A review of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2006, 288 pages, $27
By Mitchell Bard
By titling his book
as he has, Jimmy
Carter is not merely being
provocative to sell books, he appears to
be giving aid and comfort to the new anti-Semites whose goal since the 2001
UN World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South
Africa, has been to link Israel to apartheid
South Africa.
Curiously enough, if you read through almost
the entire book, which persistently accuses
Israel of apartheid acts, you arrive at page
189, where he specifically contradicts the
entire thesis by stating, “The driving
purpose for the forced separation of the
two peoples is unlike that in South Africa.” In
fact, the only tangential support for the
title of the book is an anonymous quotation
from an Israeli lamenting the treatment of
Palestinians.
It is clear from the beginning, however,
that facts are of little concern to Carter
who sees Israel as “the tiny vortex
around which swirl the winds of hatred, intolerance,
and bloodshed.” It is certainly true
that Israel is subject to these winds, the
question is why he blames the victim. Why
doesn’t he see the Islamist rejection
of a Jewish presence in the region as the
problem, or the unwillingness of the Palestinians
to accept a two-state solution?
Get the Facts First, Then Distort Them
The book appears to have
been hastily written with casual observations
and remembrances slapped together. Given
Carter’s resources,
it is surprising that it appears to contain
little or no research, which only partially
explains the astounding level of inaccuracy
and misrepresentation of historical facts.
Carter is entitled to his opinions, but he
cannot be allowed to get away with falsifying
history, which he does to such an extent
that the book often reads like a work of
fiction. Rather than correct and refute his
statements paragraph by paragraph, I will
limit my critique to the most egregious problems,
and even this requires many more pages than
a typical review.
Some statements are outright
falsehoods, such as his unsubstantiated claim
that Israel stole money sent to the Palestinians
for humanitarian purposes when, in fact,
Israel itself provides such funds, as does
the United States and many other countries.
While he presents no evidence for his assertion,
he ignores reports by organizations such
as the IMF, which found that Yasser
Arafat stole $900 million of
the international aid.
Carter says the Palestinians were forcibly
evicted from their homes in 1967. This is
also untrue. The Palestinians were caught
in the crossfire of a war started by Jordan and moved eastward on their own.
On his first trip to Israel, Carter says
he thought Israelis “ejecting” Palestinians
from their homes was like the Indians in
Georgia being forced from their homes to
make room for “our white ancestors.” The
Jews, unlike Carter’s ancestors in
Georgia, were living in their homeland. The
Palestinians were not ejected, most chose
to leave during the violence of 1947-1949
provoked by the Arab rejection of the UN
partition resolution. Prior to that, the
Palestinian population had been growing,
as Carter acknowledges elsewhere, when he
states that the Arab population increased
dramatically from 1931 to 1945. He notes
that the newcomers were attracted by economic
opportunity, but neglects to mention those
opportunities were created by the Jews.
Like the most radical Palestinians, Carter
implies the creation of Israel itself was
a sin. He says the “taking of land
had been ordained by the international community” in
the UN
partition resolution. This is a gross
misinterpretation of history, which ignores
the fact that the Zionists purchased land
from the Arabs and that the UN also called
for the establishment of an Arab state. Had
the Arabs not rejected compromise and tried
to destroy Israel, the Palestinian state
Carter favors would now be celebrating its
60th anniversary. Elsewhere in the book,
Carter takes UN decisions as the final word
on international law (which they are not),
but suggests the resolution creating Israel
was the one unjust and invalid decision.
The description of the postwar
history is equally distorted. He says that
Israel took 77% of the disputed
land and
the Palestinians were left with Gaza and
the West Bank. Historic
Palestine included not only Israel and the
West Bank, but also all of modern Jordan.
It is Israel, including the disputed territories,
that is only 22% of Palestine. If Israel
withdrew completely from the West Bank, it
would possess only about 18%. And from Israel’s
perspective, it is the Zionists who have
made the real sacrifice by giving up 82%
of the Land of Israel. In fact, by accepting
the UN’s partition resolution, they
were prepared to accept only about 12% of
historic Israel before the Arab states attacked
and tried to destroy the nascent state of
Israel.
