israel launched a preemptive attack on Jordan", observing that, in the 1967Six-Day War, "Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city."[49]
In an open letter published inThe New York Sun,Kenneth W. Stein, Director of theInstitute for the Study of Modern Israel ofEmory University, who was the founder of the Middle East program at theCarter Center and the center's first director (February 1984 – 1986), presents criticisms of the book as follows: "President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analysis; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."[50] In his letter sent to President Carter and others, Stein also observes: "Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book." He adds: "Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade."[51] At the end of the first week of December, Karen DeYoung reported that Stein had not yet provided a full outline of such alleged factual errors in the book.[52]
Rebecca Trounson reports in theLos Angeles Times: Stein presented details of the book's perceived errors; among the most serious, Stein says that Carter misrepresentedUN Resolution 242 and gave a false account of a meeting held with former Syrian PresidentHafez al-Assad in 1990, which Stein attended and has the transcript of.[53]
Gil Troy, professor of history atMcGill University, opines: "[I]f Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has [apartheid], [then] he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be." He elaborates:
Sadly, Israelis and Palestinians do not enjoy the kind of harmony the Israeli Declaration of Independence envisioned. Carter and his comrades use "Apartheid" as shorthand to condemn some of the security measures improvised recently. ... Israel built a security fence to protect its citizens and separate Palestinian enclaves from Israeli cities. Ironically, that barrier marks Israel's most dramatic recognition of Palestinian aspirations to independence since Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. ... Applying the Apartheid label tries to ostracize Israel by misrepresenting some of the difficult decisions Israel has felt forced to make in fighting Palestinian terror.[54]
In an article published on January 20, 2007, inThe Washington Post,Deborah Lipstadt, the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies atEmory University, criticized Carter for what she calls his "Jewish Problem", complaining that, now "facing a storm of criticism, he has relied on anti-Semitic stereotypes in defense."[55] In a more-recent public appearance at a rally in London, in the first week of February 2007, Lipstadt charged that, in this book, Carter engages in what she terms "soft-coredenial".[56] According to Paul, "She received huge applause when she asked how former US President Jimmy Carter could omit the years 1939–1947 from a chronology in his book"; referring to him and toPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid, she said: "When a former president of the United States writes a book on the Israeli–Palestinian crisis and writes a chronology at the beginning of the book in order to help them understand the emergence of the situation and in that chronology lists nothing of importance between 1939 and 1947, that is soft-core denial."[56]
Carter has responded to negative reviews in the mainstreamnews media in an op-ed published in theLos Angeles Times (which was excerpted in the British newspaperThe Guardian and elsewhere):
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives ofJewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming HouseSpeakerNancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for theDemocratic Party onIsrael." Some reviews posted onAmazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A formerCarter Center fellow has taken issue with it, andAlan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark—that I should be tried for treason—and one caller onC-SPAN said that I was ananti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.[57][58]
As Greg Bluestein of theAssociated Press observes, Carter replied generally to charges by Ross, Dershowitz, Stein, and others that his book contains errors and inaccuracies by pointing out that the Carter Center staff as well as an "unnamed 'distinguished' reporter" fact-checked it.[59] OnLarry King Live in late November 2006, Larry King quotedAlan Dershowitz's saying that Carter's "use of the loaded word 'apartheid'[,] suggesting an analogy tothe hated policies of South Africa[,] is especially outrageous" and asked the former president: "What's the analogy? Why use the word apartheid?" Carter replied:
Well, he [Dershowitz] has to go to the first word in the title, which is "Palestine," not "Israel." He should go to the second word in the title, which is "Peace." And then the last two words [are] "Not Apartheid." I never have alleged in the book or otherwise that Israel, as a nation, was guilty of apartheid. But there is a clear distinction between the policies within thenation of Israel and within theoccupied territories that Israel controls[,] and the oppression of thePalestinians byIsraeli forces in the occupied territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. (Italics added.)[60]
