[WCUSP] Carter's shares M-E insight (Mearsheimer & Walt were correct)

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

Jimmy Carter was the only president since Eisenhower to force Israel to  give 
up land that it has captured and the only Democrat to face down  the 
pro-Israel lobby. When people say that the lobby isn't  significant, remind them that 
Carter got only 48% of the Jewish vote when  he ran against Reagan in 1980. 

 
____________________________________
 
 (javascript:print())  (javascript:history.go(-1)) Sunday, November 26, 2006
 
Carter shares insight on peace in Mideast  
By Marty  Rosen
Special to The Courier-Journal
Former President Jimmy Carter's new book, "Palestine -- Peace Not Apartheid," 
 reflects a lifetime of contemplation on the Middle East. Mixing memoir and  
policy, it recounts his youthful fascination with the Holy Lands, his long  
acquaintance with the political leaders who have shaped the modern history of  
the Arab and Israeli worlds, and it makes a strong case for renewed debate 
about  the best path to peace in a long-troubled part of the world. In a telephone 
 interview, Carter spoke in detail about the history of the 
Israeli-Palestinian  conflict and his hopes for peace. Here are his unedited responses:  
Q. Earlier this year the London Review of Books published an article by  John 
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt called "The Israel Lobby." That article, which  
generated much controversy, argued that American foreign policies in the 
Middle  East, especially regarding Israel and Palestine, are not reflective of 
genuine  American interests in the region and instead reflect very influential and 
 successful lobbying efforts on the part of Israel and American supporters of 
 Israel. Do you think that assessment is correct?  
Carter: That's correct. Over the last 30 years of my life, one of  my 
strongest commitments has been to bring peace to Israel and to have its  existence 
accepted by all nations. I've traveled all over Israel. In fact, I've  been to 
the Golan Heights three times, and we've conducted three elections there  for 
the Palestinians. I've seen the intense debate in Israel about Israeli  
government policies, with the majority of Israelis habitually favoring the  
withdrawal from occupied territories in exchange for peace. But that debate does  not 
even exist in the United States. A member of Congress would not dream of  
coming out in favor of Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories or condemn  
Israel's treatment of Palestinian people. And very few of the news media in this 
 country would ever bring out an intense analysis of the issues involved in 
the  Middle East as they are brought out fervently in Israel and throughout 
Europe.  There's no doubt that there is a strong aversion to criticizing Israel 
in this  country. I wouldn't say it's all because of intimidation, but that is 
one  factor.  
How did lobbying affect your presidential administration's relationship with  
issues in the Middle East? Specifically, in the book you write about a March  
1978 PLO attack in which a bus was seized and dozens of Israelis were killed. 
 You immediately condemned that attack. A few days later, Israel invaded 
Lebanon.  You write that before making any diplomatic response to that, you 
consulted with  congressional supporters of Israel before stating that you expected 
Israel to  withdraw from Lebanon, and before approaching the U. N. Did you 
feel under  pressure in shaping the U.S. response to the invasion?  
Carter: Yes, there was a lot of pressure exerted on members of  Congress and 
so forth on behalf of Israel. At that time, there was a general  consensus 
between me and the key members of Congress, and that included Sen.  (Jacob) 
Javits (of New York), who was Jewish, that there was a presumption that  Israel 
would withdraw from the occupied territories. When I negotiated with  (Israeli 
Prime Minister Menachem) Begin and (Egyptian President Anwar) Sadat,  that was 
one of the things I insisted upon, that both of them agreed to accept.  If you 
read the Camp David Accords, which are in the book, they call for the  
withdrawal of Israel's military and political forces from the West Bank and  Gaza, 
for full self-determination for the Palestinians. And the Knesset of  Israel 
agreed with that in a Likud administration. So I felt then and now that  the main 
thrust of my effort was to bring permanent peace to Israel, on the  premise 
that they would accept international law and withdraw to their own  
territories. That was subsequently confirmed in the Oslo Agreement in 1993, and  more 
recently the international quartet's (the U.S., Russia, the European Union  and 
the United Nations) "Roadmap" also requires that Israel withdraw from  occupied 
territories as its main premise.  
In the meantime, Israel has been occupying and confiscating and colonizing  
increasing areas of Arab territory, which in my opinion is inimical to any sort 
 of prospect of peace for Israel.  
In response to the 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, your administration  
supported and the United Nations passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal  
of Israel from Lebanon. How many times over the last half-century has the 
United  States sponsored resolutions that could be construed as anti-Israel? It 
strikes  me as a rare thing over the last 60 years.  
Carter: Well, it has been. I mention in the book that we've vetoed  
resolutions, some of them overwhelmingly supported by the world community,  probably 
now about 45 times, in fact twice within the last two weeks when Israel  
attacked the Gaza people and killed those 18 civilians. The United States vetoed  the 
resolution that condemned that action. And I have to tell you that I have  
always considered myself a supporter of Israel -- but with the premise that  
Israel comply with international law and withdraw from occupying territories of  
the West Bank and Gaza. And what's degenerated in recent years, to a very  
disturbing degree, is the gross abuse of the Palestinians by the Israeli  
occupying powers. It's one of the most serious human-rights abuses about which  I'm 
familiar. It aggravates and alienates not only the Palestinians and the Arab  
world, but most of the rest of the world.  
Your style was a great deal of active personal diplomacy and negotiation in  
that area. By contrast, President Reagan began his term with a very hands-off  
approach, as did the current President Bush.  
