Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
by Jimmy Carter
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.30 You Save: $23.70 (88%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
Book Review: The debasement of language
Summary: 1 Stars
As an avowed believer in the power of diplomacy, one can only wonder at President Carter's debasement of the main tool of the craft -- language. Readers can find much to criticize in this book, but one surely must begin with the title. What ever one thinks of the State of Israel and its policies, it can by no means be described as an Apartheid State. Just as in order to rend emotions now turns all mass murders into genocides, thus weakening the meaning of that rarest and most evil of crimes, so to do many now seek to wrongly apply the term Apartheid to Israel.
Apartheid, the policy of structuring society based on total racial separation, with a powerful upper class and disempowered lower class, was created in South Africa after World War II. By contrast, Israel's citizenry includes 20% Arabs -- a somewhat tortured definition in the Israeli case, as about half of the Jewish population descends from Arab Jews expelled from their nations in the mid-20th century. None claim Israel to be a paradise where minorities experience no discrimination, but in Israel these Muslim and Christian Arabs hold an equal vote to all other citizens and the same freedoms. Paradoxically, these Arabs enjoy more freedom than any Arab citizens of the 22 Arab countries of the Middle East.
Those residing in the West Bank and Gaza, land taken by Israel after the 1967 war obviously are not citizens. Nor do they enjoy full freedom of movement or the right to participate in the Israeli political process. If this situation for Mr. Carter stands as Apartheid, one would need to expand the definition to near meaninglessness, as one would need to similarly identify the French relationship with Algeria in the colonial period in the same manner. Not to mention the US during its occupation of Japan after WWII as another Apartheid situation, as the Japanese lacked a government, could not travel to the US, nor participate in its democracy, even as citizens of Japanese decent, albeit abused during the War, retained such privileges. Obviously, proximity between Israel and the occupied territories creates a different situation, but in terms of legal status, both examples stand as apt.
That aside, President Carter's book follows throughout in a similar vein, shedding much heat and little light, even as it attacks Israel, apologizes or ignores Arab behavior, and often skirts over any fact that fails to fit his thesis. Examples abound. When it comes to UN resolution 242, Carter makes the claim that it insists on total withdrawal from territories occupied in '67, ignoring that neither the definite article `all' or `total' appears in the language and that the diplomats who drafted it have written that this was intentional as they never intended a full withdrawal, but some mutual agreement setting the boundaries between Israel and her neighbors. But then, the book often picks and chooses from international law as though a Chinese menu, citing Resolution 187 as proof of a right of return for the descendants of Arabs who once lived in Israel, but ignoring that the same resolution demands that Jerusalem and Hebron become international cities, managed by the UN, under the control of no nation state. Indeed, the few times the UN advanced a position in Israel's favor, the organization ceases, in Carter's eyes, to be sacrosanct. Thus, he dismisses the UN's findings that The Shaba Farms are occupied not from Lebanon, but from Syria, effectively adopting the Hezbollah position with neither explanation nor notice.
Nor does President Carter miss a chance to give the Arabs a pass. Thus when he quotes Yasser Arafat as saying "`The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel," a strange thing to let stand unchallenged as the PLO Charter and the famous three No's called for just that. Similarly excused is the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Perhaps one might wish to know the process of the author's thinking, but then this is impossible, as he eschews footnotes and citations, even in the case of proposed maps of previous Israeli peace offers.
One could go on at length on the books many shortcomings, its factual errors, the author's mislabeling of events and places, and ignoring historical events that fail to suit President Carter's purpose. In the end this would be exhaustive and unhelpful. Those inclined condemn Israel as the source of every problem in the Middle East, and even the world - will take great comfort in this works one sides stance, reality be damned. However, for those looking to understand either perspective on the conflict in any depth, this slim work offers almost nothing to warrant the price and the time.
Book Review: You can sell a book by its cover
Summary: 2 Stars
Former president Carter has written an interesting little book. The title provokes, perhaps a bit uncomfortably, by stating that the choice is between peace on one hand, and apartheid on the other. Unfortunately he observes that various Arab and Palestinean cadres of leadership failed to choose peace. He points out the inherent radical racism of the dominant Palestinean nationalist movement, their desire to rid themselves of a Jewish presence, first in Gaza and the West Bank and then ultimately Israel itself. Quite rightly he dwells on present day issues instead of rehashing events of the past such as Jordan's ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem Jews and the Jews of the West bank - each side of the debate has links to the past but it is always necessary to deal with the present. He portray's Arafat and Syria's dictator Assad (senior) as congenial family men concerned more with rhetoric and politics than with the genuine welfare of of their people. Arafat even tries to explain his position by handing Carter some brochures, somewhat like a tourist agent for some second rate resort. The assassination of suspected collaborators, persecution of Christian minorities, the failure to control local clan warfare are glossed over as internal Palestinean matters. At one point he meets with ordinary (non political) Palestineans who've been told that money donated for public works in the territories have been diverted to Israel even though an audit, if possible would find that the money (as estimated elsewhere as over $1B) was misappropriated by Arafat himself. He finds the governments of neighbouring countries "less than helpful". On the other hand Carter is buoyed by the vibrancy of Israeli democracy and the depth of moral angst within Israel itself at the plight of their neighbours.
