Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (New York:Simon and Schuster, 2006), is a book byJimmy Carter.

• Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in theHoly Land.
  • As quoted inCarter Book on Israel 'Apartheid' Sparks Bitter Debate (December 7, 2006),The Washington Post.

• The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about theMiddle East that are largely unknown inAmerica, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace forIsrael 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.--Jimmy Carter^[1]

• There are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in theMiddle East:
  

  • [1.] SomeIsraelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravatedPalestinians; and
    
  • [2.] SomePalestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories. (Bullets added.)--Jimmy Carter^[2]

• Some major points in the book are:
  

  • Multiple deaths of innocent civilians have occurred on both sides, and this violence and all terrorism must cease.
  • For 39 years, Israel has occupied Palestinian land, and has confiscated and colonized 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 forced segregation between Israeli settlers and Palestine's citizens, with a complex pass system required for Arabs to traverse Israel's multiple checkpoints.
  • An enormous wall snakes through populated areas of what is left of the West Bank, constructed on wide swaths of bulldozed trees and property of Arab families, obviously designed to acquire more territory and to protect the Israeli colonies already built. (Hamas declared a unilateral cease-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 the Jordan 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 forHamas 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 in sub-Sahara Africa, with half the families surviving on one meal a day.
  • Mahmoud Abbas, first as prime minister and now as president of the Palestinian National Authority and leader of the PLO, 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 Palestinian referendum.
  • UN Resolutions, theCamp David Accords of 1978, theOslo Agreement of 1993, official US Policy, and the InternationalRoadmap 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. (Bullets added.)--Jimmy Carter^[4]

• Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighbors’ land and to permit thePalestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. As indicated in theGeneva Accords, announced in November 2003 in Geneva, Switzerland—I was there and made the keynote speech—this “green line,” or eastern border of Israel, can be modified with negotiated land swaps to let approximately half of the Israeli settlers remain in their highly subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. These homes remaining would be very close to the so-called “green line.” The premise of getting peace in exchange for Palestinian territory that is adequate for a viable and contiguous state has been acceptable for several decades to a substantial majority of Israelis— (I’ve observed and studied those public opinion polls very closely. They always have 60 percent or so.)—but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community, throughAIPAC’s influence. And I don’t criticize it.... The current policies are leading toward an immoral outcome that is undermining Israel’s standing in the world and is not bringing security to the people of Israel.... These same premises, of recognizing Israel, acceptance of all past agreements, and the rejection of violence, will have to be accepted byHamas and any government that represents the Palestinians. The long-term prospects are not discouraging. In fact, a poll last month, in December, by the Harry S. Truman Institute at theHebrew University of Jerusalem, found that 81 percent of citizens in theoccupied territories approved and 63 percent approval among Israelis. So you see, an overwhelming majority of Palestinians and Israelis support peace for Israel based on the acceptance of Israel of its international borders with some modifications, with justice and peace for the Palestinians. An early exchange of the three Israeli soldiers for some of the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners will expedite the peace process. --Jimmy Carter,Brandeis University,January 23,2007.^[5]

• 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.--Brad Hooper^[6]
• 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.--Michael F. Brown^[7]

• 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 ofanti-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.... 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.--Tom Segev^[8]

• [A] good, strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood.... Needless to say, the American press and television largely ignored the appearance of this eminently sensible book - until the usualIsraeli lobbyists began to scream abuse at poor oldJimmy Carter, albeit that he was the architect of the longest lasting peace treaty between Israel and an Arab neighbour - Egypt - secured with the famous 1978Camp David accords.--Robert Fisk^[9]

• Pelosi andHoward Dean, another liberal, have distinguished themselves by attacking former President Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt and has had the gall to write a truthful book accusing Israel of becoming an “apartheid state”. Pelosi said, “Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party.” She is right, alas. --John Pilger^[10]

• [Carter] eloquently describes the situation in theWest Bank andGaza Strip.... [H]is book challenges Americans to see the conflict with eyes wide open.--Lena Khalaf Tuffaha^[11]
• 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.--Sherri Muzher^[12]
• [Carter is] 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.... 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.... Carter does not claim that Israel is an apartheid state. What he does claim is that the West Bank will be a de factoapartheid situation if the current dynamics...continue.--Rabbi Michael Lerner^[13]
• Former U.S. president Carter is just the latest world figure to openly challenge the policies ofIsrael inGaza and theWest Bank. He joins Rev.Desmond Tutu, anotherNobel 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.--Sid Ryan^[14]
• The most successful Arab-Israeli peace negotiator to date, [Carter] braved a storm of criticism, including the insinuation from the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League that his arguments areanti-Semitic.--Ali Abunimah^[15]

