Book Review: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
Jimmy Carter may not have been the most effective president, but he is a good man and his commitment to the peace process in Palestine is absolute. Carter began his involvement in the region during his presidency, and continued to actively promote diplomacy and dialogue as a former president. This book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, has an inflammatory title that offended and intrigued many from the beginning. It is an interesting book that combines an in-depth analysis of the issues between the Israelis and Palestinians with Carter’s personal experiences in the middle of the two groups.
Carter’s self-identified purpose in writing this book is to 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 [seven] years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors.” Since the Bush administration took office in 2001, our government and people have almost completely lost focus on the intense and growing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians; instead of facilitating long-term peace, the Bush policy has been unquestioning support for Israel, even as it committed mass atrocities against the Lebanese and Palestinians. Carter is right to observe that we need to restart peace talks and look for permanent peace.
Carter is unique among American politicians who deal with this issue for several reasons. His recent trip to the Middle East, during which he met with Hamas leaders, was very controversial. Carter is clearly willing to engage in dialogue with the parties involved to help move the peace process along while many others find reasons to avoid the dialogue altogether. Perhaps even more importantly, though, Carter is willing to be honest about how much of the fault lies with Israel for sabatoging the peace process. Most Americans and almost all American politicians side with Israel, openly and frequently condmening Hamas and other violent Palestinian organizations for their actions while turning a blind eye to Israel. Carter, on the other hand, summarizes the underlying problems of the region in this way: “Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land. In order to perpetuate the occupation, Israeli forces have deprived their unwilling subjects of basic human rights. No objective person could personally observe existing conditions in the West Bank and dispute these statements.”
Carter received a lot of criticism for including the word Apartheid in the title of his book, but it is both an accurate and provocative description of the current Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. Israel refuses to allow the Palestinians a real sovereign state of their own, and simultaneously refuses to integrate them as citizens of Israel. Meanwhile, Israel constructs walls that steal land, destroy communities, and disrupt freedom of movement all within Palestinian territory ostensibly for “Israeli security.” Carter shows how Israel has violated and flaunted international law over and over again.
While Carter is not entirely sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, it is clear that he is most frustrated with Israeli actions that are most detrimental to lasting peace. This book is insightful, and somewhat depressing; the reader can detect the tired and frustrated tone that Carter takes when describing the situation in Palestine.
I once heard (cannot recall his name) that Carter is different because his agenda was not driven by Cold War ideology; I thought that was a very interesting comment. I believe he was the last president under detente, which collapsed under his watch (Iran).
I am not sure how much I agree with the Cold War comment.
Edward Carson
26 Apr 08 at 6:58 pm
Didn’t American alignment with Israel originate in the cold war? I’m asking, I don’t know.
JH
27 Apr 08 at 7:44 am
During or because of?
S.C. Denney
27 Apr 08 at 1:03 pm
Both, I guess. Again, I’m totally setting myself up for a pwning, because my knowledge about this is really sketchy, but I do know for sure that in the immediate post-WWII period, America took a much more even handed role in arbitrating between the Israelis and Palestinians. Eisenhower in particular did not hesitate to tell Israel in rather blunt language that it needed to cool it from time to time.
It wasn’t until the cold war really heated up that America aligned with Israel (and several Arab nations bordering Israel aligned with the Soviet Union, again, not sure about this, don’t have time to check right now). I believe this happened mostly under Nixon. Now of course you’ve got the whole religious right crazyness factored in. The whole situation is just fuX0red, and quite a bit of it is our doing.
Where’s ME? We need input from someone who was an adult before the 1980s.
JH
27 Apr 08 at 1:42 pm
I think JH is right. America had a fairly firm commitment to Israel from the beginning, but was more even handed than it is today. The Cold War chess game varied the level of antagonism a bit, and the expansion of Palestinian terrorism outside of the borders of Israel in the 1970s played a role in swinging public opinion toward Israel. Post 1980, the whole Christian Zionist movement kicked in and put us on the road to where we are now.
