Finally Read Carter’s Book
I read Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace not Apartheid on my flight to Florida yesterday. Ordinarily I wouldn’t have bothered. I’ve read so many long descriptions of it by both supporters and critics that I thoughtI knew what it was about. But I did want to see just how he phrased things, and I also figured figured that now I’ll be able to say “yes” when people aggressively ask if I read the book when I defend Carter’s basic critique of Israeli occupation policy. That critique holds up well, by the way, which I think is one reason his critics hate it so much.
Most of the book is Carter’s account of Israel/Palestine history, covering the high spots in a pretty straightforward manner but not in much depth. Some periods and events get mimimal attention, which would be a problem in a book purporting to be a comprehensive history but seems reasonable enough as what’s really a long introduction to recent and current events. His critics have seized on some of these gaps and generalizations, and I imagine if Carter were revising the book he could add a few sentences to respond, but most of the charges I’ve read don’t damage the crux of Carter’s analysis.
One inaccuracy I noticed seems to favor the Israelis. I’ll get to this later.
Carter gives himself a lot of credit for trying to resolve things when he was president. His central role allows him to offer a number of interesting anecdotes and quotations from key players.
One thing that did get on my nerves was his repeated use of the term The Holy Land, along with his repeated focus on how the conflict affects Christians. I understand he’s trying to reach a mainstream American Christian audience , so I suppose it makes sense strategically, but it leaves the impression that’s what’s really important is how things affect Christians.
During his first visit to Israel in 1973, when as he explains he was secretly planning to run for president, Carter met few Palestinians and internalized a traditional pro-Israel perspective. He says that at the time Israel was committed to a peace process that would end the occupation and that people were hopeful, but I suspect he would have heard a different perspective if he’d visited Palestinians. It was already clear by 1973 that ending the occupation was not something Israel took seriously.
Be that as it may, Carter gives an interesting account of his developing involvement and growing awareness of what was really going on. The key portions of the book come in the second half, when he describes the deteriorating situation in occupied territory. He offers what seem to me accurate descriptions of the separation barrier, the segregated roads, the impossible living conditions, the changing peace plans.
One thing that did surprise me was that Carter said almost nothing about the situation of Arabs within Israel. Based on reactions to his book and to Carter’s own descriptions in interviews, I expected to see repeated positive reference to Israeli democracy. I’ve heard him emphasize that the book makes it clear he’s talking about Palestine, not what’s going on inside Israel where Arab citizens have full rights. Yet unless I missed it, in the actual book Carter makes no such sttrong statement. Mostly he ignores the subject of internal Israeli affairs, which in itself is problematic but may be more honest than explicit defenses.
At one point Carter refers to the free-wheeling debate within Israel as a sign of free speech, but mentions without elaboration that “only among some of the Israeli Arabs is there an obvious reluctance to speak freely.” He then talks about Israelis united about security because of a “common religion” and “shared history,” ignoring the 20% non-Jewish minority. Later, when quoting Syria’s Hafez al-Assad about Israel failing as a democracy because only Jews have political and social equality, Carter gives no indication of whether he agrees or not.
About that inaccuracy I mentioned: Carter says that his initial reaction to the dispossession of Palestinians living in Israel was to compare it to when the U.S. government forced the Lower Creek Indians on what became his family’s land in Georgia to walk to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears. But he realized by his 1973 visit, he says, that there was a difference: the taking of Palestinian land in 1948 was in keeping with the UN partition plan and the Palestinains would be able to return to their homes or be compensated in the future. However, the UN did not call for Palestinians to be removed from their homes. I think Carter had it right the first time.