• President Carter has done what few American politicians have dared to do: speak frankly about theIsrael-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 theoccupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank."--Ali Abunimah

• For anti-war and other progressive activists, Carter’s book is not important for its liberal imperialist politics, but because it has caused so many more people to think about the issue. It presents the movement with new opportunities to reach out to millions with a clear analysis ofPalestinian people’s long resistance tooccupation andimperialism.--Richard Becker^[16]

• I have read his book, and I could not help but agree — however agonizingly so — with most if its contents. Where I disagreed was mostly with the choice of language, including his choice of the word “apartheid.” But if we are to be fair, and as any reading of the book makes clear, Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” is first and foremost metaphorical.... 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.--Yossi Beilin^[17]

• [I]gniting controversy for its allegation that Israel practices a form ofapartheid, [Carter's book is supported by my own view that]...Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has many features of colonization...and at the same time...many of the worst characteristics of apartheid.--John Dugard^[18]
• [There is] anapartheid regime [in the Palestinian territories] worse thanthe one that existed in South Africa."--John Dugard^[19]

• President Carter, in my judgement [sic], is correct in fearing that the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resembleapartheid: 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.--Zbigniew Brzezinski^[20]

• ...[A]busive reactions directed at [President Carter], including some newspaper ads[,]...[are] objectionable and designed to intimidate an open public discussion.--Zbigniew Brzezinski^[20]

• Carter'sapartheid charge rings true.... 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 theSouth African version of institutionalized discrimination was never as elaborate as its Israeli counterpart--nor did it have such a vocal chorus of defenders among otherwise liberal Americans.--Saree Makdisi^[21]

• [The] book's title more than its content [caused an] uproar [even prior to publication, because it]...seemed to suggest that the avatar of democracy in the Middle East may be on its way to creating a political order that resemblesSouth 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.... Carter's harsh condemnation of Israeli policies in the occupied territories is not the consequence of ideology or of an anti-Israel bias.... Accusations byAlan Dershowitz and others that Carter is indifferent to Israel's security only prove that no good deed goes unpunished.--Henry Siegman^[22]
• 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.--Norman Finkelstein^[23]
• 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.--George Bisharat^[24]

• Israeli action in theTerritories corrupts theZionist dream, and is no better thanapartheid.... I have not been a leftist for years, because I do not believe the Arabs would agree to share this country with us, and I believe in the Jews' right to a home and a state in our historic homeland. Yet what we have been doing in the territories borders on the criminal. When President Carter, who was never a friend of Israel, writes that what we are doing in the territories is similar to apartheid, everyone cries out in protest. Yet he wasn't far off from reality: our behavior is worse thanthat prevalent in South Africa at the time. It's unpleasant to say this, but this is the way it is.--Yoram Kanyuk^[25]

• Jimmy Carter...a partisan of thePalestinians...[offers a] notably benign view ofHamas...[creates] sins to hang around the necks ofJews when no sins have actually been committed...and blames Israel almost entirely for perpetuating the hundred-year war betweenArab and Jew.--Jeffrey Goldberg^[26]
• 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.--Ethan Bronner
• Their [Carter's critics'] 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 oldSouth Africa. But overstatement hardly adds up toanti-Semitism.--Ethan Bronner
• [A]nother subtler issue...has to do with Carter’s religious focus...[leading to his] tone deafness aboutIsrael andJews.... Carter never tells us how he squares his notions of God’s punishment of secular Jews with the policies of such devout politicians.--Ethan Bronner^[27]
• Well, anti-Semite is a range of things. You go from, say, Nazi is a ten. Country club discreet anti-Semite's at one. I'd put Carter at three.--Monroe Freedman former exec. dir. ofHolocaust Memorial Council^[28]

