Has anyone read Jimmy Carter's book that came out very recently? I haven't.

Seems like Mr Carter is not very happy with the reviews. Here's Mr President defending his book.

Israel, Palestine, peace and apartheid


Americans need to know the facts about the abominable oppression of the Palestinians

Jimmy Carter
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

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 past 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticise policies of the Israeli government is due to 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 defence of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or 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 US exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

My new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, 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. It is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV. 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 organisations 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. Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions". A former Carter Centre 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. 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 black people 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 colonise choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the 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 help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbours.

Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.

· Jimmy Carter was US president from 1977-81. His book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid was published last month. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in the Los Angeles Times

Poonte - I agree with everything you said - at it's core, it is pretty much in line with my thinking. If I may add to it, what is intriguing is public opinion in America has swung in different directions, if I recall correctly, on this issue, yet it seems even in times of favorable public opinion, progress has been slow and minimal at best. That's just an observation and not a complaint. I share the your optimism and hope good things, big or small, come to that part of the world sooner than later. Hope is something they badly need in the Middle East (and indeed elsewhere)

:)

Best wishes.

well guys israel was created thorough the UN. it is little secret that most of the European countries and the "civilized" nations have a policy that favors Israel, probably because of WW2. anyways, Nepal was the first country to vote for its existance. in return, Israel, gave Nepal 16 uzi guns and one specially made for BP. that was little bit of trivia.
aani do u support the existance to Israel. Do they have the right to exist?

"...what is intriguing is public opinion in America has swung in different directions, if I recall correctly, on this issue, yet it seems even in times of favorable public opinion, progress has been slow and minimal at best.

Captain,

I don't think Americans have ever come FULLY in terms with the liberal, Leftist view of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, even though they may have swung to the Left to some degree at some points. In recent times, the closest any American administration came towards accepting those Leftist views with a willingness to act upon them was perhaps during the tenures of senior Bush and Clinton. Madrid Conference followed by Oslo Accords (1992-93) and Wye River Agreements (1999) were the respective prizes for that. The best ever hope of a meaningful peace between the two sides also came during President Clinton's tenure -- even though Camp David Summit of 2000 ultimately failed to reach an aggreement, the warring sides actually came very close to a real deal. More on this a bit later.

One astoundingly interesting irony of the peace processes:

It is normally a hardlinet leadership who, for whatever reasons, may have decided to adopt some liberal policies can actually deliver well in times of crucial decision making. Either due to sheer attrition and battle fatigue, or due to a genuine and profound change of heart, when a Rightist decides to change course, we can hope for the best, better than when a Leftist tries the same, with his/her own agenda.

From the Israeli side: Golda Meir, Benin, Shamir, Natanhayu, Sharon, all hardline Likud members, are some of those who can be credited for one or another very important steps towards peace with the Palestinians. Rabin, a Labour but with a hardline past of being a harsh army general, also did well. Barak, Peres, the "softies" failed.

I suspect this is due to the fact that the "softies" need to prove themselves when it comes to national security, which inevitably harms the peace process because in the process of proving themselves, they'd have to take uncompromising positions more often than not. On the contrary, the hardliners have a whole of their past to prove their sincerity to national security, and they need not worry about the public questioning their motives during peace talks. Therefore, if they can hammer a deal (ironically by adopting liberal principles), it is normally easier for them to sell it to their respective public -- liberals back home would accept it anyway because it was originally their agenda, and the hardliners would have no choice but to accept it grudgingly because it comes from one of their own.

Back to the US policies and what I think would be an ideal situation to hope for a lasting peace in between the Israelis and the Palestinians...ब्रेक के बाद! :D

Poonte, dropped you an email. Check, hai?

Now, on the Palestinians vis-a-vis the peace process...

Up until the early 1990s, there had hardly been a "softie" in the Palestinian side who would aspire to make peace with Israel. Hardline rhetorics and actions -- that of total destruction of Israel -- was almost a norm in the Palestinian society. I vaguely recall there was a Palestinian man who advocated "Gandhi style" peaceful resistance to Israelis in the early 80s (something Mohammad...I foget his first name), but he too was wuickly put into strict house arrest by the Israelis. Such was the fear among the Israelis too at the time -- they imagined a non-radical Palestinian would eventually actually achieve what they feared the most, a Palestinian state.

