This past Christmas my suggested gift list to receive from my children (they usually ask) failed to yield the book I was most interested in currently, by Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. So I immediately went out to purchase it. Since learning of the book I had been attracted for several reasons: a) In conversation with a friend on recent mission trip, he implied, in essence, that our government gave too much favor to Jewish lobby, something I had question in my own mind at times. b) The initial accusation of misrepresentation of Middle East proposals advanced by the Clinton administration in 2000 (See Don’t Play With Maps by Dennis Ross in NY Times Jan.9th.) Controversies surrounding the book have since caused the resignation of 14 members of a board of over 200 members at the Carter Center. At least one of these members, in a TV interview, stated that Carter had gone from neutral mediator to siding with the Palestinians and sited page #213, without giving a specific passage, for his reasoning.
If you prefer not to read all I have written, have not read the book and would like to know more about it, you may go direct to the full text, Carter refers to as a brief summary of his book, of speech he gave last evening at Brandeis University, a Jewish founded college with 50% Jewish students.
Carter has said the book’s title was intended to provoke a refocus of the Middle East debate, too long an absence of any viable peace initiatives. While the book covers a wide range Mid East issues, including chapters addressing relations with all of Israel’s neighboring countries, a general theme reveals the negative impact for peace because of Israel’s occupation/segregation walls and/or settlements of Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem ---- and Israel’s unrelenting political, economic, and military will for continued expansion, further oppressing Palestinians. Israel has not complied with the U. N. Resolution 242 of 1967 or subsequent resolutions requiring withdrawal from Palestinian occupied territories. Carter, of course, points out that The Palestinians and their Arab neighbors have a responsibility to stop terrorizing.
Carter says, the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arab people want peace, not usually evidenced by political leader’s public statements. These statements do not reflect what their private conversations are willing to concede. (It’s my opinion this disparity is endemic with politicians/regimes throughout the Mid East who use ignorance, prejudice, and extremism for political expediency, probably one of the most onerous impediment to peace advancement. Most notably this is characterized, I believe, in the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Or does he really believe all that stuff?)
In summary Carter writes, “There are two interrelated obstacles to peace in the Middle East: 1. Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and 2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.” Further part of his summary: “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 Sates, 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.” ----- “there is little doubt that the lack of a persistent effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a major source of anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the Middle East and Islamic world.”
Surely Carter made mistakes in his presidency, and possibly a snafu or two in this book. But, even if a slight senility has set in which I don’t believe is the case, I would give him the benefit of doubt, because of his unsurpassed understanding, long study, and first hand experiences of many issues involving the Middle East. Certainly there’s no other U. S. president who, on a sustained level, put forth the effort to advance world peace and understanding and to insure that democracy has a chance wherever it takes root. It’s my sense that President Carter took a courageous step to say some things that had to be said, if there is ever to be a lasting peace in Middle East.
The full text, Carter refers to as a brief summary of his book, in a speech was given last evening at Brandeis University, a Jewish founded college with 50% Jewish students. Carter speaks to the fury in N& Jan. 24th. Read what Israeli’s are saying for a Just Peace. You might find Carter’s answers to questions about the book interesting in an interview with Amazon.com, along with many reviews of the book, some downright abusive and ugly.
I found the book educational. Additionally, it brought back to mind some thoughts I had prior to reading the book:
* As a country of Judeo-Christian (78% Christian) heritage/orientation, do we show undue favor, whether intentionally or passively, in Jewish matters, being derelict in our duty to truly search for a better understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian issues?
* Are there unreasonable influences the Jewish lobby has on our government’s foreign policies?
* Do Jewish big-money-campaign contributions have inordinate influence on U. S. policy makers?
* Has the United States been the primary inhibitor to any of the United Nations’ directives against Israel being enforced?
As usual I would like to know what you are thinking.
1 comment:
I agree that the United States should use every diplomatic means possible to broker peace in the middle east. However, I disagree with Carter's statement: "there is little doubt that the lack of a persistent effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a major source of anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the Middle East and Islamic world." I am apparently in the minority described by Carter as "little doubt" in that I believe it is the United States change from a predominantly isolationist country to one of interventionist (sometimes construed as imperialist) which has spawned increased anti-American sentiment and terrorism. One of the founding principles of the United States is one of religious tolerance. As a nation we must tolerate and respect the religous freedom of individuals and only intervene when absolutely necessary to prevent genocide. Personally I think that national security would have benefited if the U.S. had not gone and stirred the hornet's nest but instead sealed the walls and improved the processes by which foreign nationals are allowed into the country. It is not the U.S. duty to take sides on any issue with religious consequence but to be tolerant and accepting of both sides despite their historical transgressions. As a nation the U.S. must forgive but not forget the religiously motivated actions we have witnessed over the past decade. The only question remains, now that the U.S. has stirred a hornet's nest how does it plan to pacify it? Enforcing religioius tolerance in chaos is a near impossibility and is something that can only be learned through exemplary behavior. The U.S. has not set a good example in its recent actions but instead has garnered a shoot out in the religious world. The best defense is not a good offense... a good offense is simply offensive.
Post a Comment