Furthermore, at the end
of the 1948
War, neither Jordan,
which occupied the West
Bank,
nor Egypt,
which controlled Gaza,
had any interest in granting the Palestinians
independence. One of the few accurate statements
in the entire historical review is Carter’s
observation that “no serious consideration
was given by Arab leaders or the international
community to establishing a separate Palestinian
state.” He misleadingly says in the
same sentence, however, that this was the
Palestinian people’s “ancient” homeland,
when it would be more accurate to say it
was the Jewish people’s ancient homeland,
as the Palestinians arrived, at best one
thousand years later.
Carter’s description
of the period following the 1967
War is equally problematic.
He says, for example, that UN
Resolution 242 “mandates Israel’s
withdrawal.” In
fact, the resolution was carefully worded
to exclude the word “all” so
it is clear Israel is not required to evacuate
all the territories. Furthermore, like the
Arabs, he chooses to ignore the rest of the
resolution, which says that Israel has the
right to secure and defensible borders and
calls for a “peaceful and accepted
settlement.” Carter’s interpretation
of 242 reflects the book’s theme that
only Israel has obligations and the Arabs
need do nothing to foster peace. Incidentally,
nowhere in resolution 242 are the Palestinians
mentioned or is there any suggestion that
the disputed territory belongs to them.
Another example of getting basic facts wrong
is his claim that Arab leaders didn’t
decide to create the PLO in 1964 until Israel
tried to divert water from the Sea
of Galilee and Jordan to irrigate the west and Negev.
The creation of the PLO had nothing to do
with water issues; the organization was established
as a weapon the Arab
League wished to use
in its ongoing effort to destroy Israel.
Carter claims that as a result of 1967
War,
320,000 Arabs were forced to leave lands
occupied by Israel, but they left in the
course of the war that Jordan started by
attacking Israel. Similarly, he claims that
Syria and Egypt attacked lands occupied by
Israel in 1973, ignoring the fact that Israel
came to hold the territories because of a
war those two countries provoked in 1967,
and still held them because those countries
rejected proposals to trade land for peace.
He also says the U.S. has vetoed more than
40 UN Security
Council resolutions critical
of Israel. Actually, the 40th veto was cast
after his book was written. Meanwhile, more
than 100 critical resolutions were adopted.
Singling Out Christians
One of the most nefarious elements in the
book is Carter’s effort to paint Israel
as hostile to Christians. He repeatedly refers
to “Christians and Muslims” rather
than simply the Palestinians in a transparent
effort to suggest that Israeli actions were
harming Christians and not just Muslims or
Arabs. He claims, for example, that “many
priests and pastors” were disturbed
by the control of Israeli religious parties
over “all forms of worship.” On
a visit to Jerusalem in 1990, he said he
met with a variety of Christian leaders who
he said complained of various abuses. He
doesn’t offer a single specific example,
but tars Israel with bigotry. He then says
that Prime
Minister Shamir told him that
religious parties had authority over all
religious matters because of the needs of
the coalition government. Carter says that
this conversation made him understand why “there
was such a surprising exodus of Christians
from the Holy Land.”
These charges are so vile they require a
more substantial response. First, while Christians
are unwelcome in Islamic states such as Saudi
Arabia, and most have been driven out of
their longtime homes in Lebanon, Christians
continue to be welcome in Israel. Christians
have always been a minority in Israel, but
it is the only Middle East nation where the
Christian population has grown in the last
half century (from 34,000 in 1948 to 145,000
today), in large measure because of the freedom
to practice their religion.
By their own volition, the Christian communities
have remained the most autonomous of the
various religious communities in Israel,
though they have increasingly chosen to integrate
their social welfare, medical and educational
institutions into state structures. The ecclesiastical
courts of the Christian communities maintain
jurisdiction in matters of personal status,
such as marriage and divorce. The Ministry
of Religious Affairs deliberately refrains
from interfering in their religious life,
but maintains a Department for Christian
Communities to address problems and requests
that may arise.
