| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:40 am Post subject: Carter says Mearsheimer and Walt were right |
| From: "Jeffrey Blankfort"
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:57:35 -0800
Subject: Carter says Mearsheimer and Walt were right
Jimmy Carter was the only president since Eisenhower to force Israel to give up land that it has captured and the only Democrat to face down the American Jewish lobby. When people say that the lobby doesn't really represent most Jews, remind them that he got only 48% of the Jewish vote when he ran against Reagan in 1980.
One can read the Mearsheimer/Walt paper via http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html and http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Carter shares insight on peace in Mideast
By Marty Rosen
Special to The Courier-Journal
Former President Jimmy Carter's new book, "Palestine -- Peace Not Apartheid," reflects a lifetime of contemplation on the Middle East. Mixing memoir and policy, it recounts his youthful fascination with the Holy Lands, his long acquaintance with the political leaders who have shaped the modern history of the Arab and Israeli worlds, and it makes a strong case for renewed debate about the best path to peace in a long-troubled part of the world. In a telephone interview, Carter spoke in detail about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his hopes for peace. Here are his unedited responses:
Q. Earlier this year the London Review of Books published an article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt called "The Israel Lobby." That article, which generated much controversy, argued that American foreign policies in the Middle East, especially regarding Israel and Palestine, are not reflective of genuine American interests in the region and instead reflect very influential and successful lobbying efforts on the part of Israel and American supporters of Israel. Do you think that assessment is correct?
Carter: That's correct. Over the last 30 years of my life, one of my strongest commitments has been to bring peace to Israel and to have its existence accepted by all nations. I've traveled all over Israel. In fact, I've been to the Golan Heights three times, and we've conducted three elections there for the Palestinians. I've seen the intense debate in Israel about Israeli government policies, with the majority of Israelis habitually favoring the withdrawal from occupied territories in exchange for peace. But that debate does not even exist in the United States. A member of Congress would not dream of coming out in favor of Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories or condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinian people. And very few of the news media in this country would ever bring out an intense analysis of the issues involved in the Middle East as they are brought out fervently in Israel and throughout Europe. There's no doubt that there is a strong aversion to criticizing Israel in this country. I wouldn't say it's all because of intimidation, but that is one factor.
How did lobbying affect your presidential administration's relationship with issues in the Middle East? Specifically, in the book you write about a March 1978 PLO attack in which a bus was seized and dozens of Israelis were killed. You immediately condemned that attack. A few days later, Israel invaded Lebanon. You write that before making any diplomatic response to that, you consulted with congressional supporters of Israel before stating that you expected Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, and before approaching the U. N. Did you feel under pressure in shaping the U.S. response to the invasion?
Carter: Yes, there was a lot of pressure exerted on members of Congress and so forth on behalf of Israel. At that time, there was a general consensus between me and the key members of Congress, and that included Sen. (Jacob) Javits (of New York), who was Jewish, that there was a presumption that Israel would withdraw from the occupied territories. When I negotiated with (Israeli Prime Minister Menachem) Begin and (Egyptian President Anwar) Sadat, that was one of the things I insisted upon, that both of them agreed to accept. If you read the Camp David Accords, which are in the book, they call for the withdrawal of Israel's military and political forces from the West Bank and Gaza, for full self-determination for the Palestinians. And the Knesset of Israel agreed with that in a Likud administration. So I felt then and now that the main thrust of my effort was to bring permanent peace to Israel, on the premise that they would accept international law and withdraw to their own territories. That was subsequently confirmed in the Oslo Agreement in 1993, and more recently the international quartet's (the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations) "Roadmap" also requires that Israel withdraw from occupied territories as its main premise.
In the meantime, Israel has been occupying and confiscating and colonizing increasing areas of Arab territory, which in my opinion is inimical to any sort of prospect of peace for Israel.
In response to the 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, your administration supported and the United Nations passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon. How many times over the last half-century has the United States sponsored resolutions that could be construed as anti-Israel? It strikes me as a rare thing over the last 60 years.
Carter: Well, it has been. I mention in the book that we've vetoed resolutions, some of them overwhelmingly supported by the world community, probably now about 45 times, in fact twice within the last two weeks when Israel attacked the Gaza people and killed those 18 civilians. The United States vetoed the resolution that condemned that action. And I have to tell you that I have always considered myself a supporter of Israel -- but with the premise that Israel comply with international law and withdraw from occupying territories of the West Bank and Gaza. And what's degenerated in recent years, to a very disturbing degree, is the gross abuse of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying powers. It's one of the most serious human-rights abuses about which I'm familiar. It aggravates and alienates not only the Palestinians and the Arab world, but most of the rest of the world.
Your style was a great deal of active personal diplomacy and negotiation in that area. By contrast, President Reagan began his term with a very hands-off approach, as did the current President Bush.
Carter: Reagan eventually, by 1982, decided to issue a strong statement about the Middle East, and as I describe in the book, he asked me to help draft the statement, which I did. He sent his speechwriter down to my home in Plains, and we put language in there that Reagan repeated publicly that fully endorsed the premises of the Camp David Accords, including Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. And of course the first President Bush did more than anyone since I left office to try to minimize the impact of Israel's occupying Arab land. In fact, George Bush Sr. even withheld several hundred million dollars from Israel because they spent the money on settlements. But that hasn't been the case with other presidents. There were more Israeli settlements established on the West Bank when (former President Bill) Clinton was in office than at any other time. They had a blank check, in effect, Prime Minister (Ehud) Barak did, to establish all the settlements he wanted. And when President Clinton decided to get involved in the issue pretty late in his term, his proposals, which were very sincere and heartfelt, were never seriously considered by the Israelis or the Palestinians. His final proposal would have cut the West Bank in two, and would have left 205 settlements in the West Bank. And one of the key provisions of the Clinton proposals was that all previous U.N. resolutions would be moot and would be replaced by his proposal -- and no Palestinian leader could accept that and survive.
One premise of your book is that there is a divide between the public statements and the private aspirations of the leaders of the various parties in the Middle East. Can traditional diplomacy with diplomats sitting around a table solve these problems, or does this require that individuals meet privately for intense discussions like the ones you facilitated at Camp David?
Carter: It would be difficult for public diplomats to solve these issues. But the only peace agreement I can envision that would be suitable to Palestinians and Israelis is what was encompassed in the so-called Geneva Initiative. I helped negotiate that agreement, and it was endorsed by Clinton, (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair and by 50 other top political leaders and Nobel Peace laureates at the time. And a public opinion poll conducted by the James Baker Institute found that it was supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians. That spells out the premises on which Israel can have peace, and the Arab world can recognize Israel's right to exist in peace.
I'm sure you're aware that there is emerging controversy about your use of the word "apartheid" to describe the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. It's a word with enormous moral weight, and you're certainly the most prominent American to describe the situation using that word. Could you comment on your use of the word?
Carter: I made it plain that I was not referring to racism, but simply to the desire to acquire Arab land inside Palestinian territory. And there is a total establishment imposed by Israeli powers of a separation of the two peoples from one another. I would say that in many ways the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying forces is as onerous -- and in some cases more onerous -- as the treatment of black people in South Africa by the apartheid government. All Palestinians have to carry passes. When I was there monitoring elections in 2005, there were 719 roadblocks closed by concrete barriers, earth mounds or by official Israeli checkpoints. The Palestinians can't move from one place to another. They can't grow produce, for instance, to sell to their own people if it competes with Israeli fruit, vegetables and flowers. Gaza, which was supposed to have been abandoned, is absolutely imprisoned in a wall that the Israelis have built all around it. There are only two possible openings in that wall. One opens into the Sinai, and is open to only a few chosen people. And the other is open into Israel, and it has been closed almost all the time since the Israeli so-called withdrawal from Gaza. So the Palestinians are horribly abused and persecuted and deprived by the Israeli policies in the West Bank.
Your book argues that the United States has a unique and enormously important role in facilitating the peace process in the Middle East, and that it has to function as an honest broker in that region. Many observers have argued that for decades the United States' image as an honest broker was questioned by Palestinians and Arabs in that part of the world, and many observers believe that during the last few years the United States' moral authority has diminished worldwide. What will it take for the United States to regain that moral authority and the ability and credibility to facilitate a successful peace process? Do you see any hope for that?
