February 5, 2009
Jimmy Carter is at it again, peddling, with his weird self-confidence, his answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His new book, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work, seems like what a golfer might call a mulligan — a do-over of his 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. That book, starting with its title, succeeded only in antagonizing at least half of those party to the conflict. Were Carter to have written a diet book, its title might have been, You’re Fat and Ugly, But I Can Make You Thin.
In interviews, at least, Carter seems more benign this time around, advocating something along the contours of what most Americans and Israelis regard as “inevitable”: a two-state solution. As he told NPR, “the basic framework is to recognize Israel and Israel’s right to exist and live in peace within its pre-1967 borders. And these ’67 borders can be modified through good-faith negotiations.”
Carter accepts that Israel will maintain control of the dense settlements that are essentially suburbs of Jerusalem. At the same time, he says that Palestinians “will have to accept the proposition that all — a flood of Palestinians — cannot return inside Israel. They’ll have to return, I would say, into the West Bank and Gaza — not into Israel — and be compensated, those that can’t return.”
You can find plenty of Israelis saying pretty much the same things. Nevertheless, a Carter book tour seemed threatening enough that The Israel Project, the nonpartisan advocacy group, arranged a conference call with critics of the book.
The participants were attorney Alan Dershowitz, former Clinton counsel Lanny Davis, and Ken Stein, Carter’s former colleague at the Carter Center. Thay emphasized Carter’s penchant for selectively citing history, adjusting his message to his audience, whitewashing Hamas’ record of terrorism, and asserting insider knowledge of the Middle East available to no other interlocutor.
Stein was particularly trenchant on this last point. In interviews with NPR’s Terry Gross and others, Carter asserts that Hamas has agreed to accept any peace agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel provided it’s approved by a referendum of the Palestinian people.
Asked Stein: “Now why is it when he says, ‘Hamas leaders told me,’ how come they don’t tell the rest of the world? How come they don’t tell Sarkozy? How come they don’t tell Bush? How come they don’t tell Obama? How come they don’t tell our ambassador? How come we don’t learn about these things? But it’s only through Carter’s eyes, through Carter’s ears, and Carter’s rendition.”
That’s unfortunate, but does it make Carter a clear and present danger? I asked the panel: If Carter is essentially touting the line of Israel’s Kadima Party and presumably the Obama administration, why did they feel a need to speak out against his newest book and media tour?
“I find myself in a strange situation because I find myself completely agreeing with Jimmy Carter’s results, the two-state solution,” said Dershowitz. “I also happen to agree with him that President Obama sending George Mitchell as a negotiator is a good thing. I also think that the settlements on the West Bank have to end.”
So what’s his beef?
“My real criticism of Carter,” said Dershowitz, “is that he makes it much harder for peace to be achieved by siding with Hamas and against Israel and becoming part of that chorus of condemnation every time Israel responds in self-defense, and thereby encouraging Hamas to continue to send rockets (which, by the way, in his first book, he refused to categorize as terrorism at all).”
Stein was even more specific, referring to the new book: “What Carter has done on pages 141 and 142, he wants to say that if Hamas does X, Y, and Z, Hamas should be part of the negotiating process. The international community has made it quite clear that Hamas has to recognize all previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements, has to renounce terrorism, has to accept Israel; but what Carter does is he parses that requirement made by the Quartet.” And Hamas’ goal, said Stein, is to achieve not peace, but at best a “50-year truce.”
“Hamas’ goal is to negotiate but not to reach a conclusion,” added Stein. “Hamas’ goal is to postpone reaching a conclusion, and it wants legitimacy in order to do that.”
Carter’s book was the occasion for the conference call, but the real topic was Hamas and what role, if any, it can or should play in any peace process. That’s the next great debate. Tony Blair is touring the United States this week and saying that Hamas should be part of the peace process so long as they renounce violence and recognize Israel. Israel’s most senior diplomat, Aharon Abramovich, said that were the international community to engage and legitimize Hamas, “this would ruin Israel’s ability to conduct wide-ranging, comprehensive negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.”
Israeli analyst Gidi Grinstein, meanwhile, says Israel will have no choice but to “signal” with Hamas, either indirectly or by negotiating directly with its representatives on issues pertaining to the shared border.
Can Hamas be tamed, co-opted, reformed, or vanquished? That’s the real issue, and Carter remains, unfortunately, merely a distraction.
Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com
--TOP--
