Jimmy Carter reflection on Israel-Palestine situation and tonight's debate

[EndElectoral]

This was from an interview with Democracy Now for his book Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid.

I bring it up because the discussion in the debate tonight goes to directly one section of the interview.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/30/palestine_peace_not_apartheid_jimmy_carter

AMY GOODMAN: Afterward President Jimmy Carter spoke on Tuesday about his book, Palestine: Apartheid Not Peace [sic], he took questions from the audience. He was asked to outline what a balanced US-Middle East policy would look like. Again, his book is called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

JIMMY CARTER: Yeah, the word "balance" is one that’s almost unacceptable in our country. If you had a candidate for Congress running either Democratic or Republican and they announced to the general public, "I’m going to take a balanced position between the Israelis and the Palestinians," they would never be elected. That’s an impossibility in our country. But that doesn’t preclude an incumbent administration from demonstrating with their own actions and words that they are concerned about Israeli peace, they are also concerned about peace and justice for the Palestinians. And that’s what I did. It’s what Richard Nixon did. It’s what Ronald Reagan did after I left office. It’s what George Bush, Sr. did. It’s what Bill Clinton did. But it’s not being done now.

There is a general feeling throughout the Arab world, throughout Europe, not even noticed in this country, that our present administration has not given any consideration, in my opinion, to the plight of the Palestinians. And you don’t have to be anti-Israel to protect the rights of the Palestinians to have their own land and to live in peace and without being subjugated by an occupying power.

So I think that that is a proper approach. If it is impossible during the next two years of President Bush’s administration for him to take that, to use your word, "balanced" approach, then as a fallback, it may be possible for the International Quartet to take that role. And that would obviously be the United States playing a major role, but not the only role, and for it to involve the United Nations and Russia and the European Union. And I think they could say, okay, let us orchestrate peace talks based on United Nations resolutions, based on the Camp David Agreement that I worked out, based on the Oslo Agreement, and based on the will of a majority of Israeli citizens, and based on the Road Map that we ourselves have prescribed.

By the way, every element of the Road Map has been adopted enthusiastically by the Palestinian side. None of the key elements in the Road Map have been adopted by the Israeli side. They have rejected all of them. And I have the actual action of the Israeli cabinet in the appendix to this book.

So, to summarize, the international group of leaders, the Quartet, could take strong action to implement the terms of the Road Map.

It took Sanders a lot of guts to state we need an even-handed, balanced negotiation to accomplish anything. Carter believed Israel should return to the boundaries defined by the UN. That would be considered radical today. But if Carter is right about a politician saying we need a balanced approach between Israel and Palestine, he is saying Sanders may have committed political suicide with that statement, even though he says prior to GW this was the approach attempted by Presidents. The hypocrisy is you just couldn't say it publicly for political reasons.

[ericson00]

1. sorry, but anti-Israel ranks up there with Free Mumia:

its fringe and out of the mainstream of the Overton Window and society

[EndElectoral]

2. You obviously did not read Carter's remarks. Israel-Palestine is not a popularity contest.

It's about finding peace. You're not going to ever get peace if you disregard one of the parties. You'll always have unrest. Apparently, only one president GW has shown reluctance to show any willingness to include Palestine in a balanced way in the peace process. Now, we can add HRC to that mix based on tonight and her AIPAC speech.

[haikugal]

4. Good post and thanks for the thread! K&R!

[ericson00]

6. peace will be when the Palestinians and the Muslim world more broadly

accepts that there will be a non-Muslim majority country in the Middle East, that only 9 out of 10 Islamic holy sites will be in Muslim-majority countries (they have Mecca, Medina, Qom, and others, so let the Jews have one), and that Israel won't accept Palestinians claiming to want their own state but wanting another (Israel) to accept their BS "right of return."

[EndElectoral]

11. I advise you to read the whole Democracy Now interview by Carter.

You do realize that Israel has expanded their borders way further than the land granted them in the UN charter. Essentially, they've stolen Palestinan land in the West Bank. Their argument was they were attacked and so now they're taking the land.

No one is saying this is about Jersualem or holy shrines. The Palestinians have agreed to every point Carter has outlined. Israel none. I don't think Carter is anti-Israel, nor Sanders. Their goal is to find peace in the mid-East. If you think disproportionate force by Israelis to Paelstinan rocket attacks are going to make Israel safer long term, or expanding further into the West Bank, I think you are in for a major dissapointment. It may solve things short term, but it will not create even a semi-lasting peace, just foment resentment.

[haikugal]

3. Who is anti-Israel? nt

[EndElectoral]

5. My guess is someone who wants a balanced peace process like Carter who achieved it for awhile.

[haikugal]

7. That's nonsense. Carter is correct and so is Bernie. Clinton is a Neocon and we all know how

Much peace they bring. None. For anyone.

On edit.

I reread your post and see your meaning now..

[EndElectoral]

10. Yes, agree. Lip service to peace. Truly think we're going to see a lot of unrest in Gaza in future

Right now, the majority of Gaza resident are 15 and under. As that group grows older into young men and women, the entrenched poverty and resentment is going to explode.

With HRC as Prez, there will be full unquestioned support by the US to Israel disproportionate responses, as Greenpeace and Amnesty International reported in Gaza recently and during the blockade.

Never going to see Mid East Peace in my lifetime. Will take guys like Carter and Rabin to make it happen again, and I see neocons moving us away from that because it may not be popular? Show some leadership HRC.

[Peace Patriot]

8. But let's hope that Americans want a real leader again on this matter.

And they may well. Americans are very sick and tired of getting mired in ME problems, and the loss of U.S. soldier lives there, and the trillions of dollars in costs. They DON'T WANT any more wars there. They DON'T WANT U.S. troops on the ground there. And the intransigence of Israel's rightwing on surrounding itself with the U.S. military, rather than working out their problems with the Palestinians and their neighbors is one of the reasons WHY we keep getting dragged in.

The other is oil. The U.S. government and its masters don't give a crap for democracy or a decent life for most ME-ers. We in fact support some of the ugliest regimes--the Saudis and others. The neo-cons--and Clinton is now one of them, with Robert Kagan (PNAC! chief neo-con) and Henry Kissinger as her advisers, and the Libya notch on her belt--want to take over and dominate the whole region, as a military protectorate. That's what Israeli rightwingers and their war profiteers want as well.

The American people DO NOT WANT THIS. Most don't realize she has Kagan and Kissinger on board. And they are going to be very shocked if she gets back into the White House. (I wish to God Sanders would say it!)

So: IF the American people wise up to WHY we are in a Forever War, their opinion may change significantly as to a balanced U.S. approach on Israel and ME issues.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Bernie Sanders on Palestine, Israel and the Middle East 03-10-1988