If anything he expects too much of the Israelis and not enough from Hamas and Fatah, relying on the recent past just before the intifdadeh where Israeli economic growth spilled over into opportunity and marked improvement in the standard of Palestinean living in the West Bank - in contrast to the period from 1948-1967 under Jordanian occupation. Jordan appears to be particularly reluctant to reengage itself with Palestineans who lived under their occupation on the West Bank. (There is also a hidden irony here of Carter supporting "trickle down economics" - a theory made famous by his successor Ronald Reagan.) As Michael Ignatieff points out in his book "The Lesser Evil", terrorist groups do not have as their goal the improvement of the lives of their people, rather they seek provoke a response to make things worse in order to recruit more to their cause. Attacking Israeli settlers forces them to draw inward and create a secondary road system which is then labelled as apartheid. Instead of demanding that the settlers stay and become citizens in some future Palestinean state, the racist nationalist elements demand a complete withdrawal. Justice is not a motivation, only the misplaced pride of the supremicist. In order to form a nation it will be necessary the Palestineans to establish a society of law that overcomes this history.
Carter, eternally hopeful and innocent persists only in seeing the good. This is illustrated at one point when he goes out for a jog. He is about to pass 6 men holding newspapers in front of them - his Israeli security detail "knock" the papers away. Carter is shocked at the rudeness of his guards who acted quickly and with potential personal risk stating that one never knows what might be hidden behind a newspaper. Apparently Carter has never had to be searched visitting an Israeli pizza parlour or nightclub!
The book itself is rather thin and one might considered it padded at the beginning with timelines and at the end with supporting documents. More Carter less filler and whitespace might have let me give the book a higher rating. Rather than buying a copy I chose to take one out from the local library, however Amazon's discount price is fair. Its also a bit self agrandizing and (apparently, according to many critics) contrafactual, but the large picture of Mr. Carter on the cover as he presumably judges the conflict does warn the reader that this is Carter's recollection and point of view.
A cynic might claim that people often get the government they deserve. Hopefully Carter's book will be read by the Palestineans themselves and spark an internal debate that will given the Palestinean people a real choice.
As Freud once said, "Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock."
Book Review: letter of resignation, ken stein-carter center
Summary: 1 Stars
This note is to inform you that yesterday; I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop. My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the
Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.
Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally.
President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. 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. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.
The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.
Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be.
In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year.
As ever,
Ken
Dr. Kenneth W. Stein,
Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science, and Israeli Studies,
Director, Middle East Research Program and
Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel
Atlanta, Georgia
Book Review: Great Book - Easy to Read and Understand - Thanks Jimmy!
Summary: 5 Stars
I am neither Christian, Jewish or Muslim, so I have no religious-based biased. I am influenced by Buddhism, however, and so it is very hard for me to understand the belief that the happiness and security of one person could ever be accomplished by denying the happiness and security of another person. I read this book after watching Christiane Amanpour's CNN special called "God's Warriors." Carter's book is easy to read and understand - which is a relief b/c I always thought the Israel/Mid-East conflict was too complicated to understand. Now I suspect that that belief is part of the effort to keep U.S. citizens from trying to influence U.S. policy in the Mid-East. Prior to watching the CNN special, I honestly never knew about the radical Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. It seems that the word terrorist has been so heavily linked to the word Muslin in this country, that the idea of Jewish terrorists was surprising to me. I also didn't know that George Bush, Sr. was the first and only president to attempt to restrict U.S. funding to Israel if any of the funds went to the establishment of settlements in occupied territories (in other words, if the Israel government continued to violate International Law and U.N. resolutions by increasing the settlements) -- unfortunately, the massive criticism that resulted forced him to back down or risk his political standing. This is why I think Carter's book is so important - no politician can disagree with Israel without accusations that they are anti-Semitic or senile or too liberal. It's not like Carter is saying that the Palestinian violence isn't reprehensible or that the denial of the holocaust and the desire to irradiate the Jewish state aren't insane. It appears that the new definition of the term "anti-Semite," however, is "disagreement with anything that the Israeli government does."
This is exactly the type of feedback that Carter seems to be getting from this book -- luckily he isn't a politician anymore and doesn't have to back down. It is clear that unfortunate choices have been made on both sides. The Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries have used violence and extremism against Israel, seriously threatening the existence of Israel; conversely, Israel has responded to Palestinian violence and Arab aggression with disproportional violence and aggression, time and time again, (e.g., the 6 day war, the recent attacks on Lebanon, killing hundreds of Palestinians in retaliation for Palestinian attacks that killed dozens), and Israel just can't seem to commit to getting settlers out of occupied territories.