Arafat, who had just emerged as a radical hardliner from the Intifada of the 80s, was still trusted well by his people. This may be why he was quite successful in reaching agreements with the israelis in 1993, the Oslo Accords. Later, with the rise of Hammas, however, Arafat and his Fatah party begun to be seen as "softies". Again, as I said earlier, the "softies" in the eyes of their respective people have a hard time making peace overtures to enemies. Hence, I think, Arafat too found it harder and harder to realize peace with Israel in the latter stages of his rule. This is reflected on the failure of the Camp David (2000), where he almost made a meaningful peace with with Ehud Barak, but failed in the end. Barak also represented a "soft" Labour in Israel, added recipe for failure.

On the US...

I think the question of hardline vs. liberal does not play as important a role from the US perspective vis-a-vis peace between Israelis and the Palestinians as it does from an Israeli or Palestinian perspectives. Afterall, a Reppublican George Bush senior and a Democrat Bill Clinton both were able to achieve important landmarks in the peace process. We can also see that the previous attempts by US leadership to engage in meaningful peace in the region has been by-and-large bipartisan. The willingness to adopt liberal principles is always a key ingredient that we cannot downplay, but more than the "hardness" or the "softness" of the US presidency over the issue, what is required here is the willingness and the ability to withstand the pressure from the Jewish lobby. For this, we need a bold person with a great vision. Keeping US political games in view, such boldness in US presidency normally comes in the second term. George Bush senior was brave enough to try it out in his very first term, though.

Fionally, in a nutshell, the following is what I consider crucial in the process, and the opportunity thereof, of making lasting peace possible between the Israelis and the Palestinians:

1. Hardline Israeli leader in power, preferably that of Likud, but with such a good heart, or enormously frustrated with the war, that s/he would be willing to adopt some liberal principles regarding the Palestinians, and be willing to shove them down the throats of his fellow hardliners.

2. Hardline Palestinian leadership with similar ability and willingness.

3. A US leadership, liberal or not, but willing to adopt, again, the liberal principles, that is willing to withstand the pressure from the Jewish lobby.

4. All of the above being all else (foreign influence) equal. Europeans are bound to agree to any deals that promises peace. Saudis, Egyptians and the Jordanians are likely to accept the offers if made by the US. One might have to work a little more on the Iranian and the Syrian fronts, but the task would not be as enormous if 1, 2, and 3 are in place.

Disclaimer: Everything I have written above are my personal observations. Being relatively novice on the issue, however, I may have been wrong on many fronts.

The Poonte plan, huh? :)

But, seriously, I do think it's pretty much on the mark in terms of ideas. What is it going to take for those sets of conditions to get created and when are the other points to ponder I suppose.

Hoping you are having a good day.

**Addendum to #3: Preferably a second term US presidency

sgy, I havnt received anything yet. Mind trying again? Shoot it directly, in case Sajha delivery is not working: anil_shahi_et@hotmail.com

Some interesting points raised by this book review in The Economist:

A president remembers
The Carter version

Dec 13th 2006
From The Economist print edition

JIMMY CARTER won a Nobel peace prize for bringing peace between Israel and Egypt at Camp David in 1978. Since then he has devoted his career to good causes, mainly through the Carter Centre, which helps to monitor elections and resolve conflicts around the world. Now he has stepped forthrightly back into the Middle East with a book promising to address “many sensitive political issues many American officials avoid”.

How daring. The book has certainly prompted a reaction. A former director of the Carter Centre resigned as one of the centre's fellows in protest at its inaccuracies. Harvard's Alan Dershowitz called the book so biased against the Jewish state as to be “indecent”. A luminary from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy was “saddened” by all the former president's historical errors.

Since some of these critics are what some would call the usual (pro-Israeli) suspects, pro-Palestinian readers may hope that Mr Carter takes on the fabled power of America's Jewish lobby. He does describe the misery of the occupied lands, calls for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders and offers a few risqué paragraphs about a White House and Congress which the former president says have been “submissive” in the face of Israel's expansionism.

This may pass as daring in America. But tweaking the pro-Israel lobby is not the same thing as writing a good book. And this is a weak one, simplistic and one-sided as charged. Israeli expansionism gets the drubbing it deserves; Arab rejectionism gets off much too lightly.

