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: A Grossly Distorted Presentation, Aggravating the Conflict, Not Helping to End It
Summary: 1 Stars
( Make that zero stars; Amazon only permits a minimum of one star, but my rating is really zero stars. )
Carter's book contains several factual errors and many significant factual omissions, all of them to the detriment of Israel. Carter had the luxury of promoting his book on every radio and television talk show I know (and likely some I do not know) with negligible challenges on its factual defects. Long-time Carter associate Professor Ken Stein wrote in protest to Carter's book that " ... it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.". [...] Do not look for any follow-up interviews with the many serious critics of this book. It is not the style of the mass media to be fair, honest, balanced, in-depth, or any other similar quality to which they pretend, especially when it comes to Israel.
Israel is determined to survive the decades-long Arab effort to eliminate the state of Israel defined by any borders. The Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza were handed an independent state in 1947 (UN resolution 181) and, together with the neighboring Arab states, went to war to undo the two-state compromise of 60 years ago. That war produced the Palestinian Arab refugees and a comparable number of Jewish refugees --- Jews living in Arab countries and subsequently expelled, the unmentioned, unrecognized refugees of that war.
After the war of Arab rejection in 1947-1948, Jordan and Egypt took occupational control of the West Bank and Gaza and held it for 18 years without complaint from anybody anywhere, including the Palestinian Arab residents, who formed guerilla organizations, as they were then called, to attack Israel, not the occupiers of "the occupied territories". Occupation is clearly not the issue. The existence of Israel defined by ANY borders is the issue. Jews building homes on the oldest part of Israel, the West Bank, is not the issue, but rather the universal excuse for killing unarmed Israelis and focusing attention away from the corrupt and incompetent leadership in the Arab world.
Carter's book does a superlative job in missing the entire point of the conflict. No wonder his diplomatic efforts (and those of Clinton's) did not resolve the conflict. The Palestine Authority (PA), however, is quite honest and graphic in revealing what the point of conflict is. At their annual Nakba celebration at the United Nations, the PA displays a map of the area devoid of Israel. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The PA literally did. The very private Arabic-language discourse is quite frank about what "the struggle" is all about. The English-language discourse is perversely and relentlessly dishonest. Carter's book is a recent installment in the long series of anti-Israel obscuring of the truth.
The West Bank was Israel for more than 1,000 years, and Jews have occupied it continuously for more than 3,000 years, being either a majority or at least a plurality in Jerusalem over the last 250 years, for which reliable population statistics exist. Would you like to state the criteria establishing the legitimacy of your occupation of Native American land? I'll apply the same to a Jew's claim to the West Bank so we can see who is legitimate and who needs to be blown up riding a bus in order to "End the (his) Occupation Now".
Incidentally, the name Palestine was given to the area by the Romans during their tenure of occupation and in partial response to the Jewish revolt of 66-70 C. E.. Palestine is another name for Israel and was never the name of any Arab country. It could have been in 1947, but it was more important to the Arab world to eliminate the much geographically contracted modern state of Israel than to realize the newly created independence for the Arab late-comers. And that truly was and continues to be a Nakba (catastrophe).
Book Review: An insistent man of peace
Summary: 4 Stars
Dialog is important, but how dialog is carried on is also. President Carter was right to turn down lawyer Alan Dershowitz's challenge to battle over this book. His is the simple, clear, unblinking style of a spiritual leader, not a crusader. All classes and viewpoints can learn from "Palestine Peace not Apartheid," but we must be willing to listen from the heart.
Jimmy, President Carter, has proven by his life that he is dedicated not to "winning" but to building bridges. He is not primarily trying to place blame in this book. It is both the story of his own journey to build bridges and a quick easy-to-read review of the history and of where we are now. I couldn't believe how short UN resolutions 242 and 338 are! Carter makes knowing the basics of a complicated history easy. He cuts to the chase.
Carter has dedicated his life to being a man of peace. He is fair and balanced. I believe the reason he may appear otherwise is because some people place too high a value on fear. Fear of what might happen in the future easily justifies all evil behavior in the present. And also, Carter is a threat to power. He is brave enough to speak truth to power: not piles of truth to humiliate and destroy, but just enough truth to push insistently toward the goal.
Though he may not understand every nuance that "pleases" either side (I found it ironic that he didn't know how to say "I'm sorry" in Arabic after all those years), the bottomline? Carter's an honest broker. Those who harden themselves against him are suicidal.
Still presenting himself as a humble peanut farmer and simple Christian, nevertheless Jimmy demands that the highest powers listen. Will they? Or will they only defend, attack, and dismiss?
The vast majority of Americans and people around the world feel and experience what is going on in occupied Palestine as unjust, at the least inflexible, and lacking in the will for peace. The onus--without Carter having to say it--just by telling the story, does fall more heavily on Israel. It is their occupation. They are in control of the destiny of the people they have conquered.
