Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter

Book Review
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter

Published in 2006 by Simon & Schuster

In a new book, former president Jimmy Carter discusses how and why the Palestinians are living inside an unjust Israel--a state that practices apartheid. Jimmy Carter was extensively involved in Middle East issues as president, and thus he is not a novice to the region nor to its unresolved problems. The former president is credited with brokering the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab country (Egypt) in 1979. As an evangelical Christian, Jimmy Carter considers himself deeply committed to the safety and peace of Israel. Thus, given his experience, influence, and religious background, the former president's views on perhaps the most contentious issue facing the world today are of importance.

The first chapter of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a historical chronology of important events in Israel/Palestine, including some which were recounted in the Bible. Henceforth, Carter discusses much more recent developments starting with his recollection of his first visit to Israel in 1973, followed by a discussion of his accomplishments and failures as president and those of succeeding American administrations, as well as an analysis of other important events such as the Oslo Agreement, the Palestinian election of 1996, and the Geneva Initiative. A summary of the key players and neighbors and an account of his meetings with Palestinians is also included.

All of these chapters provide good historical background to understand the current quandary, and Jimmy Carter's recollection of key meetings with Middle East dignitaries inside and outside his presidency is detailed and personal--they really show how committed he is to bringing peace to the region. What is somewhat surprising is that he devotes only one chapter to discussing the title of his book: apartheid. In that chapter, Carter describes Israel's ongoing actions and plans: to divide the West Bank into isolated Palestinian enclaves that makes life very difficult and Palestinian statehood all but impossible; to take away as much Palestinian land as possible and as quickly as possible through forced demolitions, "illegal housing permits", and other illegal procedures; to impoverish Palestinians by destroying their agricultural crops and excluding other goods and services from Israel and their neighbors; to isolate the Palestinians even further by not allowing the use of air and sea, as well as blocking border entries with Jordan and Egypt.

Jimmy Carter calls these actions apartheid. Unlike in South Africa however, the former president attributes the discriminatory practices of Israel not to race but to the quest for more land--in effect a "Greater Israel".

Carter believes, and according to him so do a majority of Israelis, that Israel's policies are in the end self-destructive because of shifting demographics--the Palestinian population is growing faster than Israel's--and a growing hatred towards them by Palestinians and the world community (he references a poll in Europe that rates Israel as the number one obstacle to peace, ahead of North Korea and Afghanistan). As for America, it 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."

The former president seems to be cautiously optimistic that someday there will be peace between Israel and Palestinians. Referring to the most recent Palestinian intifada, Jimmy Carter writes:

"The only rational response to this continuing tragedy is to revitalize the peace process through negotiations

between Israelis and Palestinians, but the United States has, in effect, abandoned this effort. It may be that one of the periodic escalations in violence will lead to strong influence being exerted from the International Quartet to implement its Roadmap for Peace. These are the key requirements:

a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed. [Arab countries must acknowledge Israel as a reality and pledge to terminate acts of violence]...

b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israel's permanent legal boundary. [Israel should withdraw to borders prevailing between 1949 and 1967 as specified in the unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 242 unless modified by mutually agreeable land swaps]...

c. The sovereignty of all Middle East nations and sanctity of international borders must be honored. [Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land. Compounding the problem is a submissive White House and U.S. Congress. While there are constant debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, because of power political, economic, and religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories.]"

------------------------------------------

Recogitare's Views: There is no question that our unwavering support of Israel is detrimental to America's geopolitical and economic interests. Secondly, it is morally wrong for us to support a regime that practices apartheid (although that consideration is not important if we only consider America's best interests and is usually our policy--and of almost every country--regardless of "moral" considerations unless of course there are geopolitical/economic interests at stake).

America should be a friend of Israel for economic/geopolitical reasons, but not at the expense our relations with so many other countries and the world at large with respect to goodwill. Our condoning of Israel's continued colonization of Palestine is creating more anti-American hatred and terrorism, as noted by Carter. Terrorism is also on the rise because of our invasion of Iraq. Although ultimately Bush was responsible for the decision, it was pro-Israeli Neocons who advised Bush to go into Iraq (see Pat Buchanan's Where the Right Went Wrong). They have caused thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and have damaged America's goodwill even further. I remember seeing the slogan "No War for Israel" at an anti-war rally aired on C-SPAN prior to the invasion. That slogan was in-part accurate.

It is also important to consider why Americans don't care or simply don't know about the plight of the Palestinians. The media is heavily biased (pro-Israel) and whenever a journalist or media outlet questions Israel they are usually personally attacked or deemed anti-Semitic. This happened recently to John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, the dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government after they published the paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy".

There is hope that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will be resolved as outlined by former president Jimmy Carter. For now, America's support of Israeli apartheid is not in America's best interest.