Why? Perhaps because Mr Carter was had at Camp David. Egypt and Israel made the peace they craved by offering the Palestinians not much more than autonomy—and future talks. As Mr Carter now ruefully admits, Israel's Menachem Begin saw peace with Egypt as the main prize and intended to “finesse or deliberately violate” the undertaking to the Palestinians. What the former president does not dwell on enough is the extent to which the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and indeed most of the Arab world apart from Egypt, made Begin's job easy. They rejected the Camp David accords, and not until 1988—a full decade after Camp David—did Yasser Arafat grudgingly accept Israel's right to exist. By then it was a different Israel.

I just read an intersting article today online about the Saudi's getting lil antsy about Iran being more and more influential in the Middle East. There is a big internnal debate within the Saudi Govt whether this is good or bad for them. And the Saudi Abassador to US just resigned over this issue. I mean look at the map Syria is their puppet(that how they fund Hamas and Hazbollah, the arms come through Syria), Hamas and Hazboollah in Lebanon and Palestine. They are bolstering their influence in Iraq through like likes of Muqtada Al Sadr and other Shia Militia. It won't be long before the whole area will be under SHIA INFLUENCE.

When the pro-Israeli Rightists come down so heavily criticizing the book, it must be good! Will add it to my shopiing cart this weekend now. :)

Captain,

Another important element in peace processes is also luck. There are certain things one can do to make things happen as one wishes, but there are other things about which one can only do is pray and hope.

All three oif the conditions that I have enlisted above, mostly, fall under the "luck" category. For instance, you and I cannot predict, let alone work towards, creating the governments of preference in either Israel, or Palestine, or the US. Even the ones in positions of influence may not be able to do much on this regard. However, what one can do is ones those conditions are created, impress upon the respective parties to act urgently so as not to miss the opportunity.

That said, creating conditions for a hardline government in Israel is made easy by the election of a hardline goverment in PLO, and vice versa. Hamas has been doing well in the recent past with winning over the hearts and minds of Palestinian people, so I would hope that would give rise to hardline government in Israel too. I wouldn't mind letting Iran and Syria meddle a bit more in the area too, for that also helps give rise to radicalism.

I would not fear radicalism taking stronger hold once a radical goverment is in place -- it is quite different being an insurgent on the streets from residing in a power house. Once in government, and once they get to feel the global factors that help shape domestic policies, radical leadership would soon realize that they'd have no choice but to moderate themselves. Hamas is facing a similar quandary, and so did the Maoists of Nepal. So, one way to make the radicals realize the reality is to help them get a taste of governance too.

Of course, everything must have roots in a true desire -- among the people -- for peace too. No one can help them on that regard -- the desire for peace must come from within before any external factors can play a positive role in any peace process. Here too, one can only hope and pray.

Bathroom Coffee - I just checked out the news that Prince Bandar had resigned his post - thanks for the heads up.

Yes, Iran's power is becoming an interesting topic. As Tom Friedman argues it is helped by of the price of oil, amongst other things. Have you read this article, from a while back, about war games and the planning of an invasion of Iran? It's a bit long but makes for an interesting read. I suppose now with Iraq in the boondoggles, the US might tread a little less violently on Iran, but it is fascinating to see what some people were thinking. Here is the link, if you want to check it out when you have some time: - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

Poonte - Agreed. It says a lot about the situation when hope is what we have to wish for.

Later folks.

"So, one way to make the radicals realize the reality is to help them get a taste of governance too. "

Couldn't agree more.

Bathroom Coffee -

On the lighter side,if it can be called that, I read this in the Washington Post:

Seeking Iran Intelligence, U.S. Tries Google
Internet Search Yields Names Cited in U.N. Draft Resolution

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A01

When the State Department recently asked the CIA for names of Iranians who could be sanctioned for their involvement in a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the agency refused, citing a large workload and a desire to protect its sources and tradecraft.

Frustrated, the State Department assigned a junior Foreign Service officer to find the names another way -- by using Google. Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000959.html

Hey Poonte bro,

Good to see you back and as always its great to learn your views on the Middle East because you have had some formal training on analyzing the situatuation there.

I have refrained from making any comments on the issue after a dressing down from LFC for my misguided judgement. :=)

If Poonte bro is here, its Beer + Jack + Stelechnya

Hamas, Fatah clash in deepening violence By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

Gunmen allied with Hamas and Fatah clashed at a West Bank mosque and in Gaza Strip streets on Friday, deepening factional violence a day after gunmen shot at the convoy of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas.

