January 1, 2007

Carter Aces Himself Out of Useful Mideast Role

 

Jimmy Carter’s book on the West Bank has sparked a lot of discussion about the history of the Israeli occupation of that area. But there is another story here, one that is perhaps clearer than those historical discussions, most of which are well documented by far more serious scholars of history than the former president. My conclusion – Mr. Carter should stick to what he does best: being a former president.

 

The book’s factual distortions and omissions are enough to limit its usefulness for anything but polemics. I will leave the factual counter-arguments to Alan Dershowitz and others, who know the specific historical data better than I. They have pointed out many factual inaccuracies, commissions and omissions. What puzzles me most is why former President Carter would want to draft a diatribe that adds little wisdom to the discussion, and will probably serve to remove him and his views from any constructive role in helping to resolve this difficult situation.

 

Using the word “apartheid” in the title itself greatly lessens the credibility and the possible value of the book to the ongoing dialogue on the serious problems of the area, including the occupation. It seems designed to provoke, to get attention, perhaps to sell books. Ex-presidents are not above this kind of vanity and promotion. The author has certainly not been shy about doing the talk show circuit to attempt to explain his rationale for this approach.

 

I lived in Israel some years ago and visited several times since. I have followed the dynamics closely for some time – from the relief and arrogance following the Six Day War, through the frittering away of many possible opportunities by both sides, to the current abyss. In my opinion, the way that Israel has dealt with the Palestinians, in addition to violating many human and Jewish principles, has been exceedingly ineffective in exploiting any possibilities for peace, as slight as those might have been over the years, and guaranteeing the security of Israel itself. That bothers me a lot. There are, however, many aspects to this quagmire.

 

Mr. Carter focuses almost exclusively on the many abuses that the Palestinians have experienced at the hands of the Israelis. President Carter writes and speaks as if the Israelis have ready partners for negotiating a peace, if only they would be more rational and humane. I’m quite sure that some of the Israeli missteps derive from the diversity of views within Israel, some wishing to avoid a settlement that limits the possibilities for Israeli growth, much as the Palestinian missteps are driven by diverse views within their community, including a denial among many, to accept any Jewish state in any form in that part of the world – still Arabia to many, as their maps show.

 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so thoroughly reported that it is hard to imagine any factual information, aside from secret intelligence, that is not available somewhere. The most important variable is which of the many available facts someone chooses to focus on to make whatever points he or she wants to make.

 

As a result, many writings on this topic say more about the person doing the writing than they add about the situation in question. Even many years ago, it was possible to know early on in a conversation the political perspective of someone discussing the history of the Arab-Israeli situation, simply by the time and events they chose to begin the story, the selection of which facts to put forth, and with what emphasis. I believe this is a main cause of such a strong reaction to President Carter’s recent work. 

In my judgment the book will have two main impacts: 1) It will fuel the arguments of people who are steadfastly against Israel and are always looking for any ammunition to strengthen their position. The views of an ex-president carry much credibility, at least for the short term. The former president must accept responsibility for the ultimate exploitation of such a controversial perspective for destructive purposes, of which there will be many, assuming people continue to take him seriously at all on this subject; and 2) It will remove former President Carter from the search for peace among serious interlocutors. That also is too bad, given his at least limited success in other areas.

To offer feedback on this column, click here.