I am very grateful that Carter took the risk of writing this book. Clearly, this is just his opinion and there are people who would look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. But you can't say that a former president of the U.S. and key participant in the camp david peace accord is misinformed on the facts -- as some reviews here have attempted to claim. I suspect that Carter, who has participated in private conversations with most of the key players here, just might be a little bit more informed regarding the details and facts than the Amazon reviewers here who claim they know more than Carter! I think it is more likely that they just disagree with Carter's opinions, and, like the participants in the Palestinian/Israel conflict, just can't manage to be civil and respectful towards anyone who disagrees with their own opinions. I heard on a news report that George Bush, Jr. once flew over the Palestinian refugee camps and commented that they were horrible, but opinioned that there was nothing that the U.S. could do - that the Israelis and Palestinians just had to be left to kill each other (which explains why his administration has done nothing to address the conflict). I don't support his position, but I can understand why he is so discouraged. Both sides appear to believe that their happiness and security rests on the destruction of the other side's happiness and security, which, I believe is fundamentally mistaken. Jews and Israelis will not be safe and happy until Palestinians and Arabs are safe and happy; Palestinians and Arabs will not be safe and happy until Jews and Israelis are safe and happy. Since we all drink from the same well, you can't poison the well water for someone else without poisoning it for yourself.
Book Review: A behind-the-scenes look at the Israeli-Palastinian conflict
Summary: 5 Stars
There are no photographs among the pages of PALESTINE: PEACE NOT APARTHEID. You can't skim through Jimmy Carter's clear, concisely crafted prose about the festering sore of a land some still call holy and see the former 39th American president poised at hopeful moments in history with a Who's Who of Middle Eastern politicians. In fact, such photos would have been blatant lies.
Carter's book is not about posturing, posing, name-dropping or appearances for the media, but looks instead behind the scenes at scores of characters --- perpetrators, victims, brokers, provocateurs, altruists, diplomats, tyrants, mediators, exploiters --- whose tangled agendas have resulted in decades' worth of grinding, thankless hard work with no apparent end in sight. Instead of pictures, PALESTINE: PEACE NOT APARTHEID is eloquently illustrated by maps, whose ragged contours show the tortuous history of this land up to the present day.
The most telling and sadly persistent map of all is the last, entitled "Palestinians Surrounded 2006." On it, the eye can travel over the roughly bean-shaped area of the West Bank and see the devastation wreaked on a subjugated nation and culture, not over centuries or decades, but in the historical nanosecond of events since 2000.
Running distinctly inside the dotted line of the officially accepted boundary between Palestinian and Israeli territory is a crude solid black line, indicating vast completed stretches of Israel's notorious Security Wall. It is this obscene multibillion-dollar structure --- pictured on the book's dust jacket up against the author's noticeably averted eyes --- that has given rise to increasing international use of the apt adjective "apartheid" to describe the overall policy of Israel's government and military authorities toward the Palestinian people.
The Wall's black outline traces a drunken path that repeatedly veers away from the Israel-West Bank border to bite even more deeply into Palestinian land, lurching around illegal Israeli settlements that never should have been built, but that remain imprinted in their dozens like a stubborn rash on the page.
If one were to imaginatively zoom down into the mapped bird's-eye view of this continuing conflictual disaster, the footprint of the Wall would suddenly take on the true contours of human despair that Carter describes in memorably uncompromising words. Its hideous height and breadth separates an entire people from their collective birthright; families from generations-old olive groves, orchards, fields, homes and pastures; able men and women from meaningful work; businesses from their markets; children from the hope of education; the sick and injured from medical care; and relatives from traditional familial contact.
And as if that isn't enough to evoke utter despair for any progress toward peace-with-justice, another feature of Carter's final map is a broad dark-shaded band that runs the length of the natural border formed by the Jordan River and western shoreline of the Dead Sea. It is called on the legend "Areas of Planned Israeli Settlement Control" and creeps like a spreading cancer eastward, covering about one-third of the entire West Bank area. Make no mistake; Israel's idea of "control" is not the prevention of illegal settlements, but their enabling and enforced protection.
In essence, every printed page of PALESTINE: PEACE NOT APARTHEID is the story of its last map. It is a story whose individual events, breakthroughs, disappointments, betrayals (of which there are many) and one-on-one human encounters are made relentlessly absorbing in Carter's modest yet firmly convinced timbre.
The pieces and pawns of this sordid game, in which Carter continues to strive for substance over promise and justice over containment, are carefully and accurately laid out with surprising even-handedness. All sides are exposed in the harsh light of their various virtues and vices, but with the overall caveat that those with the greatest power must shoulder a proportionally greater responsibility for rectifying a shameful chapter in human history. Only then can the ongoing cycle of Israeli-Palestinian violence and oppression be broken and the resulting pieces mended into something far better for all who believe in this wounded land as their rightful home.
[...]