There is enough legitimate blame and grievance for everyone involved that it makes it very easy for those not interested in a peaceful resolution to thwart potential progress.
jkkuwitzky
27 Apr 08 at 1:56 pm
The point that Carter makes in this book - I think legitimately so - is that the Palestinians are much more willing to negotiate permanent reasonable peace agreements right now than the Israelis are. In the most recent cases, the Palestinians have accepted UN resolutions and roadmaps for peace while the Israelis have either rejected them, ignored them, or “accepted” them with impossible preconditions.
Of course, if we want to go through history, of course there is more than enough blame for both parties. But right now, Israel is getting more oppressive every day. This wall that they are building is the prime example of that oppression.
That is a good point about the 1980s and the American Christian Zionist influence on our foreign policy in the Middle East. We have let Israel get away with murder for the past 25 years and it doesn’t look like that will stop any time soon.
David M. Manes
27 Apr 08 at 2:17 pm
David, what, in your view, would be the parameters of a “reasonable peace agreement”?
jkkuwitzky
27 Apr 08 at 2:30 pm
Post 1980, the whole Christian Zionist movement kicked in and put us on the road to where we are now.
This, and the increasing influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC was created as a splinter organization of the American Zionist Council, which had found itself budding heads with the Eisenhower Administration. It was a way of reaching out to the Jewry of America, from the grassroots up — a way around the Eisenhower critics. The AIPAC’s influence has only grown since then.
the Palestinians are much more willing to negotiate permanent reasonable peace agreements right now than the Israelis are.
The Israeli’s perceive more of a loss to negotiation than do the Palestinians.
There’s a good article in The Atlantic that talks about the social unrest in Israel, regarding the most recent incursion into south Lebanon. According to the article, Ehud Olmert’s popularity level is lower than that of G.W.’s.
Although Olmert has been shown to be more open in some areas, regarding Settlements, his decision to make an all-out military offensive into south Lebanon in 2006 has created a harsh social backlash towards him and his party.
Israel’s image of the oppressed people is fading due to their controversial and downright illegal actions in the occupied territories. Hopefully this can cause a greater movement for peace within Israel, since the foreign policy of the United States isn’t likely to change much.
S.C. Denney
27 Apr 08 at 3:17 pm
There’s also the ridiculous claim that it’s God’s will the Jews control the “Holy Land” of Israel, viz. Christians United for Israel and the influence of the Yeshivas (in Israel).
We must insure that 120,000 from the tribes of Israel must be present in Jerusalem, right?
If that’s the case, then why is God so bad at geopolitical strategy?
S.C. Denney
27 Apr 08 at 3:22 pm
Lack of existence tends to make one a poor geopolitical strategist.
jkkuwitzky
27 Apr 08 at 4:04 pm
There have been many reasonable peace agreements that have been proposed and even adopted and even almost enacted. Most of the best come from the international community, such as the roadmap, and they address the most important issues in a fair way. The problem is that with anything remotely approaching “fair,” the Israelis will have to give up a lot more of the power and land that they have grabbed from the Palestinians. That is my theory on why they are much less willing to realistically negotiate.
I really don’t know why average Americans support Israel so much, but I can’t help thinking that it is heavily influenced by racism. Americans really don’t like Arabs, and that has gotten much worse since 9/11. We do, however, like Europeans. And since the Jews in Israel are basically just Europeans in a different place, I think that explains why we have gotten along a lot better.
But even if we feel more comfortable with the Israelis, we still need to have some sort of consistency in our foreign policy. We wouldn’t support many other allies that was committing the disproportionate violence that Israel has been for this long.
David M. Manes
27 Apr 08 at 4:48 pm
The problem is that with anything remotely approaching “fair,” the Israelis will have to give up a lot more of the power and land that they have grabbed from the Palestinians. That is my theory on why they are much less willing to realistically negotiate.
10-4.
I really don’t know why average Americans support Israel so much
My theory runs something like this:
Americans (Christians) are far more sympathetic to Jews, to whom they feel a spiritual affinity towards. Additionally, most Americans (and the West) feel that it is the rightful place for Jews to settle.