In Jerusalem, the rights of the various
Christian churches to custody of the Christian
holy places were established during the Ottoman
Empire. Known as the “status quo arrangement
for the Christian holy places in Jerusalem,” these
rights remain in force today in Israel.
It was during Jordan’s control of
the Old
City from 1948 until 1967 that Christian
rights were infringed and Israeli Christians
were barred from their holy places. The Christian
population declined by nearly half, from
25,000 to 12,646. Since then, the population
has slowly been growing.
Jonathan
Adelman and Agota Kuperman noted
that Yasser
Arafat “tried to erase
the historic Jesus by depicting him as the
first radical Palestinian armed fedayeen (guerrilla). Meanwhile, the Palestinian
Authority has adopted Islam as its official religion,
used shari’a Islamic codes, and allowed
even officially appointed clerics to brand
Christians (and Jews) as infidels in their
mosques.” The authors add that the “militantly
Islamic rhetoric and terrorist acts of Hamas,
Islamic
Jihad, and Hizballah...offer little
comfort to Christians.”
When Yasser
Arafat died, Vatican Radio correspondent
Graziano Motta said, “The death of
the president of the Palestinian National
Authority has come at a time when the political,
administrative and police structures often
discriminate against [Christians].” Motta
added that Christians “have been continually
exposed to pressures by Muslim activists,
and have been forced to profess fidelity
to the intifada” (Christians in Palestine
Concerned About their future,” Zenit
News Agency, November 14, 2004).
While Carter charges Israel with a variety
of unspecified anti-Christian acts, Motta
reported, “Frequently, there are cases
in which the Muslims expropriate houses and
lands belonging to Catholics, and often the
intervention of the authorities has been
lacking in addressing acts of violence against
young women, or offenses against the Christian
faith.”
It certainly wouldn’t
be difficult for Carter to find evidence
of mistreatment of Christians in the PA if
he were interested, but unlike Christians
who enjoy freedom of speech as well as religion
in Israel, beleaguered Palestinian Christians
are afraid to speak out. One Christian who
has gone public is Samir Qumsiyeh, a journalist
from Beit Sahur who told the Italian newspaper Corriere
della Sera that Christians were being
subjected to rape, kidnaping, extortion and
expropriation of land and property. Qumsiyeh
compiled a list of 93 cases of anti-Christian
violence between 2000 and 2004. He added
that “almost
all 140 cases of expropriation of land in
the last three years were committed by militant
Islamic groups and members of the Palestinian
police” and that the Christian population
of Bethlehem has dropped from 75% in 1950
to 12% today. “If the situation continues,” Qumsiyeh
warned, “we won’t be here anymore
in 20 years.” Thus, it is Palestinian
Muslims who are seizing Arab lands and would
be the more appropriate target of Carter’s
wrath (Jerusalem
Post, October 28, 2005; Harry
de Quetteville, “‘Islamic mafia’ accused
of persecuting Holy Land Christians,” Telegraph,
September 9, 2005).
A Post-Zionist Critique
Like the post-Zionists, Carter puts the
worst possible interpretation on any Jewish
deed or word, while validating anything said
or done by Palestinians. He also repeatedly
contradicts himself.
Throughout the book, for
example, he asserts that Israel does not
want peace, is stealing Palestinian land,
and refuses to trade land for peace. Yet,
he reports that on his first visit to Israel
in 1973, Israeli leaders wanted to trade
land for peace. Later, he acknowledges that
Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin concluded an
agreement with Jordan,
announced his willingness to negotiate with
Syria and concluded an agreement with Yasser
Arafat on Gaza and
Jericho.
He claims that Israel puts “confiscation
of Palestinian land ahead of peace” despite
the fact that Israel has withdrawn from 94%
of the territory it captured in 1967. Rather
than annex land, Israel evacuated completely
from Gaza and nearly half of the West Bank.