The street battles came as Hamas accused a powerful Fatah leader of orchestrating the attack on Haniyeh — and a powerful Hamas politician called for the Fatah strongman's assassination. Leaders of both groups have warned that the spiraling violence threatens to bring the Palestinians to civil war.

The clashes in Gaza City and the West Bank town of Ramallah marred celebrations Friday marking the 19th anniversary of Hamas' founding. However, the Islamic militant group pushed ahead with its rallies, and about 70,000 loyalists gathered at a stadium in Gaza City, cheering wildly, sobbing and firing in the air when Haniyeh arrived flanked by more than 50 armed bodyguards.

"We joined this movement to become martyrs, not ministers," Haniyeh declared in a fiery speech, referring to the attack on his entourage the previous day.

The fighting Friday in the normally peaceful city of Ramallah began when Hamas supporters tried to march toward the town center, where Fatah-allied police had deployed to prevent a planned Hamas celebration.

In a scene witnessed by Associated Press photographers, police formed a cordon around a Hamas mosque to prevent those inside from marching, then beat them with clubs and fired their rifles in the air when the activists tried to leave. The marchers fought back, throwing stones and bottles at the police, some of whom fired into the crowd.

Thirty-two people were wounded by stones and gunfire, hospital officials said.

In Gaza City, masked Hamas gunmen waged battle with Fatah-allied police near a security post. The four-minute shootout sent civilians running for cover. There were no reports of injuries.

The showdown, a block from the home of Mohammed Dahlan, broke out shortly after Hamas accused the Fatah strongman of orchestrating the attack on Haniyeh on Thursday at the Gaza-Egypt border terminal.

The latest round of fighting erupted Monday with a drive-by shooting that killed the three small children of a Fatah security official and continued Wednesday with the gangland-style execution of a Hamas judge.

On Thursday, Haniyeh rushed home from a trip abroad to try to quell the violence.

But Israel ordered the Rafah crossing closed to keep Haniyeh from bringing in an estimated $35 million he had collected abroad to help alleviate the Palestinian financial crisis. Israeli officials said Haniyeh could return to Gaza without the money, which it said was to be used for terror attacks. Maria Telleria, spokeswoman for European monitors at the crossing, said Haniyeh left the funds in Egypt.

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh told Israel's Army Radio that government officials made the right decision not to let Haniyeh bring the money into Gaza, adding that if Haniyeh had been killed, "I wouldn't put up a mourning tent."

While Haniyeh was delayed at the crossing, angry Hamas militants stormed the border terminal and fought with security forces stationed there who are loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah's leader.

When Haniyeh finally crossed, unidentified men began firing toward him. One of his bodyguards was killed and his son and 26 others were wounded.

At the bodyguard's funeral, Khalil al-Hayeh, head of the Hamas bloc in parliament, told mourners that Dahlan was trying to instigate a coup against the government and called for his head.

Al-Hayeh exhorted the crowd to "get us the plotters of the coup."

"We will, we will," the crowd replied.

Dahlan rejected the allegations as "false and baseless," calling them an attempt by Hamas leaders "to mask their sweeping failure to manage Palestinian political and social life." He also called on Fatah supporters to avoid any confrontations with Hamas.

Various other Hamas officials accused Palestinian collaborators with Israel, Abbas and the U.S. of involvement in the shooting.

The violence came amid a political deadlock between Abbas and the Hamas-led Cabinet and parliament following failed efforts to form a unity government. Abbas hoped such a government would end crippling international economic sanctions imposed on the Palestinian Authority after Hamas won January elections.

Hamas, responsible for dozens of deadly suicide bombings in Israel, is listed as a terror group by the U.S. and EU.

Abbas, a relative moderate, was to address the Palestinians on Saturday on his plans for ending the impasse and was expected to threaten early elections. A call for new elections, which Hamas says is illegal and has likened to a coup attempt, would likely further inflame the situation.

And so the showdown begins.
Since US and its allies have cut off funds to Palestine, Hamas has emerged more like a social organization rather than a terrorist organization as tha west would like to portray them. With Iran pumping in $$4 for ther schools, medical needs, water supply and basic amenities through Hamas. Remeber they won a legit democratic election(as they say be careful what you wish for). Now Fatah people are getting antsy because Hamas has the Palestinian people's support. They ae not getting their cut of the peice of the pie too as they were used to getting when Arafat was in charge(in other words they were all corrupt and that was ONE of the reason US cut off its fund).