Carter: This is a bit presumptuous, but I would hope my book will stimulate debate and discussion that can help the process along. And I'm not trying to speak for him, but I've had long discussions with James Baker about this same issue. As I mentioned, his institute in Texas has run public opinion polls in Israel. And when he and George Bush Sr. were in office, they took strong action, not just words, to induce Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and to treat the Palestinians fairly. So I think there are some strong influences of a bipartisan or nonpartisan character that might be forthcoming in the future. Another thing is that many prominent and influential Jews have privately expressed their complete agreement with the thrust of my book, but it's almost impossible for them, in the present American environment, to say these things publicly. So maybe it will stimulate a discussion. And I don't think there's any doubt that the key factor and one of the primary causes of intense animosity against America from so-called terrorists of different kinds is the obvious bias of the United States government against Palestinians and for Israel. So these collective factors may, in the future, bring about an honest, good-faith effort for peace as we've seen on a few occasions in the past.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY CARTER UNMASKS AIPAC AND BRUTAL PALESTINIAN OCCUPATION:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__061215_jimmy_carter_unmasks.htm
Carter and the truth about Israel
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15896.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26bavIM-3Pw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHvInBhI84E
President Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt and The Israel Lobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbapmPR0ZeQ
President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBJgaBe5NgM
More Evidence That Mearsheimer and Walt Are Largely Right:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-alterman/more-evidence-that-mearsh_b_36373.html
The viewer caller mentioned former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book via the following youtube video URL:
President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBJgaBe5NgM
Rep Paul Findley Dares to Speak Out About the Israeli Lobby
http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/1416/default.aspx
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15896.htm
Carter and Israeli crimes
Video Runtime 3 Minutes
Carter and the truth about Israel
Video Runtime 3 Minutes
President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN
Video Runtime 4 Minutes
President Carter, Mearsheimer and WaIt and The Israel Lobby
Video Runtime 3 Minutes
US Support of Israel's Brutal Oppression of the Palestinian people PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BGJDAVID wrote:
Subject: Jay Bookman's refreshing article
For many years the Jewish Anti-Defamation League along with the Israeli lobby, the media, and other supporters of Israel have effectively silenced many critics of Israel with their label "anti-Semite" making public debate on the issue virtually impossible. Now, with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," the tide seems to be changing. Jay Bookman's "My Opinion" article in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution is one refreshing truth that all Americans need to read. Please pass it on. Thanks.
Jim David
ajc.com | Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Anti-Semitism label confines open debate
Published on: 12/18/06
Jimmy Carter may be right or he may be wrong; in fact, like the rest of us, he's almost certainly some of both.
But Carter is not by any stretch of the imagination anti-Semitic. In fact, merely by making that ridiculous accusation, people such as Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, have proved Carter right about some of the central observations in his controversial new book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
JAY BOOKMAN
MY OPINION
• E-mail Bookman
Recent columns:
Anti-Semitism label confines open debate
Free market, alas, not free of hypocrites
Give Ga. roads a bigger bump from fuel taxes
Iraq report removes gloves, blinders
Georgia can't leave transit in the dust
Judicial plan in contempt of Ga. voters
New Iraq war erupts over who's to blame
In that book, and in the debate it has inspired, Carter has noted the very narrow range of acceptable opinion in this country regarding Israel and Palestine, and believes that silenced debate has hurt U.S. both the United States and Israel.
"When I go to Jerusalem or to Tel Aviv or Nazareth or anywhere in Israel, the discussions and debates are intense and constant about Israeli policies in the West Bank and whether they are advisable or not," Carter has said. " ... but in this country, zero."
He's absolutely right: The debate about Israeli policies is far more heated and frank within Israel than here in the United States. As one telling example, consider this paragraph by Israeli columnist Larry Derfner, writing recently in the Jerusalem Post:
"Nobody and nothing in the world has an army of advocates, defenders, PR people, marketers, spin-meisters and image-polishers like Israel has. This army isn't made up just of the government but of Jews and Judeophiles all over the world, especially in the U.S. It includes the entire alphabet soup of American Jewish organizations, right-wing 'media watchdogs' like CAMERA and Honest Reporting, hundreds of Jewish newspapers and Web sites, Alan Dershowitz, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Republican Party, the Christian Right, FOX News and an assortment of other forces."
In Israel, apparently, nobody thought twice about such a statement. But those same words written here in the United States would be prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism.
Even the comparison of the situation in the Palestinian territories to South African apartheid isn't unsayable within Israel. To the contrary, it has been an undercurrent of debate there for years.
"I'm terribly sorry, while there are important differences between the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the former apartheid regime of South Africa, after 39 years of occupation the similarities have come to outweigh the differences," Derfner wrote recently in another column in The Jerusalem Post.
Top Israeli political figures have made the comparison as well.
"The things a Palestinian has to endure, simply coming to work in the morning, is a long and continuous nightmare that includes humiliation bordering on despair," said Ami Ayalon, the former head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency. "Is the option of Jewish democracy with apartheid acceptable? I think not."
And Yossi Alpher, a former senior adviser in the Israeli government, once warned that with their unwavering support for Israel's approach to Palestine, neoconservatives in the Bush administration have encouraged Israel to create "an apartheid reality that is the very antithesis of the democratization that they preach for the region."
Foxman professes to be most outraged by Carter's assertion that pro-Israeli groups have helped squelch open debate about the Middle East, accusing Carter of peddling "this shameless, shameful canard that the Jews control the debate in this country, especially when it comes to the media.''
There is indeed a shameless, shameful canard to that effect, and it is classic anti-Semitism, attributing to Jews some secret conspiratorial control of world affairs. But that is not the argument that Carter is making. Carter's point — and Foxman proves it — is that it has become impossible to express sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians in this country without fear of being shouted down as anti-Semitic.
There is no question that anti-Semitism is alive and virulent. It is undeniable fact that Israel is unfairly targeted in the United Nations and other forums, in part because of anti-Semitism and in part because Israel is hated as a creation of the West imposed on the Arab world, a living and enduring symbol of Arab weakness.
However, Israelis also bridle when they believe their country is being held to a higher standard than other nations, and they insist that it be treated like any other normal country.
Normal countries, however, are subject to normal criticism among the community of nations. In Israel's case, there will always be a danger that such criticism will slide into anti-Semitism, but people of good faith can surely distinguish one from the other.
• Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Mondays and Thursdays.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former President Jimmy Carter Examines Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Former U.S. President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Jimmy Carter discusses his latest book, "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid" about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
JUDY WOODRUFF, NewsHour Special Correspondent: The former president and Nobel Peace Prize-winner has just written his 21st book. It is called "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
That title has brought some sharp critiques from Americans sympathetic to Israel, and its publications comes amid both renewed tensions and some peaceful gestures between Israelis and Palestinians.
President Carter, it's good to see you. Thanks for being with us.
JIMMY CARTER, Former President of the United States: It's nice to be with you. Thank you, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The title, you chose, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." Did you mean to be provocative, because this immediately calls to mind South Africa, the repression of blacks by whites?
JIMMY CARTER: Yes. But I don't consider the word "provocative" to be negative. I wanted to provoke...
JUDY WOODRUFF: The word "apartheid."
JIMMY CARTER: The whole title, I wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States, but it's prevalent every day in Israel and in Europe. This is needed, I think, for our country to understand what's going on in the West Bank.
And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel.
Secondly, the emphasis is on peace.
And the third thing is not apartheid. I don't want to see apartheid. And since now the entire peace process is completely dormant, there hasn't been one day for good faith substantive negotiations in the last six years to bring peace to Israel, I wanted to rejuvenate this process.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And you say it's dormant, and yet today Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announcing she's going to meet with the leader of the Palestinians, Mr. Abbas, later this week. Isn't that a sign of progress, potential progress?
JIMMY CARTER: Well, a sign of progress -- to talk to one side and then talk to the other is very nice. But I'm talking about there hasn't been a day of negotiation orchestrated or promoted by the United States between Israel and the Palestinians in six years.
And for all practical purposes, it is dormant. I don't mean that the United States has not visited Israel; I don't mean that the secretary of state hasn't talked to the Israelis and the Palestinians.
And let me get to the word "apartheid." Apartheid doesn't apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel to the nation. It doesn't imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis -- we're not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land.
So the whole system is designed to separate through a ferocious system Israelis who live on Palestine territory and Palestinians who want to live on their own territory.