Ultimately, regardless of all the justifying arguments against President Carter even broaching an "impolite" topic, his story, without drama, leaves us with the facts on the ground in Palestine. My thoughts: Probably no one anywhere in the world would want to trade places with a Palestinian living in Palestine. Who would tolerate such a humiliating hellish existence for so many decades? Why would Israel want to continue such a soul-destroying occupation?
Why don't the Palestinians just disappear? Deep down inside we all are ultimately glad they will not be chased out, will not be walled over, will not be bulldozed away. If they gave up when they were wronged this would say something about the human spirit. It would say some people don't count, not really. People without money, and lawyers, and armies, and degrees, and books documenting their every experience...they just are not as important. The survival of the fittest is not an adequate answer for the human spirit.
What is the worst thing that could happen if the status quo passivity about power were challenged? What if we imagined, believed, and worked to make sure Israel and Palestine live side by side as equals? Imagining the worst case scenarios as we did with Iraq seems to make the worst things come true. So let's try the opposite instead?
The occupation of Palestine is like South Africa was under apartheid. "Apartheid" is a word of hope! The world protested and boycotted, and said "We will not tolerate this anymore!" and the unimaginable happened. And now everyone in South Africa is glad we did, of course with a little help from them. The place is no longer a powder keg. Yes, this can happen. Perhaps in a different way, but it probably won't happen if we just leave things alone.
Book Review: Not impressed by the Goldberg Review
Summary: 4 Stars
It was strange of Amazon to put up the Goldberg review. Aren't they in the job of selling books? ! The Goldberg review can hardly be said to be neutral.
One of my grandfathers was Danish. Denmark, a little country, that did the most for its Jewish population of any occupied country during the second world war, was occupied by Germans. My grandfather, a well respected doctor called Nordentoft, joined the resistance - and died in a German camp near Hamburg, a month before the end of the war. My English grandfather died during the war too.
If you read Ilan Pappe's book titled "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", just published, you will get a good idea of what actually happened in 1948. Ilan Pappe is a Jew, and is Professor of History at Haifa University. His research includes recently declassified Israeli stuff - and shows clearly that, in as much as it was possible for them, the people managing the creation of the Jewish state did everything they could to clear the land of Palestinians, including bulldozing 400 Palestinian villages - it is not easy to return to a house, or a village, that no longer exists.
All this is glossed over by the western media, and by western politicians. But it did happen, and the people who it happened to were not a western elite, or a particularly well organised lot - the British had made sure of that a few years earlier - but a peaceful peasant people.
If this had happened to you or I, we would be absolutely incensed. My grandfathers did - and they both died - with millions and millions of others. Pinching and clearing other people's land to use for yourself - Hitler's plan when he invaded Poland and Russia - is not a good idea.
If I were a Palestinian I would agree with Hamas - that Israel was imposed upon them, without their consent - and is therefore not a legal entity. It is a completely logical, and legal, position to hold.
What does one do in these circumstances? Whatever one can.
Israel is built on racism. On a book. On a religion. Otherwise why does it exist? Because of persecution in Europe? Very probably. My grandfather was not interested in why Germany attacked Denmark - he wanted the Germans to leave. And he died. My godfather's half brother was Rauchenberg - a Swede - who possibly saved 100,000 Jews in Hungary - and died in Russia, some years after the war - a prisoner.
How do we escape these cycles of death, destruction, and terribly bad feeling between peoples?
You start with acknowledging what happened - to both sides. Mandela's Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the way.
It is too late to undo "Israel" - or at least very difficult and extraordinarily painful, and unfair on those born in Israel since 1948. But the world, and in particular the USA and the UK, owe the original 1930s population of Palestine a big apology, and recompense. They did nothing to deserve what they call their "Catastrophe" - the creation of the state of Israel, which was imposed on them. They have suffered hugely. Unfairly.
The racist nature of Israel needs to be recognised, and corrected. The obsession with Jewishness needs to go. Israel and Palestine could be recombined into a non racist state, with a progressive non racist constitution that properly represented all its people. If that cannot be managed a non racist two state solution - with equal rights for all - and no need for a wall, if ALL the Palestinians are treated well, and properly recompensed for what they have been through.
Those who resist demands for this sort of fairness are the ones who will be responsible for future catastrophes in this little part of the world - and they are likely to be big catastrophes - much bigger than anything we have seen yet. We will all get drawn in.
Book Review: Startlingly Evenhanded
Summary: 5 Stars
Jimmy Carter obviously loves both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. He also demonstrates a deep and touching fondness for many leaders of both groups.