Jews are also very intellectually minded people. They share similar virtues and customs and are capable of assimilation (with certain reservations, of course). Jews have also been very influential figures through the history of the modern West.
Then there is also the issue of “racism,” as you identified. People are “afraid” of the people from the Middle East. With their odd customs and different cultural background, it may be only natural for people to feel somewhat xenophobic towards those from the Middle East.
We wouldn’t support many other allies that was committing the disproportionate violence that Israel has been for this long.
Right, but those other allies aren’t’ located in the heart of what is often called “evil” and richly blessed with oil.
It still isn’t logical from a geopolitical standpoint, a moral standpoint, or a rational standpoint. I think the reasons stated above dilute (or fog) the minds of rationality.
S.C. Denney
27 Apr 08 at 5:11 pm
Its always racism, isn’t it? I think America’s historical solidarity with Israel has alot to do with shared (if imperfect) democratic values, as Israel was the first real democracy in the region.
Do you really mean to suggest that Israel is responsible for the lack of a true peace accord? I seem to remember it was Arafat who walked away from Camp David in 2000. Of course there is plenty of blame to go around, but Camp David was an especially propitious moment (from American and Israeli domestic political perspectives) and Arafat’s refusal to come to an agreement was disastrous for the process.
I think we basically on most of this, but you (like, I think, too many on the Left) seem almost single-mindedly focused on Israeli misdeeds (most on the Right make the opposite mistake). We have a right to expect more from the Israelis than we do of the Palestinians, but the Carter/Manes position seems to me unfair. The Israelis live with a truly existential threat that Americans could not dream of, and their public opinion reflects that. It is one of concern, but rationality (and is more liberal than its American counterpart). It is in Israels interest to reach an agreement (the demographic timebomb looms), but the Palestinians (removing the constraints of ethics and time) have the most leverage.
jkkuwitzky
27 Apr 08 at 6:24 pm
I wasn’t trying to gloss over the violence that various Palestinian individuals and groups have committed. Of course there have been “misdeeds” on both sides. But there are some issues to consider before we just adopt that sort of attitude that makes it seem like the moral playing ground is equal.
The history of Palestine for the past fifty years has been one of Israeli expansion at the expense of the native Palestinians. That fact is not in question. Israel is constantly expanding its de facto borders and encroaching into territory that by any objective standard should belong to the Palestinians.
Every response by Israel to any act of violence committed against it is usually wildly disproportionate. Typically, a handful of Palestinian militants will attack an Israeli checkpoint, killing a couple of soldiers; Israel responds by bulldozing houses, invading new territory, declaring martial law, and calling in air strikes from jets and attack helicopters that result in large amounts of collateral damage. You don’t have to read very much history to see this kind of pattern of disproportionate violence emerging.
If I do focus on Israeli misdeeds, it is because I am actively trying to counter the overall feeling in this country that Israel is our great ally and a standup democratic partner in the global war on terror, and a country that can do no wrong. I do not feel the need to be neutral in my analysis because our position in the struggle is far from neutral. Put another way, I am not so much advocating that we take up the plight of the Palestinians as I am advocating that we stop our unquestioning and extensive support of Israel and recognize what they are doing to the Palestinians.
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 12:44 am
The history of Palestine during the last fifty years also involves several attempts at total annihilation by hostile Arab powers at the behest of the Palestinian cause. These invasions were the original proximate cause of Israeli territorial expansion. I am opposed to said expansion, but the history of the conflict is much more complex than simply “Israeli expansion”.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 8:47 am
I was thinking more of the continued settler expansion and subsequent military occupation needed to protect them while they are in Palestinian territory. I was also thinking of the wall that is being built right now that is completely within Palestinian territory, and how it snakes deeply into it to grab arable land, water, and settlements.
There hasn’t been a full Arab-Israeli war for existance in quite some time, so that excuse is getting tired. If the Israelis are going to continue to expand and oppress, they need a new justification.
Of course there are more factors than just pure expansion, and perhaps some of the expansions have been somewhat justified. But the fact remains that it has been a story of constant expansion, and that was really the point I was trying to make.
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 9:19 am