[WCUSP] Carter discusses new book on Israel & Middle East (Forward)

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

"I think the Israel  Lobby, so-called to use your phrase, that’s not my 
phrase — is much stronger now  and much more effective now than it was when I was 
in office. I felt, for  instance, that we should sell F-16 airplanes to Saudi 
Arabia so Saudis could defend themselves  against threats from Iran, and Aipac 
and others were  adamantly against it, but we finally prevailed. And I called 
within three months  of when I went into office for a Palestinian homeland. 
And I worked for the Camp  David accords, which called for Israel’s political 
and military withdrawal from  the occupied territories, and so forth, and I 
think that that kind of  independence was also exhibited by George Bush, Sr., who 
condemned Israeli  settlements in the West Bank, and even withheld funds from 
Israel, which I  never did, by the way.… That’s almost an impossibility now 
in the present  political environment of America."  
_http://www.forward.com/articles/carter-discusses-new-book-on-israel-and-the-m
iddle/_ 
(http://www.forward.com/articles/carter-discusses-new-book-on-israel-and-the-middle/)   <>Carter Discusses New Book on  Israel and the Middle  East 
 
Jennifer  Siegel |  Fri. Nov 17,  2006 
President Jimmy Carter’s new book,  “_Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid_ 
(http://www.forward.com/articles/carter-book-slaps-israel-with-‘apartheid’-tag/) ” 
(Simon &  Schuster), hits the shelves this week. In an interview Wednesday 
with the  Forward, the former president discussed the work and his views on the 
Middle  East. 
Q: In your book, you often take care  to mention that the Palestinians 
include both Muslims and Christians. Do you  have particular concerns about the 
situation for the Christians in the  territories?   
A: There has been a tremendous  exodus of the Christians from the West Bank 
and Gaza as a percentage and also in their totality  and this has been a 
disappointment to me to see that. One of my major  commitments in public life for 
almost thirty years has been to bring peace to  Israel, and with its existence 
accepted by all nations, and, of course, one  major step there was to evolve a 
peace treaty between Israel and its most  formidable adversary, Egypt, and I 
think that this premise has been for Israel  to exist within it’s own legal 
borders as defined by the United Nations  resolutions, by the Oslo agreement, by 
the Camp David accords, and even by the  quartet’s recent roadmap, and to let 
the Palestinians, and the Syrians, and the  Lebanese have their own  
territory. 
Q: In your book, you argue that  “because of powerful political, economic, 
and religious forces in the  United  States, Israeli government decisions are 
rarely  questioned or condemned.“ Can you explain that more  fully?   
A: I’ve been all over the Holy Land,  I’ll call it, just for kind of a 
short-hand description, since the 1970s — the  last 30 or 40 years — from Lebanon 
down to the Sinai, and I’ve been up into the  Golan Heights three times, and I’
ve conducted three elections there – and I’ve  seen the coverage given to 
Israel’s activities in Europe and in Israel itself –  a highly contentious 
debate over [Israel]. There is no such debate in the  United  States. There’s not 
any debate in the Congress,  there’s not any debate in the White House, at 
least since George Bush Sr. and I  were there, and in the news media of the 
United States, there is very rarely any  editorial comment that would criticize 
some of the practices of Israel which I  consider to be deplorable — and that is 
the persecution of the Palestinians, and  the occupation and confiscation and 
the colonization of Palestinian land. So  there’s no open debate in this 
country if it involves any criticism of the  policies of the Israeli government, 
even though many people in  Israel debate and condemn some of the  policies of 
the right wing governments under Sharon and Netanyahu and  others. 
Q: Lately there has been a lot of  discussion about the role of the ‘Israel 
lobby.’ Can you say a little  bit about how that impacted you as president? Has 
it changed over  time?   
A: Well, I think the Israel Lobby,  so-called to use your phrase, that’s not 
my phrase — is much stronger now and  much more effective now than it was when 
I was in office. I felt, for instance,  that we should sell F-16 airplanes to 
Saudi  Arabia so Saudis could defend themselves against threats  from Iran, 
and Aipac and others were  adamantly against it, but we finally prevailed. And 
I called within three months  of when I went into office for a Palestinian 
homeland. And I worked for the Camp  David accords, which called for Israel’s 
political and military withdrawal from  the occupied territories, and so forth, 
and I think that that kind of  independence was also exhibited by George Bush, 
Sr., who condemned Israeli  settlements in the West Bank, and even withheld 
funds from Israel, which I  never did, by the way.… That’s almost an 
impossibility now in the present  political environment of America. 
Q: In response to Republican claims  that the Democratic party is weakening 
in its support for Israel, Democratic  leaders — most prominently Nancy Pelosi 
and Howard Dean — have recently issues  statements saying that you do not 
represent the Democratic Party on Israel. What  is your  response?   
A: They are right. I don’t speak for  the Democratic Party, in fact, I don’t 
think anybody speaks for the Democratic  Party, including Howard Dean or Bill 
Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. The Democratic  Party is an umbrella under which 
multiple voices exist. I would just refer to my  own record as a president — I 
was the one who negotiated a peace agreement  between Israel and Egypt, not a 
word of which has ever been violated, and I  worked throughout the entire four 
years to bring peace to Israel within its own  borders. I don’t have to explain 
my credentials in terms of bringing peace to  Israel. 
Q: Do you think that most Democrats  agree with your views on the 
Israeli-Palestinian  conflict?   
