Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, by Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter is the first president of whom I have any significant memories. I recall watching the “CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite” with my father and seeing images of President Carter attempting to broker the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords from Camp David. So when I saw that iTunes carried an audio version of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, I downloaded the book in preparation for a long car trip across the state.
While I found Carter’s reading of his book somewhat flat and monotonous, I was intrigued by the notion of listening to the voice of a world leader and Nobel Prize winner within the walls of my humble mini-van.
President Carter argues that the ongoing conflict between the Arab community and Israel can come to an end only if two conditions are met. First, the Arab nations must guarantee the existence and security of Israel. Israel must be granted the right to live in peace within its own border. Secondly, Israel must relinquish the occupied Arab territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank), which it has held since 1967. Israel must agree to limit its borders to those specified by U.N. Resolution 242.
The title of the book has drawn the criticism of pro-Israel groups. Some have taken offense that Carter is claiming that Israel’s currently policy amounts to South African-style racial segregation. President Carter denies the charge, but insists that Israel has a choice to make: It can either establish peace by returning the land it seized in the wake of the 1967 war, or it can drift into an apartheid-like policy against the Palestinians in an attempt to quell Arab resistance and terrorism.
While it might not add up to apartheid, Carter provides detailed accounts of violations of Palestinian civil rights: Arabs are rounded up and imprisoned to give Israel leverage in prisoner exchanges; Israeli troops interfere with Palestinian elections; Palestinian shipment of produce and perishable good are detained until they spoil; Palestinians have limited assess to legal representation; and Arab movement within the occupied territories is limited by military check points and barbed wired fences being erected around several Arab communities. Carter believes these policies will lead to a time when Israeli colonists will be able to settle in the Palestinian territories without ever encountering an Arab. Critics of Carter point out that several of these policies are in place to limit the activities of terrorists. Other detractors accuse Carter of hyperbole.
Also at stake is whether Carter’s policy of engaging in negotiations with Arabs is realistic. To some, expecting Israel to negotiate with nations which do not or have not recognized Israel’s right to exist is counterproductive. Dialogue with countries which have endorsed or even funded terrorist activity against Israel would also appear to be a fruitless endeavor. Carter, however, points out the Hamilton-Baker report (the famed Iraq Study Group) arrived at the same conclusion. Talking with distrusted nations is a rocky road to peace. However, it appears to be the only way forward.
As a Christian, I appreciate Carter’s ability to look at the Israeli-Arab conflict through the lens of faith, while still being nuanced. Despite his critics, Carter expresses his sympathies for Israel in the opening chapters. Carter admits that being raised on stories of King David and the Promised Land gave him an interest in the Israel and led to his passion for peace in the Middle East. However, Carter is “pro-Israel” while still holding Israel accountable for human rights violation. It is reasonable to recognize that Israel’s human rights record provokes terrorism without going as far as saying that Arab terrorism is justified. Christians can affirm Israel’s historic status as God’s “chosen people” (and some Christians hold that the modern geopolitical nation of Israel will hold a pivotal role in history’s “end game”) without turning a blind-eye to the unjust behavior of our ally. To hold up the current cast of nations against the Book of Revelation for the purpose of assigning two-dimensional “good guys” and “bad guys” seems simplistic and even dangerous. Carter’s conclusions are up for debate but his ability to see the complexity of the situation should be praised.
I highly recommend Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to any Christian looking to add to his or her understanding of this important political and foreign policy matter.
Posted on May 7, 2007 12:00 AM
Comments
As a former history student, I concur. Carter's recommendations are sensible but, as in the case of Israel negotiating with nations that refuse to recognize it, they seem too lofty to hope for. The more I learn about recent Middle East history and current facts on the ground the less it seems that there is any viable solution to the web of myriad interests, feuds, and sufferings.
For a secular perspective I recommend Thomas Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem and, perhaps after you've absorbed some facts (whether from Friedman, Carter, or any other reasonable author), Spielberg's Munich and Gaghan's Syriana. Both films ring true to what I know about contemporary Middle East conflict.
Posted by: Mike Radcliffe | May 9, 2007 5:26 AM
Thanks for the reccomendation of this book. I am always looking for resources of information and perspectives on history and such.
- Mike, I saw Syriana, but could you explain which parts of the movie are based on actual events. I saw it in my third language with English subtitles, so it was even more confusing, with all the back room meetings and conspiricy stuff. This is an honest question, I am not trying to challange any facts because I truely know very little of the recent middle east history situation and would like to know more. thanks.
Posted by: Dan | May 11, 2007 3:51 PM
Mike,
According to President Carter, there have been times in which Saudi Arabia and several other Arab nations have been prepared to recognize Israel. However, this acknowledgement was, unfortunately, attached to treaty negotiations and not a bald affirmation on the side of the Arab nations. And Carter notes that Irsael rejected the terms of the negotiations although, in his eyes, they were reasonable.
It's my hope that the Evangelical community grows a stronger and broader interest in the peace process. We (collectively) seem to excuse Israeli excesses because we percieve-- through a Dispensational escatology-- that Israel's role in Armegeddon will leverage God's return.
Those in the Dispensational camp seem to be allowing an ideal End to justify some horrific means.
Posted by: Larry Shallenberger | May 17, 2007 5:53 AM
Syriana is completely fictional, but very much rooted in the concrete political, economic and social issues/crises that face the Middle East. Oil money, idealistic reformers, status quo defenders and the tendency of the United States to support dictatorships so long as they remain subservient to our global interests constitute the facts Syriana is based on.
I have to admit to you, Larry, that I haven't read Carter's Palestine. I suppose that your comment turns mine on its head and I should rather say that Israel's refusal to accept reasonable treaties for fear of [fill in the blank] does not relate to Carter's idealism but instead exists as evidence of that complex web of fear and self-interest.
And, yes, evangelicals have much room to grow in their theological, moral, and political thought and action regarding the Israeli state. Part of the problem is that most Western evangelicals don't know very much about Israel's dark side (again, Beirut to Jerusalem could partially serve this need) and another is that the broader evangelical approach to politics reflects more the Old Testament, Kingdom of Israel view than the New Testament, Kingdom of heaven view. We often look at questions like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a survival-based, foreign policy lens, but what about through a reconciliation-sacrificial, kingdom of heaven lens? I have heard few too little discussion on this point and I think it reflects the accomodations the church has made with Western secular democracy and capitalism.
Posted by: Mike Radcliffe | May 21, 2007 1:26 PM