Israel has also offered to give up 97% of
Judea and Samaria. While he gives the impression
that Israel holds large swaths of land that
it refuses to negotiate over, the truth is
the entire territorial dispute with the Palestinians,
assuming they were ever to accept the existence
of Israel, boils down to 6% (about 1,600
square miles) of the West Bank.
Carter returns again and again to the theme
that Israel has stolen “Palestinian
land,” but he presents no evidence
that the land belongs to the Palestinian
and ignores all Israeli claims. How is it
colonization for Israelis to move to areas
such as Hebron and Gush
Etzion where they
lived before being expelled by the Arabs?
Why don’t Israelis have the right to
live in areas that are in dispute?
Another familiar theme is that Israeli settlements are the obstacle
to peace. Of course, this
is easily disproved by the fact that the
Arabs were not willing to make peace prior
to the establishment of settlements in the
territories and Palestinian
terror has continued
after Israel’s disengagement from Gaza.
Carter suggests that Israel
is to blame for the failure of the road
map because Israel
attached reservations to
its acceptance while the Palestinians “unequivocally
accepted” it.
Here, he ignores the fact that the Palestinians
never
implemented the first point of the
agreement, which said that a two-state solution “will
only be achieved through an end to violence
and terrorism,
when the Palestinian people have a leadership
acting decisively against terror and willing
and able to build a practicing democracy
based on tolerance and liberty.” The
Palestinian
Authority has consistently said
it has no intention of fulfilling its promise
to dismantle terrorist organizations or to
confiscate illegal weapons. Meanwhile, Palestinian
terrorist groups rejected the road map
and declared their intention to use violence
to sabotage peace negotiations, which they
have done.
Siding with Dictators
For a former president and self-proclaimed
Middle East expert, Carter shows remarkable
ignorance and naivete when he discusses the
Arab
world. Without any basis, and ignoring
all the evidence to the contrary, Carter
says the Arabs will all recognize Israel
once it reaches an agreement with the Palestinians.
Syria has given no such indication. Hizballah
and other Islamic terrorist groups have made
clear that Israel’s existence is the
provocation rather than its presence in the
disputed territories.
In several places Carter talks about the
West Bank as though he has no knowledge of
the history of the Six-Day
War. He says,
for example, that King
Hussein of Jordan’s “greatest
political disaster” came during the
war when “Israeli troops occupied East
Jerusalem and the entire West Bank.” He
ignores the fact that it was Hussein that
attacked Israel after being warned to stay
out of the war. Had he not attacked Israel,
Jordan might still be controlling those territories.
One of Carter’s techniques
for attacking Israel throughout the book
is to repeat whatever anti-Israel comments
he says others have made. In describing discussions
with Hussein, for example, he quotes a litany
of the King’s complaints about Israel
without making any effort to get a response
from Israel. Meanwhile, he has nothing critical
to say about the dictatorial monarch. He
doesn’t even criticize Hussein for
failing to support the peace initiatives
during his presidency.
It often seems that Carter did not read
the book before sending it to his publisher
because he contradicts himself from one chapter
to another, and also contradicts what he
has written elsewhere. For example, on page
42, Carter says Hussein and Syrian President
Hafez
Assad were not willing to participate
in peace efforts, but he still spends most
of the book blaming Israel for the lack of
a comprehensive peace. On page 130, he says
he visited Assad in 1990 and that he was
willing to negotiate with Israel over the
Golan
Heights. Elsewhere, Carter talks glowingly
about Assad even as he describes the Syrian
strongman as viewing himself as a modern
Saladin who hoped to expel the Jews from
the Middle East as the great Arab warrior
had driven out the Crusaders.
Carter doesn’t seem to remember what
he wrote about Assad in his autobiography.
In that book, Carter quoted from his diary
about meeting with Assad to discuss his plan
for a peace conference and found him “very
constructive,” “somewhat flexible” and “willing
to cooperate.” He then recorded retrospectively, “This
was the man who would soon sabotage the Geneva
peace talks...and who would...do everything
possible to prevent the Camp David Accords
from being fulfilled.”