Peace efforts and withdrawal
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, again, your book comes out at a moment when, not only you have Dr. Rice saying she's going to meet with the Palestinian leader, you have the Israeli prime minister, Mr. Olmert, announcing just yesterday that he is putting a proposal on the table.
He's saying, "We will give back most of the West Bank. We will get out most of the West Bank." He's saying, "We will release prisoners, if there will be a good-faith effort on the part of the Palestinians." Is this the kind of progress you're looking for?
JIMMY CARTER: I think that's a minor first step, yes, to give back some of their land. The demand is for them to give back all the land.
The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories.
And the present only game in town -- that is, the international quartet's road map -- calls for the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories. That road map, by the way, all of the terms of it have been adopted by the Palestinians. All the major terms of the road map have been rejected officially by the Israeli government.
So this is what's created this quagmire and what I consider to be a total inaction for the first time in the history of Israel. We've been six years now without any negotiations for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But are you dismissing what Mr. Olmert is proposing as of yesterday?
JIMMY CARTER: Well, the New York Times said it was a non-substantive speech that didn't bring anything new to the table. I haven't read the entire speech, so I haven't analyzed it that thoroughly.
But when he says we're going to withdraw from part of the process, part of the land that we're occupying, and keep the rest, we're going to keep our wall there, which surrounds the remnant of the Palestinians' land that they're going to be permitted to live on, where we're going to keep Israeli settlements all over the land even that the Palestinians will retain, and keep the wall around Gaza, all of these things need to be changed and not just a token withdrawal from some of the land that the Israelis have acquired.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So you're saying it's not nearly enough?
JIMMY CARTER: No, it's not nearly enough, and everybody knows that. In fact, the international community, all the policy of the United States' government since Israel was founded as a nation, the agreements that the Israelis have adopted -- a strong majority of the Israeli people all agree that, in order to have peace, Israel has got to withdraw from the occupied territories, not just from token withdrawals from a few settlements leaving about 150 other settlements on Palestinian land.
Accepting Hamas' victory
JUDY WOODRUFF: President Carter, people would listen to what you're saying here, and they would read your book, and they would say, "He's putting the onus here on the Israelis." And many would return that by saying, "But wait a minute. It's the Palestinians who continue to fire rockets into Israeli land. It's the Palestinians who have kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It's the Palestinians that continue to perpetuate terrorist acts against the Israelis."
JIMMY CARTER: Sure, that's what you say, and that's the general consensus in the United States. The fact is that, when the Palestinians dug under the Israeli wall from Gaza and captured the Israeli soldier, one soldier, at that time, Israel was holding 9,200 Palestinians prisoner, including 300 children, almost 300, 293 children, some of them 12 years old, and holding almost 100 women prisoner.
And immediately, the Palestinians who took that soldier said, "We want to swap this soldier for some of our women and children." And the Israelis rejected that proposal and refused to swap at all with the Palestinians in the West Bank. That was the key to the issue.
So it's right that the Palestinians took a soldier, which they should release. But for Israel to keep 9,000 Palestinians and not release any of them is something that you don't mention in the question, and it's generally not even known in this country.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And we want to give you the opportunity to give that side of the story...
JIMMY CARTER: That's why I wrote the book.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... as well, and that's why we're here talking to you about it.
JIMMY CARTER: I know.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But what would you say, President Carter, to the Israeli public who would, again, listen to what you're saying, and they would say, "Wait a minute. You're asking us to put our faith in a people, in a government that doesn't even recognize our right to exist?" Isn't that the posture of the Hamas government and the Palestinian territories?
JIMMY CARTER: Well, we were there -- the Carter Center was there, and we monitored the election in January when Hamas did win a victory. They won 42 percent of the vote. It was an open, free, fair, safe election, as certified by the Carter Center, and National Democratic Institute, and the European Union observers. Nobody questioned the integrity of it.
That was an expression of will by the Palestinian people on whom they wanted to serve in their parliament. Well, at that time, I thought that this would be a matter of a unity government. But immediately, the United States and Israel said, "We will not accept a government that has Hamas leaders in it."
And so, as a result of that, all financial aid to the entire population of Palestine was cut off just because they expressed their will in a free vote. And as a matter of fact, Hamas, whom everyone criticizes -- the fact is that Hamas, since August of 2004, has not committed a single act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life, not a single one.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I think many Americans would be surprised to hear that.
JIMMY CARTER: I know. They would be surprised, but it's an actual fact. And Hamas...
Recognizing Israel
JUDY WOODRUFF: But what about not recognizing Israel's right to exist?
JIMMY CARTER: The day after the election, I went and met with Mahmoud Abbas, who is the leader of the Palestinians. He's their president. He's the head of the PLO, which is the only organization, by the way, that the United States or Israel recognizes, the PLO, in which there's not a single Hamas member. Hamas has nothing to do with the PLO.
And after I met with Abbas to talk about a unity government, which he rejected, then I met with a Hamas leader. He's a medical doctor who was elected. He's now in prison, by the way. But he said -- when I insisted that they recognize Israel, he said, "Mr. President, which Israel are you talking about? Are you talking about the Israel that's occupying our land? Are you talking about the Israel that has built a wall around our people? Are you talking about an Israel that deprives us of basic human rights to move from one place to another in our own land?" He said, "We can't recognize that Israel."
But later, the prime minister of the Hamas government, Haniyeh, said, "We are strongly in favor of direct talks between Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the PLO and the head of the government, and the prime minister of Israel, Olmert." And he said, "If they reach an agreement in their discussions that's acceptable to the Palestinian people, we will accept it, also. Hamas will."
Those things are not even known in this country; they're a matter of record.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And you're saying that, if the U.S. doesn't get involved, then...
JIMMY CARTER: Then there won't be much progress. You know, it's been proven in the past that some outside group needs to get involved. And in 1978 and '79, I got involved and negotiated a peace treaty between Israel and its only formidable opponent, that is Egypt.
In 2003, the Norwegians concluded an agreement, the Oslo Agreement. In both cases, the Israeli leaders won the Nobel Peace Prize for adopting the principles that Israel would withdraw from the territory in order to get peace. That has been abandoned now under the last three leaders of Israel.
And as I said earlier, a majority of Israelis, in every public opinion poll that's been done since 1967, have favored exchanging the confiscated Palestinian land for peace. But there's a small minority in Israel, a substantial minority, that says we would prefer the land, and we will not relinquish it in order to get peace.
Effect on situation in Iraq
JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quick final question about Iraq. Can you have peace in Iraq without fixing the Israeli-Palestinian problem, or is it vice versa? Do you must -- you first need to fix Iraq?
JIMMY CARTER: There is no way to separate the two. President Bush is over there now trying to harness supporters among the moderate Arabs. He just was in Jordan, and in Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and others that I need not name right now.
To get them to support us enthusiastically in Iraq means that he's going to have to alleviate their deep concern and their animosity -- with less than 5 percent of Jordanians and Egyptians looking with favor on our government -- because the main obstacle for their full support of the United States now in Iraq and other places is because we have not shown any interest for the last six years in alleviating the horrible plight of the Palestinians.
We've made no effort in the last six years to bring peace to Israel or to their adjacent neighbors, the Palestinians.
JUDY WOODRUFF: President Jimmy Carter, with some passionately held views. We thank you very much for being with us on the NewsHour. We appreciate it.
JIMMY CARTER: I always enjoy being with you and on the NewsHour.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you very much.
JIMMY CARTER: It's a pleasure.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Good to see you.
JIMMY CARTER: Thanks, Judy.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/carter_11-28.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter: Israeli 'domination' over Palestinians is 'atrocious'
Ron Brynaert
Published: Monday November 27, 2006
Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter called Israeli "domination" over Palestinians "atrocious" during an interview Monday on ABC's Good Morning America, RAW STORY has learned.
Appearing on the morning talk show to promote his new book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Carter dismissed criticism by some Democrats that his book comes down too harshly on America's key ally in the Middle East.
Robin Roberts told Carter that "many people find surprising that you come down a little hard on Israel, and that there have been some key Democrats who have distanced themselves a little bit from your view on Israel."
"In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said 'it is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based suppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously,'" Roberts said. "What is your response to that?"
"Well, Robin, I have spent the last 30 years trying to find peace for Israel and Israel's neighbors, and the purpose of this book is to do that," Carter responded. "But you can't find peace unless you address the existing issues honestly and frankly."