Carter: Reagan eventually, by 1982, decided to issue a strong  statement 
about the Middle East, and as I describe in the book, he asked me to  help draft 
the statement, which I did. He sent his speechwriter down to my home  in 
Plains, and we put language in there that Reagan repeated publicly that fully  
endorsed the premises of the Camp David Accords, including Israel's withdrawal  
from the West Bank and Gaza. And of course the first President Bush did more  
than anyone since I left office to try to minimize the impact of Israel's  
occupying Arab land. In fact, George Bush Sr. even withheld several hundred  million 
dollars from Israel because they spent the money on settlements. But  that 
hasn't been the case with other presidents. There were more Israeli  settlements 
established on the West Bank when (former President Bill) Clinton  was in 
office than at any other time. They had a blank check, in effect, Prime  Minister 
(Ehud) Barak did, to establish all the settlements he wanted. And when  
President Clinton decided to get involved in the issue pretty late in his term,  
his proposals, which were very sincere and heartfelt, were never seriously  
considered by the Israelis or the Palestinians. His final proposal would have  cut 
the West Bank in two, and would have left 205 settlements in the West Bank.  
And one of the key provisions of the Clinton proposals was that all previous  
U.N. resolutions would be moot and would be replaced by his proposal -- and no 
 Palestinian leader could accept that and survive.  
One premise of your book is that there is a divide between the public  
statements and the private aspirations of the leaders of the various parties in  the 
Middle East. Can traditional diplomacy with diplomats sitting around a table  
solve these problems, or does this require that individuals meet privately 
for  intense discussions like the ones you facilitated at Camp David?  
Carter: It would be difficult for public diplomats to solve these  issues. 
But the only peace agreement I can envision that would be suitable to  
Palestinians and Israelis is what was encompassed in the so-called Geneva  Initiative. 
I helped negotiate that agreement, and it was endorsed by Clinton,  (British 
Prime Minister) Tony Blair and by 50 other top political leaders and  Nobel 
Peace laureates at the time. And a public opinion poll conducted by the  James 
Baker Institute found that it was supported by a majority of Israelis and  
Palestinians. That spells out the premises on which Israel can have peace, and  the 
Arab world can recognize Israel's right to exist in peace.  
I'm sure you're aware that there is emerging controversy about your use of  
the word "apartheid" to describe the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. 
It's  a word with enormous moral weight, and you're certainly the most prominent  
American to describe the situation using that word. Could you comment on your 
 use of the word?  
Carter: I made it plain that I was not referring to racism, but simply  to 
the desire to acquire Arab land inside Palestinian territory. And there is a  
total establishment imposed by Israeli powers of a separation of the two peoples 
 from one another. I would say that in many ways the treatment of the  
Palestinians by the Israeli occupying forces is as onerous -- and in some cases  
more onerous -- as the treatment of black people in South Africa by the  
apartheid government. All Palestinians have to carry passes. When I was there  
monitoring elections in 2005, there were 719 roadblocks closed by concrete  barriers, 
earth mounds or by official Israeli checkpoints. The Palestinians  can't move 
from one place to another. They can't grow produce, for instance, to  sell to 
their own people if it competes with Israeli fruit, vegetables and  flowers. 
Gaza, which was supposed to have been abandoned, is absolutely  imprisoned in 
a wall that the Israelis have built all around it. There are only  two 
possible openings in that wall. One opens into the Sinai, and is open to  only a few 
chosen people. And the other is open into Israel, and it has been  closed 
almost all the time since the Israeli so-called withdrawal from Gaza. So  the 
Palestinians are horribly abused and persecuted and deprived by the Israeli  
policies in the West Bank.  
Your book argues that the United States has a unique and enormously important 
 role in facilitating the peace process in the Middle East, and that it has 
to  function as an honest broker in that region. Many observers have argued 
that for  decades the United States' image as an honest broker was questioned by  
Palestinians and Arabs in that part of the world, and many observers believe  
that during the last few years the United States' moral authority has 
diminished  worldwide. What will it take for the United States to regain that moral  
authority and the ability and credibility to facilitate a successful peace  
process? Do you see any hope for that?  
Carter: This is a bit presumptuous, but I would hope my book will  stimulate 
debate and discussion that can help the process along. And I'm not  trying to 
speak for him, but I've had long discussions with James Baker about  this same 
issue. As I mentioned, his institute in Texas has run public opinion  polls 
in Israel. And when he and George Bush Sr. were in office, they took  strong 
action, not just words, to induce Israel to withdraw from the West Bank  and 
Gaza and to treat the Palestinians fairly. So I think there are some strong  
influences of a bipartisan or nonpartisan character that might be forthcoming in  
the future. Another thing is that many prominent and influential Jews have  
privately expressed their complete agreement with the thrust of my book, but  
it's almost impossible for them, in the present American environment, to say  
these things publicly. So maybe it will stimulate a discussion. And I don't  
think there's any doubt that the key factor and one of the primary causes of  
intense animosity against America from so-called terrorists of different kinds  
is the obvious bias of the United States government against Palestinians and 
for  Israel. So these collective factors may, in the future, bring about an 
honest,  good-faith effort for peace as we've seen on a few occasions in the past. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20061128/b20feb75/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5414 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20061128/b20feb75/attachment-0001.jpe