• 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. With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for theDemocratic Party onIsrael.--Rep.Nancy Pelosi (D-California)^[29]
• I cannot agree with the book's title and its implications aboutapartheid.... I recently called the former president to express my concerns about the title of the book, and to request that the title be changed.--Rep.John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)^[29]
• [The title ofPalestine Peace Not Apartheid] does not serve the cause of peace[,] and the use of it...is offensive and wrong.--Rep.John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)^[30]
• There’s only one honest thing about President Carter’s new book. The criticism.--Anti-Defamation League (ADL)^[31][32]
• One should never judge a book by its cover, but in the case of former President Jimmy Carter’s latest work, 'Palestine Peace Not Apartheid', we should make an exception. All one really needs to know about this biased account is found in the title.--Abraham H. Foxman^[33]
• I believe he [Carter] is engaging inanti-Semitism.... For a man of his stature and supposed savvy to hold forth that the issues ofIsrael and theMiddle East have not been discussed and debated becauseJews andZionists have closed off means of discussion is justanti-Semitism.--Abraham H. Foxman^[31]
• If we’re so powerful, why is he traveling across the country, appearing on every television show in the world?--Abraham H. Foxman^[31]
• Your efforts in [your] letter [to Jewish Citizens of America] to minimize the impact of your charge that AmericanJews control US Middle East policy are simply unconvincing. In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.--Glen S. Lewy andAbraham H. Foxman^[34]
• Almost every page of Carter's book contains errors, distortions or glaring omissions....--Lee Green^[35]
• Not only did Carter ignore the authoritative source on what transpired at theCamp David negotiations [The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2004), by Dennis Ross], he apparently also didn't bother to consult news reports from the era. On Dec. 28, 2000, the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune and others all reported on the Israeli cabinet's acceptance [of] Clinton's parameters as a basis for discussion.--Gilead Ini^[36]
• [It is] 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.--David A. Harris^[37]
• [Two examples of] such mendacity [are that]...Carter discounts well-established claims that Israel accepted and Arafat rejected a generous offer to create a Palestinian state....[and 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"...[but 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...[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.--David Haris^[37]
• You have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side.--Fourteen members of the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center in their letter of resignation^{[38][39][40][41][42]}
• 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.--Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR)^[43]
• 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.--National Public Radio^[44]
• President Carter has only himself to blame. He wrote a book that, from its title to its contents, is blatantly one-sided and unbecoming of a former President, especially one who brokered peace between Egypt and Israel.--Rabbi Marvin Hier^[45]

• I looked at the maps and the maps he uses are maps that are drawn basically from my book. There's no other way they could -- even if he says they come from another place. They came originally from my book.--Dennis Ross^[46]
• [Carter's interpretation of the maps inPalestine Peace Not Apartheid is] just simply wrong.--Dennis Ross^[46]
• [T]his [Israel's response to the American proposals at Camp David during the 2000 Summit]: is a matter of record. This is not a matter of interpretation.--Dennis Ross^[46]
• 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.--Dennis Ross^[46]
• [The book is] riddled with errors and bias.--Alan Dershowitz^[47]
• Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by 'representatives of Jewish organizations' as Carter has claimed.--Alan Dershowitz^[47]
• [Carter's claim that "Israel launche[d] preemptive attacks onEgypt,Syria,Iraq and thenJordan" (5)]...[is inaccurate]; [in the 1967 Six-Day War]Jordan attackedIsrael first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surroundedJerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city.--Alan Dershowitz^[48]
• [Carter's] use of the loaded word "apartheid," suggesting an analogy to the hated policies ofSouth Africa, is especially outrageous, considering his acknowledgment buried near the end of his shallow and superficial book that what is going on in Israel today "is unlike that in South Africa — notracism, but the acquisition of land."--Alan Dershowitz^[48]
• President Carter's book on theMiddle 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.--Kenneth W. Stein^[49]
• 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.... 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.--Kenneth W. Stein^[50]

• [I]f Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term [apartheid] has, [then] he is not the expert on theMiddle East or world affairs he purports to be.... Sadly, Israelis andPalestinians 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 theOslo Accords in 1993.... Applying theApartheid label tries to ostracize Israel by misrepresenting some of the difficult decisions Israel has felt forced to make in fighting Palestinian terror.--Gil Troy^[51]

• [Carter] distorts the truth...is too rigid and inflexible...[,]no longer capable of dialogue...[and is] an apologist for terrorists....--Melvin Konner^[52][53]