Carter said that there was "no doubt now that a minority of Israelis are perpetuating apartheid on the people in Palestine, the Palestinian people."
Many Democrats are uncomfortable with Carter's use of the term "apartheid" to describe Israeli policies. Even Congressman John Conyers, the incoming House Judiciary Committee chairman known for his more liberal ideology, has criticized the term's usage.
"Conyers stated recently that the use of the term 'apartheid' in the book's title 'does not serve the cause of peace, and the use of it against the Jewish people in particular, who have been victims of the worst kind of discrimination, discrimination resulting in death, is offensive and wrong,'" wrote Michael F. Brown for The Nation.
However, Brown, a fellow at the Palestine Center, noted that "Nobel Peace Prize recipient Bishop Desmond Tutu has made the same connection as Carter."
"I've 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," Tutu wrote over four years ago.
On Good Morning America, Carter called Israel's occupation the "prime cause" of continuing violence in the Middle East.
"And contrary to the United Nations resolutions, contrary to the official policy of the United States government, contrary to the Quartet so-called road map, all of those things -- and contrary to the majority of Israeli people's opinion -- this occupation and confiscation and colonization of land in the West Bank is the prime cause of a continuation of violence in the Middle East," said Carter.
"And what is being done to the Palestinians under Israeli domination is really atrocious," Carter continued. "It's a terrible affliction on these people."
In his book, Carter argues that "peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens and honor its own previous commitments by accepting its legal borders."
An excerpt from Carter's book can be read at this link:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Carter_Israeli_domination_over_Palestinian_atrocious_1127.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READERS WRITE | ajc.com
By James J. David, William Deneke, Toby F. Block, Joe Parko, Helen Smith, Alby Davis, Darby Christopher
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/22/06
Middle East: Responses to Michael Jacobs' column "Carter's book a distorted view of Israel,'' @issue, Nov. 20
Harsh book on Israel tells it like it is
Michael Jacobs, in his criticism of Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," tries to paint a picture of lies and distortion by the former president. In reality, the lies and distortion come from Jacobs.
Jimmy Carter is right when he refers to Israel as an apartheid state. Israel has stolen land from the Palestinians, denied them their basic human rights, destroyed their homes, murdered their children and pushed them into pitiful camps where they can merely exist.
All these crimes and abuses have occurred since 1967 and have been rewarded with ever-increasing U.S. aid to Israel. If the United States wants to promote world peace, it should get tough with Israel and stop financial and military aid.
JAMES J. DAVID, Marietta
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid - Jimmy Carter in His Own Words:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/30/1452225
Last edited by Alpha on Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:28 pm; edited 12 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: |
| Jimmy Carter on Conflict in the Middle East
Excerpt: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
The overriding problem is that, for more than a quarter century, the actions of some Israeli leaders have been in direct
conflict with the official policies of the United States, the international community, and their own negotiated agreements.
Regardless of whether Palestinians had no formalized government, one headed by Yasir Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas,
or one with Abbas as president and Hamas controlling the parliament and cabinet, 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.
Two other interrelated factors have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and regional upheaval: the condoning
of illegal Israeli actions from a submissive White House and U.S. Congress during recent years, and the deference with
which other international leaders permit this unofficial U.S. policy in the Middle East to prevail. There are constant and
vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political,
economic, and religious forces in the United States, 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. At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public
attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in
October 2003, of 7,500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to
world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6543594
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BGJDAVID
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:52:43 EST
Subject: Final Conclusion: Israel is an Apartheid State
First came Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," then came Michael Jacobs of the Atlanta Jewish Times with his attacks and criticism of the former president as published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution "Carter's book a distorted view of Israel | ajc.com." Then came letters to the editor from both sides of the forum including a letter of my own READERS WRITE | ajc.com. Now the final review, and this by the one who's in the posititon to know the real truth, the one with first hand knowledge and hands-on experience, the one who reports to the United Nations Human Rights Council who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but a South African law professor teaching in the Netherlands. It is written by Professor John Dugard who not only describes Israel's oppression of the Palestinians as apartheid but even goes as far as to say that " Many aspects of Israel's occupation surpass those of the apartheid regime. Israel's large-scale destruction of Palestinian homes, leveling of agricultural lands, military incursions and targeted assassinations of Palestinians far exceed any similar practices in apartheid South Africa. No wall was ever built to separate blacks and whites." This is a must read for anyone who ever had doubts as to Israel's apartheid regime.
Israelis adopt what South Africa dropped
By JOHN DUGARD
Published on: 11/29/06
Former President Jimmy Carter's new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," is igniting controversy for its allegation that Israel practices a form of apartheid.
As a South African and former anti-apartheid advocate who visits the Palestinian territories regularly to assess the human rights situation for the U.N. Human Rights Council, the comparison to South African apartheid is of special interest to me.
(ENLARGE)
John Dugard is a South African law professor teaching in the Netherlands. He is currently Special Rapporteur (reporter) on Palestine to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
On the face of it, the two regimes are very different. Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial discrimination that the white minority in South Africa employed to maintain power over the black majority. It was characterized by the denial of political rights to blacks, the fragmentation of the country into white areas and black areas (called Bantustans) and by the imposition on blacks of restrictive measures designed to achieve white superiority, racial separation and white security.
The "pass system," which sought to prevent the free movement of blacks and to restrict their entry to the cities, was rigorously enforced. Blacks were forcibly "relocated," and they were denied access to most public amenities and to many forms of employment. The system was enforced by a brutal security apparatus in which torture played a significant role.
The Palestinian territories — East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. Although military occupation is tolerated and regulated by international law, it is considered an undesirable regime that should be ended as soon as possible. The United Nations for nearly 40 years has condemned Israel's military occupation, together with colonialism and apartheid, as contrary to the international public order.
In principle, the purpose of military occupation is different from that of apartheid. It is not designed as a long-term oppressive regime but as an interim measure that maintains law and order in a territory following an armed conflict and pending a peace settlement. But this is not the nature of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Since 1967 Israel has imposed its control over the Palestinian territories in the manner of a colonizing power, under the guise of occupation. It has permanently seized the territories' most desirable parts — the holy sites in East Jerusalem, Hebron and Bethlehem and the fertile agricultural lands along the western border and in the Jordan Valley — and settled its own Jewish "colonists" throughout the land.
Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has many features of colonization. At the same time it has many of the worst characteristics of apartheid. The West Bank has been fragmented into three areas — north (Jenin and Nablus), center (Ramallah) and south (Hebron) — which increasingly resemble the Bantustans of South Africa.
Restrictions on freedom of movement imposed by a rigid permit system enforced by some 520 checkpoints and roadblocks resemble, but in severity go well beyond, apartheid's "pass system." And the security apparatus is reminiscent of that of apartheid, with more than 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons and frequent allegations of torture and cruel treatment.
Many aspects of Israel's occupation surpass those of the apartheid regime. Israel's large-scale destruction of Palestinian homes, leveling of agricultural lands, military incursions and targeted assassinations of Palestinians far exceed any similar practices in apartheid South Africa. No wall was ever built to separate blacks and whites.
Following the worldwide anti-apartheid movement, one might expect a similarly concerted international effort united in opposition to Israel's abhorrent treatment of the Palestinians. Instead one finds an international community divided between the West and the rest of the world. The Security Council is prevented from taking action because of the U.S. veto and European Union abstinence. And the United States and the European Union, acting in collusion with the United Nations and the Russian Federation, have in effect imposed economic sanctions on the Palestinian people for having, by democratic means, elected a government deemed unacceptable to Israel and the West. Forgotten is the commitment to putting an end to occupation, colonization and apartheid.
In these circumstances, the United States should not be surprised if the rest of the world begins to lose faith in its commitment to human rights. Some Americans — rightly — complain that other countries are unconcerned about Sudan's violence-torn Darfur region and similar situations in the world. But while the United States itself maintains a double standard with respect to Palestine it cannot expect cooperation from others in the struggle for human rights.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2006/11/29/1129edcarter.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BGJDAVID
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:16:15 EST
Subject: Olmert Disagrees With U.S. Iraq Group
You will see in this article that the only side who refuses to talk peace is not Syria or the Palestinians--it's Israel. Yet, how many times do we hear in the media and from our politicians that it's the Arabs that don't want peace? It's not the Arabs who don't want peace; it's Israel who doesn't want peace. Afterall, if there is peace then Israel will not be able to portray themselves as victims and their $5.6 billion in annual foreign aid may be in jeopardy. The U.S. passionate attachment to Israel is the most costly relationship this country has ever experienced. And how has this relationship benefited the American people? I think we all know the answer. It hasn't benefited the American people one iota. Instead, it has cost us thousands of American lives, billions of American dollars, and the loss of friendship around the world.
