Carter's compromised statesmanship

[Behind the Aegis]

Whatever else one might have said about the presidency of Jimmy Carter, he was a statesman. As much as any international figure before or since, he took advantage of the opportunity of the day to advance peace between Israel and her neighbors.
Early in his new book president Carter shares his account of the fateful negotiations in 1979. In describing Camp David I and its aftermath, Carter makes clear that he had a warmer relationship with Egyptian president Anwar Sadat than prime minister Menachem Begin. For this he can be forgiven.

But it is Carter himself who constantly reminds us in his outlandishly titled book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, of the necessity of being an honest broker in advancing peace. It thus is startling that a former president who prides himself on his ongoing contribution to world peace would write a crude polemic that compromises any pretense to objectivity and fairness.

The book's inflammatory title is a case of false advertising, conjuring up comparisons between Israel and Apartheid South Africa, a comparison Carter never makes. South Africa's policies were racial in nature and deprived black subjects of basic rights in their own country. The only just solution was to give blacks full rights in the same state.

Carter never claims that Israel is engaging in racially-motivated policies and rightly argues for a two-state solution to the conflict. His use of the word "apartheid" is misleading, referring instead to his view that Israel's security fence and the "honeycomb" of settlements and roads behind it constitute a permanent Israeli control regime over Palestinian life. He neglects to mention that Israel's planned re-deployment from the West Bank would effectively remove such controls. That is precisely what happened in Gaza.

more...

[Tom Joad]

1. No book by any politician has ever been more aptly titled in regard to Israel/Palestine

Carter is a profile in courage.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Wow.

I can't tell if you're anti-Palestine or anti-Israel. You're clearly anti one of them, at least according to how you wrote that.

I just can't tell.

:shrug:

[pocoloco]

3. duh!!!

[Disturbed]

4. Maybe Jimmy Carter titled the book to gain attention to the

topic? He did say it was provocative on purpose. I haven't read the book but did hear him talk about it on Larry King. I feel that he is sincere in trying to bring peace to both sides of this horrific conflict.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. I didn't write it.

[AlamoDemoc]

6. but you post it

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Very good.

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. Ah. I see it is from the Jerusalem Post. Unbiased, I'm sure.

:eyes:

[AlamoDemoc]

8. There has to be a true dialog on the issue of Isreal/Palestine...Pres. Carter touched on it

indeed, its essential this conversation brought to the surface...a guilty silence does no justice to the oppressed everywhere, IMO.