With regard to the criticisms of Kenneth W. Stein, Carter has also pointed out "that Stein hadn't played a role in theCarter Center in 13 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary title. 'When I decided to write this book, I didn't even think about involving Ken, from ancient times, to come in and help.'"[59] Carter's biographerDouglas Brinkley has observed that Stein and Carter have a "passionate, up-and-down relationship" and that Stein has criticized some of Carter's previous statements about Israel.[61] In response to Professor Stein's current criticism of the book, representatives of its publisher,Simon & Schuster, state: "We haven't seen these allegations, we haven't seen any specifics, and I have no way of assessing anything he [Stein] has said. ... This is all about nothing. We stand behind the book fully, and the fact that there has been a divided reaction to it is not surprising."[62]
As cited in various news accounts, "Carter has consistently defended his book's accuracy against Stein and other critics"; in a prepared statement, Carter's press secretary Deanna Congileo responds "that Carter had his book reviewed for accuracy throughout the writing process" and that "[a]s with all of President Carter's previous books, any detected errors will be corrected in later editions."[63]
In response to theAssociated Press's request for a comment on the aforementioned resignations of Stein and fourteen other members of the center's Board of Councilors, speaking on behalf of both Carter and theCarter Center, Ms. Congileo also provided a statement from its executive director John Hardman, who, according to Zelkowitz, "also fact checkedPalestine, saying that the members of that board 'are not engaged in implementing the work of the Center.'"[39][63]
After receiving 25,000 petitions against his book presented to him by theSimon Wiesenthal Center, former President Carter sent a hand-written one-sentence note dated January 26, 2007, to the center's dean and founder, RabbiMarvin Hier, which the organization posted on its website, in which Carter states: "I don't believe thatSimon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds."[64] TheAssociated Press reports that, "facing continuing controversy over his new book on theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict", former President Jimmy Carter "issued a letter ... to American Jews explaining his use of the term 'apartheid' and sympathizing with Israelis who fearterrorism."[65] Jimmy Carter's "A Letter to Jewish Citizens of America" is posted on the website of theCarter Center.[66] Further commentaries based on this letter are quoted by John Kelly in his article "The Middle East: Are Critics of Israel Stifled?" inThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution of December 17, 2006.
In an op-ed published on December 20, 2006, inThe Boston Globe, Carter rejects critics of his book as not actually having addressed the major points contained in it:
Not surprisingly, an examination of the book reviews and published comments reveals that these points have rarely if ever been mentioned by detractors of the book, much less denied or refuted. Instead, there has been a pattern of ad hominem statements, alleging that I am a liar, plagiarist, anti-Semite, racist, bigot, ignorant, etc. There are frequent denunciations of fabricated "straw man" accusations: that I have claimed that apartheid exists within Israel; that the system of apartheid in Palestine is based on racism; and that Jews control and manipulate the news media of America.[67] Carter concludes:As recommended by theHamilton-Baker report, renewed negotiations betweenIsrael and thePalestinians are a prime factor in promoting peace in the region. Although my book concentrates on thePalestinian territories, I noted that the report also recommended peace talks withSyria concerning theGolan Heights. Both recommendations have been rejected by Israel's prime minister.It is practically impossible for bitter antagonists to arrange a time, place, agenda, and procedures that are mutually acceptable, so an outside instigator/promoter is necessary. Successful peace talks were orchestrated by theUnited States in 1978–79 and byNorway in 1993. If the American government is reluctant to assume such a unilateral responsibility, then an alternative is theInternational Quartet (United States, Russia, theUnited Nations, and theEuropean Union)—still with American leadership. An overwhelming majority of citizens ofIsrael,Lebanon,Jordan,Egypt, andPalestine want peace, with justice for all who live in theHoly Land. It will be a shame if the world community fails to help them reach this goal.[67]
Further information:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid § News accounts, editorials, and letters by others