Olmert Disagrees With U.S. Iraq Group
By STEVEN GUTKIN
.c The Associated Press
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Thursday rejected a U.S. advisory group's conclusion that a concerted effort to resolve Israel's conflict with its neighbors will help stabilize the situation in Iraq, saying there is no connection between the two issues.
Olmert also rebuffed the group's recommendation that Israel open negotiations with Syria, but said Israelis want ``with all our might'' to restart peace talks with the Palestinians.
The Iraq Study Group report, released Wednesday in Washington, calls for direct talks between Israel and its neighbors, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians and says resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict would improve conditions in Iraq.
Olmert rejected that finding. ``The attempt to create a linkage between the Iraqi issue and the Mideast issue - we have a different view,'' Olmert said during the prime minister's annual meeting with Israeli journalists. ``To the best of my knowledge, President Bush, throughout the recent years, also had a different view on this.''
Answering reporters' questions for more than an hour, Olmert said conditions were not ripe to reopen long-dormant talks with Syria and added that he received no indications from Bush during his recent visit to Washington that the U.S. would push Israel to start such talks.
White House officials were noncommittal about the report of the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., saying only that Bush would review it.
Palestinian officials were more receptive to the panel's recommendations.
``We welcome the Hamilton-Baker report and hope the U.S. administration will translate it into deeds,'' Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said. ``The region needs peace, the region needs dialogue and we have always stuck to dialogue toward a comprehensive peace.''
Syrian President Bashar Assad has called in recent months for a new round of talks with Israel. Syria is a key backer of the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Hezbollah, the Lebanese guerrilla group that battled Israel during an inconclusive monthlong war last summer.
While some top Israeli officials have urged Olmert to accept Assad's offer, the prime minister said he didn't think talks would change Syria's close ties to radical anti-Israel groups.
``I don't think there is a Syrian desire for war with us. We certainly don't have a desire to fight with them. That doesn't mean conditions are ripe for us to negotiate with them,'' he said.
Olmert, however, said that Israel was deeply interested in restarting talks with the Palestinians and said Israel would work ``with all our might'' to make them happen.
He also welcomed a peace initiative put forward by Saudi Arabia, saying it contains ``interesting innovations that should not be ignored.'' However, he did not fully endorse the plan, first floated in 2002, which called for Israel to withdraw from all of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, a stipulation Israel rejects.
Olmert also rejected suggestions that Israel's recent cease-fire with Palestinian militants in Gaza would allow the militants to rearm and regroup for another round of fighting, saying that Israel would not allow that to happen.
He said that despite occasional rocket attacks by Gaza militants at Israel, ``we will continue to show restraint.''
Olmert also addressed the controversy over Iran's nuclear ambitions, reiterating Israel's position that it will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, but will not take unilateral action, preferring that the dispute should be settled by the international community as a whole.
He also reiterated his support for the U.S. war in Iraq, a position that caused some controversy during his U.S. trip last month.
``We always felt, like other nations in our region, that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a major, major contribution to stability in our part of the world,'' he said.
12/07/06 08:14 EST
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:05 am; edited 3 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:49 am Post subject: |
| Tuesday, November 28th, 2006
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/28/1454248
One State or Two? Rashid Khalidi & Ali Abunimah on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two leading Palestinian-American intellectuals discuss their new books: Rashid Khalidi's "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood" and Ali Abunimah's "One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse."[includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We turn now to the latest from Israel and the Occupied Territories. But first, an unusual moment last night on American television. Appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, former President Jimmy Carter fiercely critical of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He was talking about his new book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” which is generating heavy controversy here in the United States.
President Jimmy Carter: And the oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. The basic problem--
LARRY KING: Why not?
JIMMY CARTER: I don't know why not. You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis. As a matter of fact it's one of the worst cases of oppression that I know of now in the world. The Palestinian's land has been taken away from them. They now have a encapsulating or an imprisonment wall being built around what’s left of the little tiny part of the holy land that is in the West Bank. In Gaza, from which Israel is now withdrawing. Gaza is surrounded by a high wall, there’s only two openings in it, one into Israel, which is mostly closed, the other into Egypt, the people there are encapsulated. And the deprivation of basic human rights among the Palestinians is really horrendous. And this is a fact, it’s known throughout the world. It is debated heavily, constantly in Israel. Every time I am there the debate is going on. It is not debated at all in this country.
Carter's comments come as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave a major speech Monday in which he said he was prepared to offer Palestinians concessions to make peace. Olmert said Israel would return parts of the West Bank towards the creation of the Palestinian state. He called on Palestinians to renounce violence, give up the right of the return, and accept a prisoner exchange for the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Olmert's comments marked the first time he has endorsed the idea of a prisoner exchange since Israel launched its attack on Gaza in June.
Olmert did not give new ideas on some of the most contentious issues, including Israeli settlements and the status of Jerusalem. But he said peace would be based on the Bush administration's position that any new agreement would reflect the reality of Israel's annexation of large parts of the West Bank for its settlements.
Olmert's speech comes one day after Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip as part of a new ceasefire. Israel's five-month offensive in Gaza has killed more than 400 Palestinians including at least 74 Palestinians under the age of 18. Fighting continues in the West Bank where Israeli forces arrested thirteen Palestinians overnight.
Well today, we spend the rest of the hour with two leading Palestinian-American voices.
Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies and the Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. His new book is called "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood."
Ali Abunimah, creator and editor of The Electronic Intifada and more recently of Electronic Iraq. His new book is "One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN:Today, we'll spend the rest of the program with two leading Palestinian-American voices. Both have new books on the Israel Palestine conflict. Joining me here in our firehouse studio, is Rashid Khalidi, He is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies and director of Middle East Studies Institute at the Columbia University. His new book is called The Iron Cage: the Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. We welcome you to Democracy Now!.
RASHID KHALIDI:Thanks for having me, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN:It’s good to have you with us. First your response to this former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and his book.
RASHID KHALIDI:I certainly couldn't agree more with what he said on CNN last night. There's no question that there's been a blanket of silent for 39 and a half years and running in most of the mainstream media about what is happening daily in the Occupied Territories. The very fact that they are occupied territories, and that it’s been 39 and a half years, is never, never mentioned in most news reports.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact that he's an American President talking about this, is this unusual?
RASHID KHALIDI:Well, that's why he got on Larry King. It’s very, very hard to get those kinds of words across something like CNN. It is important. I mean this is a man whose gone around the world and I think very ably represented this country in terms of, standing at elections, watching them, supervising them. And, I think he's a man who has enormous credibility, though it’s amazing how the Democratic Party is twisting and turning on the issue of his book.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do you think that is, the Democratic Party?
RASHID KHALIDI:Well, the politicians who have disassociated themselves from President Carter, are all Democrats, interesting enough.
AMY GOODMAN: Who?
RASHID KHALIDI:I can't remember each specific Senator or Congressman, but there was a lemming-like rush way from the President on the part of a number of them. I think because anything that is said against Israel arouses enormous ferocious emotional response among some people, and politicians are afraid of that. The media are afraid of that. And so I don’t think that we get anything like a balanced discussion of the issues. In fact, a discussion of the issues is what many people would like to avoid. I think that, that’s what the President himself said. We don't have these things discussed in this country. They certainly are in Israel, as he said. They are discussed everywhere else, they’re just not discussed here.
AMY GOODMAN: Why did you call your book The Iron Cage?
RASHID KHALIDI:I call it The Iron Cage cause that was the metaphor that occurred to me in trying to explain the kind of constraints the Palestinians operated under during the mandate period. And then I realized that's still true today, in a sense. They are within, bounded within, both physical and constitutional and legal constraints that make it, very, very hard for them to operate. The focus of the book is not on that. However, it’s on what they have done or not done within those constraints.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about Ehud Olmert's speech, and what he is offering, in the context of, and I think as you say, without this discussion, people don’t even understand the history.
RASHID KHALIDI:Right.
AMY GOODMAN:And the context of history as you talk about the story of the Palestinian struggle for statehood.
