Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a book written by Jimmy Carter. It was published by Simon & Schuster in November 2006.According to https://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/index.html "Best Sellers: Hardcover Nonfiction", New York Times, accessed 27 January 2007: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid was number 6 on the list as of date accessed. It was listed as number 11 in "New York Times Best Sellers: Hardcover Nonfiction" on 18 March 2007, on the list for 15 weeks for the week ending 3 March 2007. As of 6 May 2007 it no longer appears on the expanded list featured at that site
The book is primarily based on Carter's long engagement in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, both before, during and after his presidency. He recounts his first visits to the Middle East as Governor of Georgia, his role as President in the Camp David Accords, his personal relationships with Arab and Israeli political leaders such as Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, his involvement in the peace process since leaving the White House, as well as his successors' policies in the region.
In the book, Carter argues that Israel's continued control and construction of settlements in the West Bank have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East. That perspective, coupled with the use of the word "apartheid" in the title, and what critics said were errors and misstatements in the book, sparked controversy. Carter defended the book and countered that response to it "in the real world… has been overwhelmingly positive."
The 2007 documentary Man from Plains depicts the tour Carter undertook to promote the book.
Contents
Purpose According to Carter:The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.
Thesis Carter identifies "two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East": 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 Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.
To bring an end to what he calls "this continuing tragedy", in Chapter 17 ("Summary"), Carter calls for a revitalization of the peace process based on the following three "key requirements":
a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed ...
b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israel's permanent legal boundary ...
c. The sovereignty of all Middle East nations and sanctity of international borders must be honored ...
Apartheid analogy Regarding the use of the word "Apartheid" in the title of his book, Carter has said:
It's not Israel. The book has nothing to do with what's going on inside Israel which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews who are Israelis have the same privileges about Israel. That's been most of the controversy because people assume it's about Israel. It's not.
I've never alleged that the framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all, and that what does exist in the West Bank is based on trying to take Palestinian land and not on racism. So it was a very clear distinction.
In remarks broadcast over radio, Carter claimed that Israel's policies amounted to an apartheid worse than South Africa's:When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa.
Critical reaction and commentary Critical response to Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid at the time of release was divided. According to Julie Bosman, criticism of the book "has escalated to a full-scale furor," much of which has focused on Carter's use of the word "apartheid" in the subtitle. Some critics, including several leaders of the Democratic Party and of American Jewish organizations, have interpreted the subtitle as an allegation of Israeli apartheid, which they believe to be inflammatory and unsubstantiated.http://my.brandeis.edu/news/item?news_item_id=7816 "Brandeis News: Full coverage of the Historic Jan. 23rd Visit by Former President Jimmy Carter," Brandeis University, 24 January 2007, accessed 27 January 2007Tom Zeller, Jr., http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/carter-and-his-critics-the-skirmishes-continue/ "Carter and His Critics: The Skirmishes Continue," New York Times, The Lede (blog), 12 January 2007, assessed 12 January 2007; includes Eric Pfeiffer, http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070125-112710-7481r.htm "Carter Apologizes for 'stupid' Book Passage,"] Washington Times 26 January 2007, accessed 26 January 2007 Tony Karon, Senior Editor at TIME.com and a former anti-Apartheid activist for the ANC, said: "Jimmy Carter had to write this book precisely because Palestinian life and history is not accorded equal value in American discourse, far from it. And his use of the word apartheid is not only morally valid; it is essential, because it shakes the moral stupor that allows many liberals to rationalize away the daily, grinding horror being inflicted on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza". Former President Bill Clinton wrote a brief letter to the chairman of the American Jewish Committee, thanking him for articles criticizing the book and citing his agreement with Dennis Ross's attempts to "straighten ... out" Carter's claims and conclusions about Clinton's own Camp David peace proposal in the summer of 2000."President Clinton Thanks AJC on Carter Book" , press release, American Jewish Committee, n.d., accessed 3 May 2007Cf. Jennifer Siegel, "Apartheid Book Exposes Carter-Clinton Rift: Clinton: 'I Don’t Know Where His Information Came From'", The Jewish Daily Forward, 30 March 2007, accessed 3 May 2007
Some critics claimed that Carter crossed the line into anti-Semitism. Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, initially accused Carter of "engaging in anti-Semitism" in the book; Foxman told James Traub later that he would not call the former president himself an "anti-Semite" or a "bigot".James D. Besser, "Jewish Criticism of Carter Intensifies: Charge of Anti-Semitism from One Leader as Ex-president Deepens His Critique of Israeli Policy in West Bank", The Jewish Week, 15 December 2005, accessed 8 January 2007 Ethan Bronner also asserted that Carter's "overstatement" in the book "hardly adds up to anti-Semitism."