• If you want The Carter Center to survive and thrive independently in the future, you must take prompt and decisive steps to separate the Center from President Carter's now irrevocably tarnished legacy. You must make it clear on your web site and in appropriately circulated press releases that President Carter does not speak for The Carter Center on the subject of theMiddle East conflict or the political role of the American Jewish community. If you do not do this, then President Carter's damage to his own effectiveness as a mediator, not to mention to his reputation and legacy will extend, far more tragically in my view, to The Carter Center and all its activities.--Melvin Konner^[53]

• Carter has repeatedly fallen back -- possibly unconsciously -- on traditionalanti-Semitic canards.... Perhaps unused to being criticized, Carter reflexively fell back on this kind of innuendo about Jewish control of the media and government. Even if unconscious, such stereotyping from a man of his stature is noteworthy. WhenDavid Duke spouts it, I yawn. WhenJimmy Carter does, I shudder.... Others can enumerate the many factual errors in this book. A man who has done much good and who wants to bring peace has not only failed to move the process forward but has given refuge to scoundrels.--Deborah Lipstadt^[54]

• When a former president of the United States [Carter] writes a book on theIsraeli-Palestian 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 between1939 and1947, that is soft-core denial [of the Holocaust].--Deborah Lipstadt^[55]

• 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.--Jimmy Carter^[1][56]

• We have gotten thousands of letters from people either praising 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid' or denouncing some aspects of it....The Carter Center has no official position on the book itself, which President Carter said during his book tour was a personal project and not that of The Carter Center....--Deanna Congileo (Carter's spokeswoman, speaking on behalf of both President Carter and the Carter Center)^[52]

• Amazon.com: Your use of the term "apartheid" has been a lightning rod in the response to your book. Could you explain your choice? Were you surprised by the reaction?

• Jimmy Carter: The book is aboutPalestine, theoccupied territories, and not aboutIsrael. Forced segregation in theWest Bank and terrible oppression of thePalestinians create a situation accurately described by the word. I made it plain in the text that this abuse is not based on racism, but on the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land. This violates the basic humanitarian premises on which the nation of Israel was founded. My surprise is that most critics of the book have ignored the facts about Palestinian persecution and its proposals for future peace and resorted to personal attacks on the author. No one could visit the occupied territories and deny that the book is accurate.--"An Interview with PresidentJimmy Carter"^[57]

• ...when I proposed this title, by the way the title doesn’t have any punctuation in it. We intended it to bePalestinian Peace Not Apartheid [sic], but erroneously people have put a colon there. But anyhow, I can see then and now that it could precipitate some hard feelings or some obstacles that might prevent the negotiation of a peace agreement and equity or fairness of treatment for thePalestinians. And the Palestinians are horribly treated, and their treatment is not known at all or minimally in this country. So I chose that title knowing that it would be provocative. But I think in the long run, it has precipitated at least discussion. There has been a lot of positive discussion, and I believe that it has brought the issue of a lack of progress on peace for Israel and a lack of progress on the end of Palestinian suffering to the forefront of the American consciousness much more than it was had the book not been written. I am deeply concerned about the tensions that might have arisen. That was not my intention at all. And I’ve been hurt and so has my family by some of the reaction. I’ve been through political campaigns for state senate and for governor and for president, and I’ve been stigmatized and condemned by my political opponents and their stories. But this is the first time that I’ve ever been called a liar and a bigot and ananti-Semite and a coward and aplagiarist. This has hurt me. I can take it. But I think that that group of people who have made those statements—sometimes in full-page ads in theNew York Times—I think they are an extreme minority. I’m not complaining. I’m willing to face the accusations. I think that, for instance, this weekend I was with JusticeSteven Breyer [sic], who spent a weekend with me, my wife, and others. I was with Stu Eizenstadt, one of the directors ofBrandeis. I was with Rick Hertzberg, who was my speechwriter in theWhite House, and others. I don’t think that any of them would agree with any of those personal epithets, and the fact that the debate has deteriorated into add hominem attacks on my character, I think has probably been a greater obstacle to progress than the fact that I chose a particular word in the title. --Jimmy Carter,Brandeis University,January 23,2007^[5]

• Jimmy Carter
• International Criminal Court
• International law
• Justice
• International law
• Israel
• Israel and the apartheid analogy
• Palestine
• Rule of law
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Wikipedia has an article about:

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

Wikipedia has an article about:

Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

Wikisource has original text related to:

Author:James Earl Carter

• Literary works cleanup
• Political works
• Arab-Israeli conflict

• Pages with reference errors