RASHID KHALIDI:Well, there's deep history and there is current history. The current history is 39 and a half years of occupation. The deeper history, which I try and go into in this book, has to do with what happened before 1948, in 1948 and since. The problem doesn’t just go back to 1967. So, what Olmert is--is talking about, is a rearrangement of the current status of the Occupied Territories, with Israel, as you said, keeping much of what it occupied in 1967. What President Bush in April, 2004 basically granted Israel, the so called settlement blocks, which are undefined areas which cut the West Bank into at least three pieces. But, which could expand--continue to expand as they have been over many, many years. So there's nothing new in the proposal as far as I can tell. And it essentially involves a rearrangement of the status quo, before 2000.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, go back. Go back in time, we have time for this. Talk about the deep history.
RASHID KHALIDI:Well, the deep history has to do with a country that had a majority that was Arab, in which the British helped the Zionist movement to establish, what was called in the Balfour Declaration, a National Home for the Jewish People. That was understood by the British and by the Zionists to mean a Jewish state in all of Palestine. And that was--that was the objective I think from the beginning.
What nobody really took very seriously into account was that Arab majority, the fact that it had a national consciousness, that it saw itself as having rights. And that, even by the documents that the British themselves had helped to produce, the Covenant of the League of Nations, that population did have rights, a right of national self-determination.
What I talk about in the book is how that right was never granted. How, the Palestinians were never able to achieve it, how obstacles were thrown in their path. And then 1948, involves the expulsion of a majority of the Palestinians from their homes. It involves the establishment obviously of Israel, but the non-establishment of an Arab state, which the United Nations had called for. And, I go into why that happened as well.
AMY GOODMAN: The difference between the British rule and Israeli rule?
RASHID KHALIDI:Well, there are some similarities, the emergency regulations that the British passed in 1945, are still applied, for things like administrative detention. An innovation which are law now, includes in the form of the Military Commission’s Act, where you can just be just put in jail on the say so of some government official. So, there are obviously other differences. The British pretended that they were trying to fairly judge between the two sides, in fact they had a very deep commitment to Zionism. It was only tempered in 1939, when they came to realize how impossible it was to ram the Zionist project down the throats of the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world.
AMY GOODMAN:How did the Israelis expel the Palestinians?
RASHID KHALIDI:By force. By--by fear. In many cases people fled without actually having been attacked, out of terror, after hearing of massacres, or reports of massacres else where. It was absolutely necessary that 55% of a country that had a 65 % Arab majority, which was to become a Jewish state under the Partition Plan of 1947, that 55% had almost parody between Arabs and Jews. You wouldn’t have had a Jewish state in that 55%, unless that population or large part of it had been expelled. So, more over, most of the property in that—in that 55% was Arab owned. So, it was almost a necessary and inevitable prerequisite for the establishment of a Jewish state, in a country that had 65% Arab majority.
AMY GOODMAN:What about your family's own story?
RASHID KHALIDI:Well, I mean my family comes from Jerusalem, my father’s family. Some of the members of my family were involved, deeply involved in politics. One of them was, I--I mentioned him and other in various of my writings, played a pretty important role in the ‘30's and ‘40's. I'm critical of that whole generation of leadership in the book, because I think they really failed to meet the challenge that they faced. But I, I--
AMY GOODMAN:What do you think they should have done?
RASHID KHALIDI:Well, there are many things that they should’ve done. One thing they should not have done, is to react the way they did to the British. The British came there and put into place a series of constraints that they should not, under any circumstances, have accepted. Many of them, not just the Mufti, not just my uncle, not just a number of other people accepted positions in a British mandatory administration, which was predicated on the denial of their national existence. That was a mistake obviously. They made many other mistakes. I mean, there was only a moment in which a compromise might have been possible, when the Zionist movement, when it was weak, late ‘20’s early/ ‘30’s. They didn't take that chance. There was only a moment when real resistance to the British might have changed things, as it did in Iraq, in Egypt, in Syria in the ‘20’s. The Palestinians didn’t revolt until the end of the ‘30’s and it was a popular revolt--
AMY GOODMAN:Why?
RASHID KHALIDI:That's a hard question to answer. I mean I actually don't answer it in the book, because I'm not sure why. Everywhere else you had major armed national revolts against colonial imperial rule, not in Palestine until the very end of the ‘30's.
AMY GOODMAN:We’re talking to Professor Rashid Khalidi, he’s the Edward Said Professor of Arab studies at Columbia University. Author of a number of books, his latest is called The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Joining us in studio in Chicago, is Ali Abunimah. He is the creator and editor of the Electronic Intafada, and more recently of Electronic Iraq, his new book is called One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. Ali Abunimah, thank you for joining us, layout that proposal, please.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Thank you, Amy. What I layout in the book is really an old idea, which I think needs to be revived and discussed most vigorously. And really it's the proposition in the title One Country, recognition that what we have in Palestine-Israel is one country. It is an Israeli ruled country in which half the population, 5 million Israeli Jews, has a monopoly on political, economic and military power. And the other half, Palestinians, are disenfranchised either partially or totally.
And what I'm arguing is that--that really the conventional wisdom, that partition is the solution is completely wrong. And in fact, partition is the problem. I think Rashid's book which is really an important and a major new light on some of this history, helps illuminate that partition has always been associated with ethnic cleansing, with the dispossession of the Palestinians really from when it was first suggested in 1937, when the British suggested the partition of Palestine. They said that you would have to forcibly transfer hundreds of thousands at that time, nearly the majority of the Palestinian population, in order to create a Jewish State. And as Rashid said, Israeli could only come out of the continued dispossession of the Palestinians.
What I’m saying is that we need to do the work of imagining a different kind of future. One in which, Israelis and Palestinians can start to see themselves together. That's very, very hard work in the current context. But, I think looking at other examples around the world, like South Africa, like Northern Ireland, even like Canada where they are still struggling with these issues as we see today. There is a different path that we have to see other than the Apartheid reality Israel is creating with the world’s complicity.
AMY GOODMAN:Ali Abunimah, on the issue of a one-state solution, I wanted to go back for a moment to former President Jimmy Carter. During his appearance on CNN last night he was asked about this one state idea.
JIMMY CARTER: To incorporate the Occupied Territories into Israel and have just one state, I don't think that would work, and I’ll tell you why. First of all, the Palestinians, if they were given a right to vote on an equal basis with all Israelis, they would play a major role in making decisions about the whole country. And with the rapid population growth of the Palestinians, which in Gaza is 4.7% a year, one of the highest of the world, and in the foreseeable future the Palestinians would actually have a majority in that nation. So I think the only real practical solution is to have two states, side by side, in their own territories living in harmony and peace. That’s I think the best and most likely approach.
AMY GOODMAN:That was former President Jimmy Carter on CNN Larry King Live. But I also wanted to ask you about the charge that advocating a one-state solution, in fact helps the strongest opponents of Palestinian rights. The argument has been made by people like, well, MIT Professor Noam Chompsky, who says he favors the two-state solution, not because it’s the most just, but because it’s the most realistic. He writes, "in my opinion, it's improper to dangle hopes that will not be realized before the eyes of people suffering in misery and oppression. Rather constructive efforts should be pursued to mitigate their suffering and deal with their problems in the real world.” Your response.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Well, I think those views are both reflections of a flawed conventional wisdom and I take that on directly in the book. Consider this reality, Amy. There is a multibillion dollar peace process industry that has been out there for decades saying the only solution is the two-state solution. And as we see there is no Palestinian state. It was promised, President Bush promised a Palestinian State in 2005, we’re close to 2007.
It is the hope of a Palestinian state that has been dangled cynically in front of the Palestinians for decades. And what President Carter is saying, and I applaud, I am thrilled by his interventions, by his book, and by his interview on Larry King Live. But, I think on this particular issue he’s reflecting a flawed conventional wisdom. Because what’s he saying? He’s saying that the reason to oppose a one-state solution is because it would be democracy. That Palestinians would have an equal rights, one person, one vote, and an equal share in deciding the future of the country.
What I argue in the book, of course this isn't about destroying Israel. It isn’t about turning things over from one day to the next. Palestine-Israel is not the only country that faces this sort of power struggle along ethnic, religious, and other lines. We have to look for structures, and I talk about this in some detail in the book. How they did it in South Africa, where by the way, the same sorts of arguments were made against ending Apartheid and against one person, one vote. We have to look at countries like Belgium, we have to look at Northern Ireland.