If things continue as they are ..he he AND if Iran achieves Nuclear capabilities... Isreal better be ware... cause it will be surrounded by Iran as its allies.

Iso,

I wanted to write on "Pan Arabism" a while ago, but I got bogged down with other issues. Now that you've brought it up again, allow me to divulge.

You are not too off the mark when you said Pan Arabism may be re-gaining it's peak in recent times, although you may have been misguided to term it "nascent".

I think it is imperative here that we understand the distinction between Empirical Expansionism, which leads to unity of peoples of one nation based on a single, expanded state, and "Pan-ism", which is the unity of multiple independent states for a perceived common purpose, based on similar nationhood, or language, or culture, or religion, or political aspirations, or one or more of these combined.

Even though Arabism based on expansionism dates back to the times of Turkish Empire, Pan Arabism is relatively nascent (I told you you were not too far off the mark!), having experienced birth after the creation of multiple independent Arab states after the World War II, particularly in the 1950's, 60's, and the early 70's.

Two important movements comes to mind when we talk about Pan Arabism: rise of Ba'thists in Syria and the rise of Nasirists (named after the first Egyptian leader after independence). In later years, Iraq also made serious attempts to exert its influence and become a leader of Pan Arabism, but their movement can be considered an off shoot of Ba'thists in Syria.

In the beginning, the prospects of a strong Pan Arabism looked very promising -- the newly independent Arab states, weak by themselves, sought to strenthen their position in the world by making themselves parts of a larger movement. However, as it so often happens with "unity" among many different factions, classes, communities, etc., Ba'thism and Nasirism failed to unite the Arab world for real. Things would only get worse with the discovery of oil and a new found wealth that it brought with it -- Saudis and the oil rich Gulf states would have now wanted their share of leadership in the movement too.

The 1967 War, after which the Israelis occupied considerable parts of the Arab land (Palestine), Pan Arabism seems to have gained an added momentum. The Arabs now had a new and powerful cause to unite for, the cause being that of the Palestinians. However, continued factionalism, and the rivalry thereof, sadly never let the concept of Pan Arabism dig a strong foundation, thus they have failed to be of much hope for the Palestinian cause. US and Israel knew this well, and they have done well in translating this disunity to their own respective advantages.

You are also quite right in saying that the Iraq War gave another new impetus to Pan Arabism. I am doubtful, though, given the varying degrees (among the various Arab states) of economic successes, global relations (particularly with the US), and, most importantly, strong sense of factionalism, that Pan Arabism is to be counted as a viable tool of manipulating global and/or regional affairs. It may experience a rise at times, as it did after 1967 War, or the Gulf War, but I truly believe it is bound to fall back to it's weak position, if not collapse all together, sooner or later.

Pan Arabism never really took off in the Middle East. Its members from North Africa never felt they belonged to The Arab League. If the Brits and the Americans had not informed the Israelis in the 1967, the outcome of that war would have been totally different. Plus Syria was not getting along with the rest them because the compromise it had to make in the 1967 and lost its teeritory Goaln Heights(which is still under Israeli controll). Hafez Assad always thought the Pan ARAB LEAGUE let him down during that war Jordan & Egypt's resuming diplomatic relation with Israel made it even worse.

During this whole time Iran always stayed away from all this scuffle. Cause they were fighting a decade long war with Iraq. While Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Sunni countries lined up behind Iraq and Saddam Hussain. I don't think the Iranians ever forgave them for that.

BUt the final blow came when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Thats when shit hit the fans. From then on they've sort of become very hostile to each other. If you look at the current picture of Middle east the tables have totally turned. And major power player there like Saudi Arabia, UAE including Israel is getting nervous(esp knowing the fact that they are working of Nuclear capbilities). The other day the PM of Isreal had lil tongues slip about their own Nuclear capabilities, saying they might have to let their nuclear geenie out of the bottle too if Iran declares their own Nuclear capability.

"I have refrained from making any comments on the issue after a dressing down from LFC for my misguided judgement. :=) "

Isolated Freak, my friend, come on, you are not that thin skinned that you will let one interjection keep you from saying more! Ha ha ah ha ha ... Sajha has been bitten by the Loote bug it seems. LOL! Only joking, don't mid, ok? You have a lot to contribute and there is always an eager reader here :) And I am sure many more out there, who, alas, (sighs) are silent ... :P

Poonte - The idea of pan-arab nationalism re-surging is an interesting idea. The one chink in that argument, is has pan-arab nationalism not been extended to and perhaps even replaced by pan-Muslim sentiment? Islamic solidarity, if anything, is perhaps the one sentiment that seems to span borders these days from Indonesia to Morocco.

