[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: How I see Palestine 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 Centre 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 the eastern part of occupied Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2 per cent 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 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 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 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 and to analyse the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognised boundaries. These options are consistent with key UN resolutions supported by the US 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 recognise Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace", which has been accepted by the PLO and rejected by Israel. My 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. Brisk sales Although I have spent a week or so on a book tour, 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 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. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, California, 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 http://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. 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 enrolment 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 colonists 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 colonists. 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 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. The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in the US, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks 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 the 39th president of the United States. His newest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was published in November.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Eoghan (#0)
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 forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land. Welcome to the NWO Jimmuh.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." Back when I was a deluded reichwinger I held the view that Jimmy Carter was a "leftist" near traitor and I despised the man. Now- I realize that he is perhaps the strongest anti DC voice in this country and that his experiences while President made him so. Carter was a fluke in my opinion. After the turbulent Nixon years he became President by mistake. I don't think he was a Beltway choice by any means. I think Carter was a naif upon entering the White House and had no idea where the true power in that city lay. He, for example, believed the Cold War was for real. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan he enacted a grain embargo and cancelled technology transfers deals (that had been made under Nixon/Ford). Now- the average reichwinger has no idea of this history- it has been blotted out from the official gospel of "conservative" history- which generally holds that Carter was a Soviet "appeasser", a whimp, and a coward. What did Carter get for actually taking the Cold War at face value and really trying to stick it to the Soviets with a grain embargo (grain that was being sold to the Soviet Union at below market value in deals made under Nixon with the difference picked up by the American tax payer)? He got the Beltway shaft. A grain embargo actually threatened the existence of their cash cow and the reason for the MIC. Expose the great Commie boogeyman that had been sold to the heartland goobers as the reason to maintain a massive military for the past 30 years as a flimsly fraud? That couldn't be allowed. That grain embargo came dangerously close to causing the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1980. And what did Ronnie, the great fighter of the "Evil Empire", Reagan do when he got into office? He immediatley ended the embargo and started up the grain shipments- again. Carter saw what DC was all about. He knows damn well that city serves itself and not the American people- that it is a vile destructive force on the world stage. Carter- is basically the greatest living highest profile dissendent in this country. Hats off to him.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||