There are many models out there for dealing with those sort of things. So that you have one person, one vote, full democracy, full equality, while at same time, ethnic communities, the Israeli-Jewish community, the Palestinian community, will have mechanisms for expressing their national identity, for decision making over issues that concern them. We have to stop thinking this very simplistic, binary way. And this is where I'm trying to take the discussion with this book.
AMY GOODMAN:Let me ask Professor Rashid Khalidi, your response. Which do you feel is the most viable solution today?
RASHID KHALIDI:Well, I would say two things, the first is that anybody who wants to talk about a two-state solution has to talk about how you would reverse the trends that have been ongoing for at least four decades. The annexation of Palestinian land, the usurpation of Palestinian property in order to create the settlements, the chopping up of the West Bank into cantons, the erection of a matrix of control, where by every important decision the Palestinians take is ultimately passed through an Israeli screen, and there are Israeli arbiters, Ministry of Interior, security services, military, control everything. I'm talking birth/death, entry/exit, export/import, everything, of importants.
You would have to reverse that whole process, before you could even talk about the 23% of Palestine, which is the West Bank and the Gaza Strip becoming a Palestinian State. And I see those processes as having been given enormous additional impetus by President Bush’s saying that the settlement blocks are realities that have to be taken into account in any settlement. So, reverse US policy first. Reverse everything Israeli has done for almost 40 years in the Occupied Territories and then come and talk about a Palestinian state.
The second thing that has to be taken into consideration in my view is that both Palestinians and Israelis are very attached to the idea of having their own state. Now, these are not just ethnic communities, these are peoples that have developed powerful senses of national identities, in part in conflict with one another. And to talk about how you move them towards a future of peace, in which you have one state and are operating within a single political system, involves not just a whole process of education and structures, which Ali does talk about in his book, but overcoming what seems to be very strong majority views in both peoples about how they want to organize their national life.
There are people in Israeli and more in Palestine, but minorities in both cases, who want some kind of one state solution. They don’t all want the same one by the way, but they are distinct minorities. So, I think you have to address both of those things, irrespective of which solution you want.
AMY GOODMAN:Ali Abunimah?
ALI ABUNIMAH: Well, I think Rashid is pointing out the key obstacles. People who say the two-state solution is realistic are ignoring the reality on the ground. That there is one state already, it is basically a greater Israel in which Palestinians are disenfranchised. These people are inseparable. And I think that for many people, the idea of two states acts as a sort of a placebo. It gets us off the hook from looking at the reality that these people are deeply intertwined. They are as inseparable as blacks and whites in South Africa, as inseparable as Nationalists and Unionists, Catholics and Protestants, in Northern Ireland. And like South Africans and like people in Ireland, they have to start dealing with that reality.
On the issues of what people on both sides think it's clear that the majority of Israelis are deeply attached to their own state, a state in which they are dominant, the dominant class, as whites were in South Africa. I think with Palestinians, it's much more mixed. When you look at the opinion poles within the West Bank and Gaza, it's remarkable how high support is for a single democratic multiethnic state, not an Islamic State in which there are no Jews, but a multiethnic democratic state, is remarkably high given that there are no Palestinian leaders out there openly advocating this.
And support for a two-state solution is remarkably tepid given the fact there is this multimillion dollar industry promoting it and all the parties say that they’re for it. When you look at Palestinians, the rest of the Palestinian community, the more than a million Palestinians living as Israeli citizens, second class citizens have been struggling for decades for a state of all its citizens. So, I would see them as supporting the goal of the state of equal rights and for Palestinians in the Diaspora, the issue of a two state solution has always remained contentious. Because, the way Israel conceives of it, as Ehud Olmert put it just yesterday, it means that the vast majority of Palestinians would have to give up their rights. So, in the book, and I talk about these discussions both among Palestinians and Israelis moving towards this new sort of vision.
AMY GOODMAN:We just have about a minute and a half to go and I want to tie this into what’s happening today in Iraq. How you see it related? Do you see solution to the Palestinian-Israel conflict essential to peace in Iraq as well?
RASHID KHALIDI:I think what's essential is that the mind set that has dominated American policy--policy making has to change fundamentally, whether in Iraq or Palestine, or Lebanon, or elsewhere. That we won't talk to you unless you do what we want syndrome, that this administration has perfected, is bankrupt and has lead us into the abyss. Much of what we think, the conventional wisdom about places like Palestine will have to be discarded. I would, I’d love to say I see a new horizon in Iraq and Palestine because of what Olmert has done, or because the Democrats have won the election, unfortunately, I don't. There’s a huge body of conventional wisdom which is entirely wrong, and which has led us where we are. And more of it than we realize is marked bipartisan on the Middle East. All of that has to change unfortunately.
AMY GOODMAN:Ali Abunimah, solution right now, on Iraq?
ALI ABUNIMAH: Well, I agree absolutely with what Rashid has said. I think the most important thing we can do what Jimmy Carter said on Larry King, we have to start talking about this. Shattering the conventional wisdom, shattering the silence that has made free discussion of Palestine-Israel such a taboo in this country for so long.
AMY GOODMAN:Ali Abunimah and Professor Rashid Khalidi, I want to thank you both for being with us. Ali Abunimah’s book is called One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israel Palestinian Impasse, and Professor’s Khalidi’s book, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: |
| December 8, 2006
Words Even an Ex-President Can't Say in America
The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
http://www.counterp unch.org/ finkelstein12082 006.html
It seems Israel 's "supporters" have conscripted me in their lynching of Jimmy Carter. Count me out. True, the historical part of Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, contains errors in that it repeats standard Israeli propaganda. However, Carter's analysis of the impasse in the "peace process" as well as his description of Israeli policy in the West Bank is accurate - and, frankly, that's all that matters.
A wag once said that there is no Pravda (Truth) in Izvestia (News) and no Izvestia in Pravda. The same can be said of our Pravda (The New York Times) and Izvestia (The Washington Post). Today both party organs ran feature stories trashing Carter using Kenneth Stein's resignation from the Carter Center as the hook. (I was sitting in the airport when this earth-shattering story came on CNN.) But like John Galt, many people must have wondered, Who (the hell) is Kenneth Stein? Stein wrote exactly one scholarly book on the Israel-Palestine conflict more than two decades ago (The Land Question in Palestine, 1984). Even in his heyday, Stein was a nonentity. When Joan Peters's hoax From Time Immemorial was published, I asked his opinion of it. He replied that it had "good points and bad points." Just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Later Stein wrote a sick essay the main thesis of which was, "the Palestinian Arab community had been significantly prone to dispossession and dislocation before the mass exodus from Palestine began" - so the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 was really no big deal ("One Hundred Years of Social Change: The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Probem," in Laurence Silberstein (ed.), New Perspectives on Israeli History, 1991).
The Pravda ( NYT) story was written by two reporters who seem to have made a beeline for the newsroom from their bat mitzvahs. They quote Stein to the effect that Carter's book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments". I doubt there's much to this. Most of the background material is Carter's reminiscences. Maybe he copied from Rosalyn's diary (she was his note taker). Then Pravda reports that "a growing chorus of academics... have taken issue with the book". Who do they name? Alan Dershowitz and David Makovsky. Makovsky is resident hack at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Israel Lobby's "think"-tank.
Pravda saw no irony in citing Dershowitz's expertise for a story on fabrication, falsification and plagiarism regarding a book on the Israel-Palestine conflict. As always, one can only be awed by the party discipline at our Pravda. It makes one positively wistful for the days when commissars quoted Stalin on linguistics.
Norman Finkelstein' s most recent book is Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-Semitism and the abuse of history ( University of California Press ). His web site is www.NormanFinkelste in.com.
__._,_.___ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:17 am Post subject: |
| From: "Jeffrey Blankfort"
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:54:28 -0800
Subject: Jewish Smear Artists Organizing Against Carter
Jimmy Carter's book has apparently struck a blow deep into the core of the Jewish lobby. Almost every one of its components, most of which are unknown to the general public as well as the "left," thanks to its pied pipers, is mobilizing its forces to discredit Carter's condemning of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians as "apartheid." This is not the time to criticize the ex-pres for not extending his criticism to the situation inside Israel itself, or that he supports a two-state "solution" but to use his book to the best advantage. If he is doing a book signing in your neighborhood, be there and support him.