Just a thought.

Bathroom - Thanks for those articles. I agree Iran is the new troubled kid to watch for.

Have a good weekend all.

Folks - Some more interesting media coverage on Carter and the book, if you haven't already read it. This one involving Alan Dershowitz and Brandeis Univeristy.

- http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/15/carter_book_wont_stir_brandeis_debate/

Carter book won't stir Brandeis debate

Ex-president was to outline view on Palestinians
By Farah Stockman and Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff | December 15, 2006

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Have former president Jimmy Carter talk about his controversial new book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" at Brandeis University

But the idea ended, as many things on Carter's tumultuous nationwide book tour have, in disagreement and controversy.

Brandeis president Jehuda Reinharz said he agreed with a trustee's suggestion to invite Carter last month, if Carter were willing to debate one of his most outspoken critics, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Carter, president from 1977-1981, vehemently rejected the idea. To Carter, the episode was proof that many in the United States were unwilling to hear an alternative view on what he says is the most taboo foreign-policy issue in the United States, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory.

But others say it shows that Carter himself is unwilling to debate his own best-selling book, which has sparked allegations of errors and omissions, charges of anti-Israel bias, and protests at his book signings.

"President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate; then why won't he debate?" Dershowitz said.

Carter, who brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt and who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, has said the goal of the book, including its provocative title, is to provoke dialogue and action.

"There is no debate in America about anything that would be critical of Israel," he said in an interview Wednesday night.

But a furor has erupted because of the use of the word apartheid, which seems to equate the oppression of Palestinians with that endured by black South Africans under that country's now-defunct system of state-mandated racial segregation.

Rabbi Marvin Heir, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish human rights organization, said Carter "should be ashamed of himself." And Kenneth W. Stein, one of Carter's former aides, dropped his association with the Carter Center in Atlanta, a human rights organization founded by the former president and his wife Rosalynn.

But Carter said: "Apartheid is the forced separation of two peoples in the same area and the forced subjugation of one to the other. No one can argue that that is not the situation in the Palestinian territories right now."

Others have praised the 39th president for raising important questions about the cost of the United States' unwavering support for Israel. His book tour is being chronicled by the same producer who made an "An Inconvenient Truth," which focused on global warming and featured Al Gore. The film about Carter will be titled "He Comes in Peace."

Brandeis, a nonsectarian university founded by American Jews, has also been at the center of controversy over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In May, the university removed an exhibit featuring art by Palestinian children, saying it was one-sided

The university was criticized in January for giving a research fellowship to a prominent Palestinian pollster.

The effort to bring Carter to Brandeis began Nov. 14, when computer science professor Harry Mairson, chairman of the Faculty Senate, sent Carter a letter asking whether he would be interested in coming to talk. Mairson called the letter a feeler, not an invitation.

Carter said he was inclined to say yes and would have done the lecture for free, as long as Brandeis sent a plane to pick him up at his home in Georgia. "I thought it would be a good idea to go to a campus that had a lot of Jewish students and get a lot questions," he said.

But before accepting, he called longtime friend and former adviser Stuart Eizenstat, a member of Brandeis's Board of Trustees, for advice.

Eizenstat said he advised Carter not to accept because he did not know whether the professor had an agenda.

A member of Carter's staff later asked whether Reinharz could extend an invitation, instead, so Eizenstat said he approached Reinharz with an idea: invite Carter to debate Dershowitz, who had recently reviewed Carter's book and who had previously expressed a desire to debate Carter several times.

A debate "would make this a real academic exercise," Eizenstat said. ". . . The president of the university is not in the business of inviting someone, even a former president, for a book tour."

Reinharz thought the debate was "a terrific idea," he said in a telephone interview.
Carter, however, was stunned by the proposal.

"I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz," Carter said.

"There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

Carter still could have accepted an invitation from a faculty member, Reinharz said.
"President Carter -- and indeed anyone -- is welcome to come on the campus of Brandeis University to talk about anything under the sun," he said.

Mairson received a written reply, dated Nov. 17, from Carter's appointment secretary, saying that he would not visit the campus.