Peoples Geography — Reclaiming space

Creating people's geographies

Jimmy Carter: A New Chance for Peace?

Washington Post | 18 January 2007

I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book’s title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel’s status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this “green line” can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas’s rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any “interim” boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter — and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

Given these recent developments and with the Democratic Party poised to play a more important role in governing, this is a good time to clarify our party’s overall policy in the broader Middle East. Numerous options are available as Congress attempts to correlate its suggestions with White House policy, and there is little doubt that the basic proposals of the Iraq Study Group provide a good foundation on which Democrats might reach something of a consensus (recognizing that individual lawmakers could still make their own proposals on details). This party policy would provide a reasonable answer to the allegation that Democrats have no alternatives of their own to address the Iraq quagmire.

A key factor in an Iraq policy would be strong demands on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to cooperate in ending sectarian violence, prodded by a clear notice of plans for troop withdrawals. A commitment to regional cooperation, including opportunities for Iran and Syria to participate, would be beneficial in assuring doubtful Iraqis that America will no longer be the dominant outside power shaping their military, political and economic future.

Although Israel’s prime minister has criticized these facets of the Iraq Study Group’s report, the most difficult recommendation for many Democrats could be the call for substantive peace talks on the Palestinian issue. The situation in the occupied territories will be a crucial factor, and it would be helpful for both the House and Senate to send a responsible delegation to the West Bank and Gaza to observe the situation personally, to meet with key leaders and to ascertain the prospects if peace talks can be launched.

I am convinced that, with bipartisan support, this is a good opportunity for progress.

The writer was the 39th president and is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His most recent book is “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”

2 comments on “Jimmy Carter: A New Chance for Peace?

  1. frecklescassie
    19 January, 2007

    When do the palestinians stop bombing and targetting civilian Israelis? When do they agree they want a small state and not all of Israel too?

    Cassie

  2. peoplesgeography
    19 January, 2007

    Hi Cassie,

    Thanks for your comment.

    There is no comparison between the military might of the Israeli war machine and the mostly ineffective, home-made Qassam and Katyusha rockets falling mostly in fields in northern Israel. It is the beleaguered Palestinians whose civilians have been targeted overwhelmingly, in contrast to the kidnapping of Israeli combatants.

    Have a look around the site and read the various articles from critical Israelis themselves. I also invite you to read the links within the Israel, Palestine and Palestine Peace categories on the blogroll, and am happy to engage with you.

    I do not condone violence by any party for whatever reason. Many times the Palestinians have implicitly accepted Israel and now have 14% of historic Palestine — how much smaller can it get? Yet the Israeli establishment continues to build illegal settlements and an illegal apartheid wall that cuts into Palestinian land by a further 10%, not to mention the Swiss cheese phenomenon of the territorially discontiguous bantustans the Palestinians are left with. It is the Likudniks in Israel who need to give up the racist supremacist idea of a greater Eretz Israel, and to stop terrorising and killing the Palestinians and imprisoning them in the thousands, many children and many in “administrative detention” illegally without charge.

    Once Israel is a genuine partner for peace and recognizes the Palestinians, there will no longer be a need for the resistance the Palestinians are understandably raising.

    Again, I do not condone violence — be it the suicide bomber or the state terrorism of Israel.

    There is no military solution to this asymmetric conflict — as the regional superpower, the ball is in Israel’s court to turn this thing around — if it really wants peace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Timely Reminders

"Those who crusade, not for God in themselves, but against the devil in others, never succeed in making the world better, but leave it either as it was, or sometimes perceptibly worse than what it was, before the crusade began. By thinking primarily of evil we tend, however excellent our intentions, to create occasions for evil to manifest itself."
-- Aldous Huxley

"The only war that matters is the war against the imagination. All others are subsumed by it."
-- Diane DiPrima, "Rant", from Pieces of a Song.

"It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there"
-- William Carlos Williams, "Asphodel, That Greeny Flower"


Categories

%d bloggers like this: