 Cover showing the author, left, and protesters at theIsraeli West Bank barrier, right | |
| Author | Jimmy Carter |
|---|---|
| Cover artist | Michael Accordino |
| Language | English |
| Subject | Israeli–Palestinian conflict |
| Published | 2006 (Simon & Schuster) |
| Publication place | United States |
| Media type | Print (hardcover andpaperback), audiobook (Audio CD) |
| Pages | 264 |
| ISBN | 0743285026 |
| 956.04 22 | |
| LC Class | DS119.7 .C3583 2006 |
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid[1] is a book written byJimmy Carter. It was published bySimon & Schuster in November 2006.[2]
The book is primarily based on Carter's long engagement in theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict, both before, during and after his presidency. He recounts his first visits to the Middle East asGovernor of Georgia, his role as President in theCamp David Accords, his personal relationships with Arab and Israeli political leaders such asAnwar Sadat andMenachem Begin, his involvement in thepeace process since leaving the White House, as well as his successors' policies in the region.
In the book, Carter argues that Israel's continued control andconstruction of settlements in theWest Bank have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in theMiddle East.[3] That perspective, coupled with the use of the word "apartheid" in the title, and what critics said were errors and misstatements in the book, sparked controversy. Carter defended the book and countered that response to it "in the real world… has been overwhelmingly positive."[4]
The 2007 documentaryMan from Plains depicts the tour Carter undertook to promote the book.
The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is thatJews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.[4]
Carter identifies "two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East":
[1] SomeIsraelis believe they have the right toconfiscate andcolonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and
[2] SomePalestinians react by honoringsuicide bombers asmartyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.[3]
To bring an end to what he calls "this continuing tragedy", in Chapter 17 ("Summary"), Carter calls for a revitalization of the peace process based on the following three "key requirements":
a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed ...
b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israel's permanent legal boundary ...
c. The sovereignty of all Middle East nations and sanctity of international borders must be honored ...[3]
Regarding the use of the word "Apartheid" in the title of his book, Carter has said:
It's not Israel. The book has nothing to do with what's going on inside Israel which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews who are Israelis have the same privileges about Israel. That's been most of the controversy because people assume it's about Israel. It's not.[5]
I've never alleged that the framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all, and that what does exist in the West Bank is based on trying to take Palestinian land and not on racism. So it was a very clear distinction.[6]
In remarks broadcast over radio, Carter claimed that Israel's policies amounted to an apartheid worse than South Africa's:[7]
When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa.[7]
Critical response toPalestine: Peace Not Apartheid at the time of release was divided. 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 word "apartheid" in the subtitle.[8] Some 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.[9][10][11]Tony Karon, Senior Editor atTIME.com and a former anti-Apartheid activist for theANC, said: "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 andGaza".[12] Former PresidentBill Clinton wrote a brief letter to the chairman of theAmerican Jewish Committee, thanking him for articles criticizing the book and citing his agreement withDennis Ross's attempts to "straighten ... out" Carter's claims and conclusions about Clinton's ownCamp David peace proposal in the summer of 2000.[13][14]
Some critics claimed that Carter crossed the line into anti-Semitism.Abraham Foxman, the national director of theAnti-Defamation League, initially accused Carter of "engaging in anti-Semitism" in the book; Foxman toldJames Traub later that he would not call the former president himself an "anti-Semite" or a "bigot".[15][16] Ethan Bronner also asserted that Carter's "overstatement" in the book "hardly adds up to anti-Semitism."[17]
Some journalists and academics have praised Carter for what they believe to be speaking honestly about theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict in a media environment described as hostile to opponents of Israel's policies.[18][19] Some left-leaning Israeli politicians such asYossi Beilin andShulamit Aloni argued that Carter's critique of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories reflects that of many Israelis themselves.[20]
Carter has responded to negative reviews in the mainstreamnews media in an op-ed published in theLos Angeles Times (which was excerpted inThe Guardian and elsewhere):
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book isanti-Israel. Two members ofCongress have been publicly critical. Incoming SpeakerNancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for theDemocratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted onAmazon.com call me "anti-Semitic", and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions". A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan 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 fortreason—and one caller onC-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book onuniversity 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.[4][21]
He also wrote a "Letter to Jewish Citizens of America" explaining "his use of the term 'apartheid' and sympathizing with Israelis who fear terrorism."[22][23]
In hisop-ed "Reiterating the Keys to Peace", published inThe Boston Globe on 20 December 2006, Carter summarizes "[s]ome major points in the book":
- Multiple deaths of innocent civilians have occurred on both sides, and this violence and all terrorism must cease
- For 39 years, Israel hasoccupied Palestinian land, and hasconfiscated andcolonized hundreds of choice sites
- Often excluded from their former homes, land, and places of worship, protesting Palestinians have been severely dominated and oppressed. There is forcedsegregation betweenIsraeli settlers and Palestine's citizens, with a complexpass system required for Arabs to traverse Israel's multiplecheckpoints
- An enormous wall snakes through populated areas of what is left of theWest Bank, constructed on wide swaths of bulldozed trees and property of Arab families, obviously designed to acquire more territory and to protect theIsraeli colonies already built. (Hamas declared a unilateralcease-fire in August 2004 as its candidates sought local and then national offices, which they claim is the reason for reductions in casualties to Israeli citizens.)
- Combined with this wall, Israeli control of theJordan River Valley will completely enclose Palestinians in their shrunken and divided territory. Gaza is surrounded by a similar barrier with only two openings, still controlled by Israel. The crowded citizens have no free access to the outside world by air, sea, or land
- The Palestinian people are now being deprived of the necessities of life by economic restrictions imposed on them by Israel and the United States because 42 percent voted for Hamas candidates in this year's election. Teachers, nurses, policemen, firemen and other employees cannot be paid, and the UN has reported food supplies in Gaza equivalent to those among the poorest families insub-Sahara Africa, with half the families surviving on one meal a day
- Mahmoud Abbas, first as prime minister and now as president of thePalestinian National Authority and leader of thePLO, has sought to negotiate with Israel for almost six years, without success. Hamas leaders support such negotiations, promising to accept the results if approved by a Palestinianreferendum
- UN Resolutions, theCamp David Accords of 1978, theOslo Agreement of 1993, official US Policy, and theInternational Roadmap for Peace are all based on the premise that Israel withdraw fromoccupied territories. Also, Palestinians must accept the same commitment made by the 23 Arab nations in 2002: to recognize Israel's right to live in peace within its legal borders. These are the two keys to peace[24]
In a report updated by theAssociated Press after the publication of Carter's "Letter to Jewish Citizens of America",Greg Bluestein observes that Carter replied generally to complaints of the book's errors and inaccuracies byDennis Ross,Alan Dershowitz,Kenneth Stein, theSimon Wiesenthal Center, and others by pointing out that theCarter Center staff as well as an "unnamed 'distinguished' reporter" fact-checked it.[25][26]Rachel Zelkowitz points out that, 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 secretaryDeanna 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 ..."[27] In response to the Associated Press's request for a comment on the resignations of Stein and 14 other members of the Center's Board of Councilors, speaking on behalf of both Carter and the Carter Center, Congileo 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.'"[28]
Carter said that debate on Israel-related issues was muffled in theUS media by lobbying efforts of thepro-Israel lobby: "[M]any controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations—but not in the United States. ... This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of theAmerican-Israel Political Action Committee [sic] and the absence of any significant contrary voices."[4][21] He expressed hope that the book would help to "precipitate discussion and help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbours.[4][21]
In early December 2006,Brandeis University invited Carter to visit the university to debate his book with lawyer, professor and prominent supporter of IsraelAlan Dershowitz. Carter declined that invitation, explaining: "I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz. There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine." Carter said that the Brandeis debate request "is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory," adding: "There is no debate in America about anything that would be critical of Israel."[29]
Dershowitz criticized Carter's refusal to debate him, asserting: "Carter’s refusal to debate wouldn't be so strange if it weren't for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate over the issue of the Israel-Palestine peace process. If that were really true, Carter would be thrilled to have the opportunity to debate."[30] He later wrote inThe Case Against Israel's Enemies that Carter's accusation of his ignorance was untrue "since we had discussed my several visits to the Palestinian Authority during our conversation only months earlier in Herzliya."[31]
In aBoston Globe article of 22 December 2006, Patricia Johnston said that she and many colleagues had offered to chip in perhaps $100 each to pay for whatever travel and security costs a Carter visit would entail. "Who is Alan Dershowitz?" Johnston said. Carter "is the former president of the United States, who has done so much to further the cause of peace in the Middle East and elsewhere. It's an insult to suggest that he should have to defend himself that way." She said she envisioned Carter giving a traditional speech and taking audience questions.[32]
On 26 December 2006,WCVB-TV, anABC-TV affiliate, reported that "[a]bout 100 students, faculty and alumni of Brandeis University have signed an online petition to push the administration to bring former President Carter to campus to discuss his new book on Palestine, without being required to debate it."[33]
The Boston Globe reported that since it initially revealed "that Carter felt unwelcome on the Waltham campus, people have argued over whether he is unwilling to answer for his views, or whether Brandeis, which was founded by the American Jewish community, can't tolerate criticism of Israel. The latter is a view that some professors hope they can dispel by reviving the Carter visit."[32]
On 10 January 2007, it was reported that Carter would discussPalestine Peace Not Apartheid at Brandeis University but that he would "not, however, debate the book with" Dershowitz.[28] Brandeis officials reported that Carter would "be the first former president to visit Brandeis since Harry Truman delivered the commencement address in 1957.... It will be Carter's first visit to a university to discuss the book, [Carter's spokeswoman Deanna] Congileo said", confirming also "the president has set no conditions and would answer as many questions as possible"; Carter plans to "speak for about 15 minutes and then answer questions for 45 minutes during the visit."
The speech, which occurred on 23 January 2007, was "closed to the public and limited to 'members of the university community only'"; nevertheless, Dershowitz said that he still planned to "attend and question Carter":"'I will be the first person to have my hand up to ask him a question,' he said. 'I guarantee that they won't stop me from attending.'"[34]
On 18 January 2007, news outlets reported Brandeis's announcement that while Dershowitz could not attend Carter's speech, after it ended he would have the stage for a "rebuttal."[35]
The day after the speech (24 January 2007),The New York Times reported on the program: "Questions were preselected by the committee that invited Mr. Carter, and the questioners included an Israeli student and a Palestinian student. After Mr. Carter left, Mr. Dershowitz spoke in the same gymnasium, saying that the former president oversimplified the situation and that his conciliatory and sensible-sounding speech at Brandeis belied his words in some other interviews."[36] According to David Weber ofABC News, Carter said "that he stood by the book and its title, that he apologized for what he called an 'improper and stupid' sentence in the book [which he acknowledged seemed to justify terrorism by saying that suicide bombings should end when Israel accepts the goals of the road map to peace with Palestinians and which he had already instructed his publisher to remove from its future editions,] and that he had been disturbed by accusations that he was anti-Semitic.... [Carter]...acknowledged...that 'Palestine Peace Not Apartheid' has 'caused great concern in the Jewish community,' but noted that it has nonetheless prompted discussion."[11][37][38] An editorial published in theWaltham, Massachusetts newspaper, theDaily News Tribune, concludes: "Carter succeeded in bringing to Brandeis a productive, civil debate."[34] Videotaped excerpts from Carter's visit to Brandeis were featured on several national news programs in the United States, such asNBC's morning programToday, along with follow-up interviews with Carter.[39]
As a result of the visit, major donors told Brandeis University that they would no longer give it money in "retaliation", according toStuart E. Eizenstat,Domestic Affairs Advisor during Carter's presidency and a former trustee of Brandeis, as quoted inThe Jewish Week in mid-February 2007.[40]
In 2007,Jonathan Demme directed the documentary filmMan from Plains, which "follows the former President as he takes part in a book tour across America to publicise his new tome,Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."[41][42] According toThe Boston Globe, Demme filmed Carter for three months "to compile footage for a documentary about the former president's book and Carter's efforts to increase debate on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."[43] While it granted camera access to members of the news media for their broadcasts, Brandeis University refused Demme's request to film Carter's January 2007 speech for the end of the film, citing logistical and legal considerations.[43] The film debuted at theToronto International Film Festival on 10 September 2007.[44]
On 22 February 2007, Carter participated in a conversation aboutPalestine Peace Not Apartheid with formerSecretary of StateMadeleine Albright (who also served on theNational Security Council during the Carter presidency) at theCarter Center, moderated by Conflict Resolution Program Director Matthew Hodes. The event sold out in early January 2007.[45] It was simultaneously webcast in the Carter Center's online "multi-media" section, and the Center's website now includes a direct link to the "archived webcast."[46]
Pointing out that "The former president rarely speaks about his book at universities. He says he’s been invited to more than 100 campuses, but he's only visited five," Claire Keller reported that, during his public appearance at theUniversity of Iowa, inIowa City, on 18 April 2007,[47] Carter said, "I wrote this book to describe the plight of the Palestinians and because I'm convinced we desperately need debate about where we are and where we ought to be going, and how to rejuvenate the non-existent peace process in the Middle East" ... [and that] Carter says the book's objective is permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors; it’s something the former president says he’s dedicated his entire adult life to.[48]
Keller wrote that "Many in attendance applaud his efforts" but that "others criticize the author, claiming his book contains factual errors and misstatements. Members of the local Jewish community say it's simply one-sided."[48] She quotes Tali Ariav of the Hillel Jewish Student Center on the Iowa campus, who said,"'I am an Israeli so of course I served in the military, so I feel emotionally involved, but I feel every person, every American, every thinker needs to think twice about Carter's opinion, because it's not right' ..."[48] Nevertheless, Keller added, "Carter adamantly defends the accuracy of his book, saying he wrote every word himself."[48]
On 3 May 2007, Carter presented a lecture and participated in a discussion relating to the book in conjunction with the Center for the Study of Democracy and Model United Nations, in association with the Center for Citizen Peacebuilding, Department of Political Science, at theUniversity of California, Irvine. According to Carter's lecture transcript, in answering a question on whether conflict between pro- and anti-Israel student groups obstructs chances of peace, he said, "I think an altercation or debate or sometimes even an uncomfortable confrontation on a college campus in America is a good move in the right direction. But I would like to see the leaders of those two groups form a combined group that would take advantage of my invitation to go to Palestine and see what’s going on."[49]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) "Atlanta: 14 Carter Center Advisers Resign in Protest Over Book", AccessNorthGA.com, 11 January 2007, accessed 11 January 2007