But he makes no effort to hide his displeasure and frustration with policies that have only made things worse. He writes with a lawyerly precision, building a case that's hard to refute. Despite what many reviewers have claimed, he does not single out either side as "guilty" but rather demonstrates how the tactical errors of both fail them and feed the conflict. In fact, he does not really offer many opinions, but merely states in quiet, even handed terms the events that led to the current state, the agreements that were signed, the results of those agreements. The book probably seems unfairly harsh to people who feel a kinship with Israel just because he does not exempt it from his description of events. Nor does he exempt the U.S, Egypt, the Soviet Union, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, or the United Nations. That impartial treatment is the book's strength.
Although he never makes a final assignment of blame, or summarizes in this way, during the book an interesting pattern became clear. (Let me make clear that this is my own interpretation of the events Carter describes, not his.) Based on their actions, the Palestinians value revenge more than they value land or peace; the Israelis want real estate more than they want peace or security. They are playing different games, and that's why the problem has been so hard to settle. Every act of violence by the Palestinians provokes a disproportionately larger act by the Israelis, and also provides an excuse for Israel to take possession of more real estate for security reasons. That provokes the Palestinians to more revenge, which a cynical observer might say is just fine with the Israelis, because another car bombing will result in a few more acres of land they can acquire. It's the regrettable cost of doing business. Viewed in this way, as many in that region probably do (but Carter never proposes) the Israelis are winning at this because they understand the game they're playing and the Palestinians don't. It almost doesn't matter if the motives of both sides are absolutely pure and this paragraph is complete nonsense. By reading Carter's description of events, it's easy to see how countries in the region would come to this belief, and that's what's really important to Americans.
The U.S. gives Israel 10 million dollars per day. Understandably, the rest of the world sees Israel as our agent. Any Israeli act is seen as an act by the U.S. This is important to us because, if Israel throws a stone at a Palestinian, sooner or later some friend of Palestine will throw a stone at America. As our surrogate in the region, it's important for us to understand how Israel represents us. Their manners are our manners, their sense of justice is how the world sees American justice. Their actions are the ones that can help or hurt the United States, so it's only reasonable that we keep track of those actions.
Honorable people may disagree with Carter's emphasis. But I think one would have to have monumental credentials to argue with the facts as Carter lays them out for us. Was your opposing expert at the table with Sadat? Was he in Oslo, or Geneva, or Camp David?
Although this book won't be the final word on the subject, it is clearly written, and will elevate the conversation on the topic above slogans and preconceived biases. It's about time.
Reviewed by Kenn Amdahl, author of There Are No Electrons: Electronics for Earthlings, Joy Writing: Discover and Develop Your Creative Voice, The Land of Debris and the Home of Alfredo, and co author of both Algebra Unplugged and Calculus for Cats
Book Review: In Defense of Jimmy Carter
Summary: 5 Stars
Just a few months ago President Carter released his latest book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" and I can only shake my head in disbelief at the reactions it has received. It can be expected, of course, that any book critical of Israel receives some heat in the United States, but the uproar that has followed in the national news has even surprised those of us who know the Middle East, and who know how difficult it is to have an honest discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to his critics, President Carter "attacks Israel" with his book, his comparison of Israel to the former Apartheid regime in South Africa is described as "foolish and unfair", prominent Democrats have distanced themselves from Jimmy Carter, and board members of the Carter Center have resigned over this book.- Why?
Jimmy Carter clearly states as one of the most important key requirements for bringing peace to Israel and the Middle East that "the security of Israel must be guaranteed". This is hardly something you would expect to hear from someone who is trying to "attack" Israel. The comparison of Israel and the occupied territories to the Apartheid regime in South Africa (as provocative as it may be) is also quite appropriate and not even new. Desmond Tutu, the former Archbishop of Cape Town, did the same when he spoke out against "Apartheid in the Holy Land" in 2002. To quote Tutu: "I have been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks.... Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history that soon?"
So how can one then explain the vicious attacks on Jimmy Carter, a person who intimately knows the Middle East, who has received a Nobel Peace prize for brokering a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, and who is the author of a book which, in my opinion, offers an honest historical chronology of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? There is perhaps one simple answer to this question, but I am afraid that, for some, it will be hard to swallow. As Desmond Tutu put it "the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the United States] and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic ... people are scared in [the United States] to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful."
One of these powerful Jewish groups is AIPAC, or the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has poured more than 42 million dollars into the coffers of our congressional candidates since 1978 to ensure that "might makes right". Similarly, groups such as CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) have used their influence to successfully pressure the US media so that hardly any stories surface that criticize Israel, and so that the image of Israel is carefully groomed. This became particularly important after the massacres at Sabra and Shatila in southern Lebanon in 1982, when thousands of Palestinians were killed.
Consequently, a truthful analysis of the situation in the Middle East is missing from our media, and while most of our politicians are bribed to look the other way, the public is being misinformed. Worse yet, and what Jimmy Carter so eloquently summarized in his book, "the United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories."- So, if you truly want to learn something about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, read Jimmy Carter's latest book.