Some journalists and academics have praised Carter for what they believe to be speaking honestly about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a media environment described as hostile to opponents of Israel's policies.George Bisharat, Truth At Last, While Breaking a U.S. Taboo of Criticizing Israel, Philadelphia Inquirer, January 2, 2007, editorial, accessed January 11, 2007.Robert Fisk, "Banality and Bare Faced Lies," The Independent December 23, 2006, accessed January 3, 2007. Some left-leaning Israeli politicians such as Yossi Beilin and Shulamit Aloni argued that Carter's critique of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories reflects that of many Israelis themselves.
Notable positive reactions
Journalists and other media commentators In his review published on October 15, 2006, Brad Hooper, editor at Booklist, concludes: "The former president's ideas are expressed with perfect clarity; his book, of course, represents a personal point of view, but one that is certainly grounded in both knowledge and wisdom. His outlook on the problem not only contributes to the literature of debate surrounding it but also, just as importantly, delivers a worthy game plan for clearing up the dilemma."Brad Hooper, Review of Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, Booklist (American Library Association), October 15, 2006, accessed January 19, 2007. Israeli historian and author Tom Segev believes his principal argument is "well-founded".Tom Segev, "Memoir of a Great Friend", Haaretz December 12, 2006, accessed January 8, 2007.
Raja Shehadeh, a lawyer and author, including of Occupier's Law: Israel and the West Bank, regards Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid as a "fresh debate" on Israel's policies in the West Bank. Shehadeh believes that "With his well documented book and its provocative title, Carter is working to achieve 'one of the major goals of [his] life' as he makes clear at the outset of his book: 'to help ensure a lasting peace for Israelis and others in the Middle East.Raja Shehadeh, "Fresh Debate on Israel's West Bank Policies" , California Literary Review December 19, 2006, accessed May 4, 2007.
Robert Fisk declares that the book is "a good, strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood", adding: "Needless to say, the American press and television largely ignored the appearance of this eminently sensible book—until the usual Israeli lobbyists began to scream abuse at poor old Jimmy Carter, albeit that he was the architect of the longest lasting peace treaty between Israel and an Arab neighbour—Egypt—secured with the famous 1978 Camp David accords."Robert Fisk, "Banality and Bare Faced Lies". The Independent. December 23, 2006, accessed January 3, 2007.
Carl L. Brown in Foreign Affairs writes: "This book offers a historical overview in the form of a personal memoir, tracing developments since the 1970s as Carter experienced and understood them. He may thus be said to be both a source for the historian and himself a historian of the Israeli–Palestinian confrontation. This little book merits a reading on both counts. Carter concludes that 'Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.' That statement, so out of line with the way mainstream American political figures (even those retired from public office) frame the issue, ensures that the book will be attacked by many. Perhaps it will be read as well."L. Carl Brown, Book rev. of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid , Foreign Affairs (March/April 2007), accessed May 4, 2007.
Ian Black, Middle East editor at The Guardian, writes "Controversy about the book flows largely from the word "apartheid" in the title: it is wrong if applied to Israel within its pre-1967 borders, where there is discrimination but not institutionalised racism. In the West Bank, with its confiscated land, unequal allocation of water resources, fortress-like settlements, security fence and segregated roads, it is fitting enough. No one who has seen subjugated Palestinians struggling with everyday life alongside armed Jewish settlers can quarrel with it".Divided loyalties, The Guardian (17 February 2007), accessed September 19, 2012
In his blog, Tony Karon, a senior editor at Time and a former anti-apartheid activist for the ANC, states "The point being that Jimmy Carter had to write this book precisely because Palestinian life and history is not accorded equal value in American discourse, far from it. And his use of the word apartheid is not only morally valid; it is essential, because it shakes the moral stupor that allows many liberals to rationalize away the daily, grinding horror being inflicted on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza".Israel and Apartheid: In Defense of Jimmy Carter, (December 22, 2006) retrieved September 19, 2012
Representatives of organizations