A: If you talk about members of the  Congress, I would say no because the 
Congress members are almost universally  silent as far as any criticism of 
anything that the Israeli government does. But  I think that’s an anomaly among 
Democrats in the entire country, and, in fact,  among Americans all over. I think 
there’s a tremendous concern that Israel has  refused to accept the premise 
that Israel can have peace if it’s willing to  define its borders along the 
official internally recognized line — that is, the  Green Line — modified, if 
necessary, and I think it would be necessary, by good  faith negotiations with 
the Palestinians on a swap basis. But  Israel has not been willing  to do that, 
and I think if Israel doesn’t do it, I don’t see any possibility  that Israel 
will ever know peace,  certainly not in my lifetime, if they insist on 
confiscation and occupation of  Arab  land. 
Q: Have Democrats in Congress become  less willing to criticize Israel since 
your  administration?   
A: I think when I was in office,  there was a lot flexibility among 
Democratic members of the House, and Senate. I  had great help from strong Jewish 
senators, like Senator Jacob Javits, and from  Hubert Humphrey, who was a champion 
of Israel’s and so they all supported me as  I went through the process of 
inducing Israel to withdraw from Egyptian land,  that is the Sinai, and of 
accepting the commitment that Menachem Begin made and  the Knesset approved, of 
Israel’s withdrawing its political and military forces  from the West Bank, and 
giving the Palestinians full autonomy, with the right to  choose their own 
government. And so all of that is in the Camp David agreement, which Democrats 
approved both  publicly and  privately. 
Q: We’ve talked a lot about  criticism of Israel, but you have described the 
country’s existence as “a moral  principle.” How does your faith informs your 
commitment to the Jewish  state?   
A: You have to be careful of the  so-called Christian Evangelicals because 
the ones who are most vocal support the  so-called left behind theories — which 
call for the final days to come and the  Armageddon and the premise there, 
which I think is completely erroneous, by the  way, is that in order for 
Christians to come again, to return, the entire Holy  Land has to be swept clean of 
Muslims and others. But the ultimate stage,  according to their beliefs, is that 
all Jews have to be killed or become  Christians. But they do support Israel’
s occupation of the West Bank…. I think that’s a completely stupid and  
ridiculous premise on which to base foreign policy or on which to base support  for 
Israel. My support for Israel is  proven and deeply ingrained in my own soul, 
but I don’t think Israel will ever  have peace unless they are willing, as I’
ve said earlier, to live within their  borders that are reconfirmed even 
recently with the international quartet’s  so-called road map, and that says that 
Untied Nations Resolution 242 must be  implemented and Israel must withdraw 
from occupied  territory. 
Q: When you say support for  Israel is ingrained in your soul,  what does 
that  mean?   
A: I’ve been teaching the Bible  since I was eighteen-years-old, and half of 
each year I teach in the Jewish  scriptures, in what we call the Old 
Testament. The other half of the year I  teach in the New Testament, and for the last 
three months, I’ve been teaching  about God’s covenants, with Noah, with 
Abraham, with Moses, and then with  Joshua, and then in the times with the judges, 
and then going into King David,  and Saul and Solomon and so forth. This 
Sunday, I taught about Josiah. So I’ve  been teaching the Bible and my belief is 
that God ordained that the Jews should  have a homeland there, and I think that 
international law beginning in 1948 says  the same exact thing, and that’s 
what I  believe. 
Q: For people who don’t have a  Christian faith, or don’t come from that 
religious background, why should they  support Israel?   
A: Because it’s international law  and because it’s been accepted almost 
unanimously by the whole world. As you  know, the Arab League, in 2002, expressed 
their common belief that Iraq should  be recognized as a permanent entity in 
the Middle East, to live in peace within  its own borders — that is the Green 
Line, the 1967 borders — and I believe that  that’s the only avenue to  
peace. 
Q: What should be our current  approach to dealing with Iran?   
A: I hope that the strong effort by  the European countries, backed up at a 
distance by the United States, will be  successful, and my hope is that China 
and Russian will join in with that effort  and put both pressure on Iran and 
some enticements on Iran so that perhaps  Russia could handle the treatment of 
nuclear fuels that is now being  contemplated by Iran. So I think this is a 
very important thing. My own belief  is that in the future we should reach out 
and try to negotiate with both  Syria and Iran, and get them get them involved 
in an  overall peace effort in the Middle East and  Gulf  region. 
Q: Some on the right have said that  we need to keep all options on the 
table, including the use of force and that we  have to stop Iran from acquiring 
nuclear weapons.  What do you say to  that?   
A: I think it would be an  ill-advised sort of thing. You’ve seen the results 
of an unwarranted and  unnecessary use of force. In Iraq it’s turned into a 
terrible tragedy and a  debacle, and of course, Iran  has a much more 
formidable military capability than Iraq ever did.  So I don’t think the United  States 
military is at all prepared to make a move against  Iran. 
Q: Do you have anything to  add? 
A: I think that my book, which I’m  going to promote pretty widely, at least 
lets people look at the issues and lets  people look at what I consider to be 
the only avenue that I can envision for  Israel to have permanent peace 
recognized by all the other nations in the world,  and that’s what I tried to 
describe in the book, and the main purpose is to  stimulate that debate and try to 
bring that into  reality. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20061117/3a716c71/attachment-0001.html