The one interesting reference in the new
book is to Assad’s honesty about Lebanon.
Carter says that Assad believed Lebanon and
Syria were “one country and one people” and
that maps showed no international boundary
between the two.
In a fawning section about the Saudis, Carter
talks about the “impressive closeness” of
the monarchy to the subjects while ignoring
the apartheid aspects of Saudi society. He
says nothing about the Saudis’ crude
anti-Semitism and their rejection of the
idea that Jews should rule over any Muslim
territory. Carter praises the Saudi
peace proposal without examining the various elements
that made it a nonstarter for serious negotiations
with Israel, not to mention the Saudi rejection
of directly negotiating with Israel or any
Saudi traveling to Israel.
While Carter talks about how Saudi
Arabia “can
be a crucial and beneficial force in the
Middle East,” he ignores that it is
a sponsor of terrorism (remember 9/11 and
the terrorthon to support Palestinian martyrs?)
and the principal funder of schools that
teach the most radical views on Islam. In
describing the Saudis’ “caution
in dealing with controversial issues” as “justified,” he
shows he is a mere apologist for one of the
world’s most repressive regimes. Carter
criticizes American political leaders for
overlooking the Saudis’ “serious
human rights violations,” apparently
forgetting that as the leader who put the
greatest emphasis on human
rights in foreign
policy, he was perhaps the worst offender
of all during his presidency.
Carter’s narrative
(it can’t
be called an analysis, because there is no
critical consideration of the issues) is
transparently self-serving, holding himself
out to be the one person who sees the problem
and solution clearly. It is therefore not
surprising that he cannot look at his one
triumph, Camp
David, truthfully. Nowhere
does he discuss Egypt’s failure to
live up to the spirit of the agreement, the
Egyptian media’s rampant anti-Semitism,
the military’s focus on Israel or President
Hosni
Mubarak’s unwillingness
to visit Israel (except for Rabin’s
funeral). The Israeli-Egyptian relationship
is universally regarded as a cold peace,
but the only fault he finds is with Israel
for failing to grant autonomy to the Palestinians.
This ignores the fact that the Palestinians
rejected Camp David entirely, condemned Anwar
Sadat and refused to discuss autonomy. Less
surprising is Carter’s
unwillingness to acknowledge that the negotiations
at Camp David were possible only because
Sadat found Carter’s policies so wrongheaded
that he decided to go behind his back to
negotiate directly with the Israelis.
Bashing His Successors
Like many critics of U.S.
policy, Carter
falsely claims that the “lack of a
persistent effort to resolve the Palestinian
issue is a major source of anti-American
sentiment and terrorist activity....” The
most serious terrorist attack against the
United States, on 9/11, had nothing to do
with the Palestinian issue. The Islamist
war against the United States, Israel and
the West, in general, also has nothing to
do with the peace process. Carter’s
myopia is apparent in failing to acknowledge
the radical Muslim agenda to spread Islam
across the globe.
In his pseudo historical survey of the conflict,
Carter spends 10 pages on the eight-year
Reagan
administration (his own four-year
administration merits 16 pages while George
H.W. Bush gets four pages, Bill
Clinton six
and George
W. Bush eight). He inaccurately
claims that the Israeli people were divided
over the wisdom of the “militant policy” of
destroying
the Iraqi nuclear reactor, annexing
the Golan
Heights and building more settlements in the territories. In truth, only settlement
policy was controversial within Israel and
history has shown that the rest of the world,
including the United States, was wrong in
condemning Israel’s attack on Iraq.
Carter also incorrectly states that the U.S.
made little effort to promote peace. In fact,
Reagan, like his predecessors, offered a
peace
plan, which was a failure.
Camp David 2000
Carter rewrites the history of the Clinton-Arafat-Barak
negotiations. He claims Ehud
Barak did
not make a generous offer to create a Palestinian
state and did not respond to the Clinton
plan when in fact Barak said Israel would
withdraw from 97% of the West
Bank, dismantle
isolated settlements and accept a Palestinian
state with part of Jerusalem as
its capital. He casually mentions that Yasser
Arafat rejected
the proposal and ignores what Clinton’s
chief peace negotiator, Dennis
Ross, said
about Yasser
Arafat being unwilling to end the conflict
at any price. Carter insists no Palestinian
leader could have accepted the deal and survived,
but Yasser
Arafat was a dictator and could have
done anything he wanted. Later, Palestinians
publicly expressed regret that they had not
accepted Barak’s
offer.
Carter also makes a number
of inaccurate statements about what the Palestinians
were offered. He includes maps that were
never presented at Camp
David (no maps were drawn)
and contradicts what Dennis
Ross says was
negotiated. In Ross’s book, The
Missing Peace, he has
produced a map that
reflects what was offered, which is consistent
with what Carter labels in his book as “Israel’s
interpretation” of
the negotiations. Carter was later accused
of misappropriating the maps Ross had commissioned
for his book, but Ross said he was less concerned
with where the maps came from than with the
way they misrepresented Clinton’s proposals.
The Helpless Palestinians
The book is filled with criticism of Israeli
treatment of Palestinians, but Carter has
little to say about the behavior of the Palestinians
toward Israelis or toward each other. He
says, for example, that Palestinian human
rights must be protected, but he does not
say anything about the PA’s denial
of those rights.
He admiringly speaks about how Yasser
Arafat became
the leader of the PLO, raised money for the
care and support of refugees, established
diplomatic missions and became a powerful
voice in international councils. He says
nothing about Arafat’s role in hijackings
and other terrorism. He also minimizes the
role of violence with a passing reference
to “persistent PLO attacks on Israel...within
the occupied territories and from the adjacent
Arab nations.” He ignores the attacks
on Jews elsewhere in the world.
In 1990, Carter met Arafat, who told him
the PLO never advocated the annihilation
of Israel and that it was the Zionists who
invented the idea that the Palestinians wanted
to drive the Jews into the sea. Carter cites
this as if it were undeniable when he could
have referred to the PLO
charter’s call for Israel’s destruction.
His entire history of the PLO paints such
a misleading picture of the terrorist group
that it is barely recognizable. He talks
about it consisting of different groups “eager
to use diverse means to reach their goals.” What
diverse means? Each is committed to terror
to liberate Palestine. He says that UN resolutions
supporting Palestinians are “proof
of their effectiveness and the rightness
of their cause.” UN resolutions prove
that terror is justifiable? Do resolutions
supported by an automatic majority prove
anything?
He acknowledges that “only
rarely did anyone directly criticize the PLO.” He
quotes one anonymous Palestinian attorney
who criticized Arafat,
but doesn’t
say that no one would go on the record
for fear of their lives. He also ignores
the kleptocracy that Arafat ran
and the responsibility he and other PLO officials
bore for the Palestinians’ plight.
A good indication of how warped Carter’s
values are is his reference to Marwan
Barghouti as a “revered prisoner” without
mentioning the fact that he was convicted
of multiple counts of murder. Carter claims
Barghouti and other prisoners have great
influence and offered a proposal to unite
Fatah and Hamas and endorsed a two-state
solution. He doesn’t say that Mahmoud
Abbas never managed to hold a vote on the
document because it was opposed by Hamas,
which does not accept a two-state solution.
He leaves out the fact that some of the signers
repudiated the document and that the “prisoners’ peace
plan” is really not about peace with
Israel at all; it is aimed at ending the
civil war between Palestinian factions. The
document calls on the people to “confront
the Israeli enterprise,” to form a “united
resistance,” and to “liberate” their
land and prisoners. Nowhere in the document
is there any mention of a Palestinian state
coexisting with a Jewish State or any explicit
recognition of Israel.
Click here to read more
No comments:
Post a Comment