Stand With US is one of the more odious of the American zionist enterprises in which the competition for "most odious" is exceptionally fierce.
<>JIMMY CARTER: Responses to his APARTHEID book</>
Posted: 12/7/2006 5:08:00 PM
Author: StandWithUs
Source: http://www.standwit hus.com
Dear Friends of Israel,
Jimmy Carter is traveling around the country to promote his new book.
We have collected a variety of responses to Carters book, for you to read and print out in order to educate the community around you. IMPORTANT RESPONSE MATERIAL HAS BEEN POSTED AT: StandWithUs. com under the FLYERS section.
http://www.standwit hus.com/flyers. asp#carter
Pick your favorite articles from these choices and print out, take to his local book signings, bring friends with you....distribute this and please TAKE A STAND!
StandWithUs is counting on YOU challenge misinformation with education.
Thank you in advance!
The StandWithUs Board of Directors and Staff
__._,_.___ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:20 am Post subject: LA Times: Carter: AIPAC's "extraordinary lobbying effor |
| From: "Jeffrey Blankfort"
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:44:28 -0800
Subject: LA Times: Carter: AIPAC's "extraordinary lobbying efforts"
"For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-carter8dec08,1,5841111.story
Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine
Jimmy Carter says his recent book is drawing knee-jerk accusations of anti-Israel bias.
By Jimmy Carter
the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," published last month. He is scheduled to sign books Monday at Vroman's in Pasadena.
December 8, 2006
I signed a contract with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.
We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."
Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.
The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.
The ultimate purpose of my book is 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 six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:24 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: |
| http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-letters9.5dec09,1,2751557.story
LETTERS
He's got guts
December 9, 2006
JIMMY CARTER may be the most courageous public figure in America ["Carter's Frontal Attack," by Josh Getlin, Dec. 4]. He has accurately described media coverage of the "Israel-Palestine" conflict as "abominable" and the U.S. government's pro-Israel bias as unequivocal. It is the ultimate irony that in a country that prizes its open democracy, no politician of any party is willing to risk his future by addressing this elephant in the room.
FRANCIS SARGUIS
Santa Barbara
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caller asks President Carter about AIPAC and other pressure groups within the US.
President Carter reveals the intense pressures used to prevent public discussion of the facts concerning Israel. He admits that some Universities have actually turned him away, telling him that discussing Israel was "too controversial!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBJgaBe5NgM
Carter answers a question about the paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Mearsheimer and Walt's paper discusses groups like AIPAC and the influence on the US political system and the support of Israel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbapmPR0ZeQ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
| From: BGJDAVID
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 10:55:33 EST
Subject: Carter stands by provocative book
A number of Jewish groups in the Atlanta area wrote a letter critical to Jimmy Carter that appeared in yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution'Peace not Apartheid' stands as unfounded | ajc.com. It seems that Jimmy Carter will not give in, thank God, and the following appeared in today's edition of the AJC.
Carter stands by provocative book
Despite criticism, the former president defends his description of Israeli-Palestinian relations as apartheid.
By Ernie Suggs
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/09/06
From the comfort of the Carter Center, former President Jimmy Carter blasted his critics Friday and defended his latest book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
"I feel completely at ease," said Carter, about his commitment to the book, which accuses Israel of oppressing Palestinians. "I am not running for office. And I have Secret Service protection."
Carter, who negotiated the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords, which led to Nobel Peace Prizes for Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin, was only half-joking.
"The greatest commitment in my life has been trying to bring peace to Israel," Carter told the Atlanta Press Club. "Israel will never have peace until they agree to withdraw" from the occupied territories.
What was supposed to be a whirlwind book tour to promote his 21st book and spark "discussion and debate about what is going on in the Holy Land" has instead left Carter spending the bulk of his time defending the book, especially his choice of the provocative word "apartheid" in the title.
Published by Simon & Schuster, the book follows the Israeli-Palestinian peace process from Carter's days in the White House to the present.
Blame placed on Israel
Carter, 82, places most of the blame for the conflict on Israel for fostering a type of apartheid that he said is worse in some cases than what blacks saw in South Africa. He criticizes the Bush administration for failing to intervene and other American elected officials for not addressing Middle East issues for fear of being run out of office.
"It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine —- to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians," Carter said.
He also criticized the American media for ignoring Israel's role in the stalemate.
"I would just like the news media and the op-ed pages to publicize it," said Carter. He said several major newspapers refused to write about his book, until it became controversial.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of "Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism," is demanding an apology from Carter. He said comments from the former president —- particularly implications of his comments about the media —- border on anti-Semitism.
"When you think about the charge that he has made that the Jewish people control the means of communication, it is odious," Foxman said. "If the Jews controlled the media, how come he is traveling around the country speaking about this book on talk shows?"
Carter defends the use of the word apartheid, which is closely associated with racial brutality in South Africa. He said his use of the term refers to Israeli policies on the acquisition of Palestinian land and the erection of a separating wall that has divided Palestinian areas and destroyed homes and ancient olive trees.
"Anybody that goes there can't deny that a system of apartheid is going on," Carter said. "It is not racism-based. It is a small number of Israelis who believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land. And to dominate, isolate and persecute any Palestinian who objects."
Joseph Parko, a volunteer with the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker relief organization, said he recently spent more than two weeks in the region.
"The conditions I saw there were exactly what the president wrote about," Parko said. "Apartheid is an accurate term to describe the situation."
Jewish leaders upset
But Jewish groups —- including the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta —- have ripped the book and incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party.
Foxman, who said he once bumped into Carter in Jerusalem, said Jewish reaction has gone from disappointment to anger.
"We are disappointed in a sense that one expects more fairness from a former president. One expects a lot more sophistication," Foxman said. "We are angry because there is a bias. Not only an ignorance of the issues, but a bias."
But Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, said at least eight Jewish groups —- devoted to promoting peace in the Middle East —- have called him to praise the book.
The staunchest critic has been Kenneth Stein, the Carter Center's first executive director and a professor at Emory University. Although not officially involved with the Carter Center for more than a decade, Stein was still listed as a Middle Eastern Fellow at the center before the book was published. He made a public break from Carter earlier this week, claiming the book was full of errors.
Carter told the Press Club that since 1996 he has monitored three elections in the region and has visited both Israel and the Palestinian territories many times.
"We know what is going on," Carter said. "That is my credentials for writing this book. It was not just superficial observance from a distance."
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2006/12/09/metcarter1209a.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Says Mearsheimer and Walt were right:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/11/28/carter-says-mearsheimer-and-walt-were-right.php
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/12/smears-against-carter.html
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/12/facts-are-even-worse-than-president.html | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject: |
| ajc.com > Opinion
Critics of Israel fenced in
I write about Palestinians' pain; others should, too
By JIMMY CARTER
Published on: 12/11/06
I signed a contract with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.
We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of Parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2 percent of registered voters managed to cast ballots.
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the United States and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."
Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.
The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.
The ultimate purpose of my book is 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 six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2006/12/11/1211edcarter.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last update - 13:00 11/12/2006
Jimmy Carter: Israel's 'apartheid' policies worse than South Africa's
By Haaretz Service
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said in remarks broadcast Monday that Israeli policy in the West Bank represented instances of apartheid worse even that those that once held sway in South Africa.
Carter's comments were broadcast on Israel Radio, which played a tape of an interview with the ex-president, but did not specify to whom Carter was speaking. But has made similar remarks in recent interviews, such as one to CBC television.
"When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa."
Carter said his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" was meant to spark U.S. discussion of Israeli policies. "The hope is that my book will at least stimulate a debate, which has not existed in this country. There's never been any debate on this issue, of any significance."
The book has sparked strong criticism from Jewish figures in the United States. Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has said that some comments from the former president border on anti-Semitism.
"When you think about the charge that he has made that the Jewish people control the means of communication, it is odious," Foxman was quoted as saying last week. "If the Jews controlled the media, how come he is traveling around the country speaking about this book on talk shows?"
Carter has rejected the criticism of the book and its use of the word apartheid.
"I feel completely at ease," said Carter, about his commitment to the book, which accuses Israel of oppressing Palestinians. "I am not running for office. And I have Secret Service protection."
"The greatest commitment in my life has been trying to bring peace to Israel," Carter told the Atlanta Press Club last week.
"Israel will never have peace until they agree to withdraw [from the territories]." | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
