What do you think?
Rate this book
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
Following his #1 New York Times bestseller, Our Endangered Values, the former president, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, offers an assessment of what must be done to bring permanent peace to Israel with dignity and justice to Palestine.
President Carter, who was able to negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt, has remained deeply involved in Middle East affairs since leaving the White House. He has stayed in touch with the major players from all sides in the conflict and has made numerous trips to the Holy Land, most recently as an observer in the Palestinian elections of 2005 and 2006.
In this book, President Carter shares his intimate knowledge of the history of the Middle East and his personal experiences with the principal actors, and he addresses sensitive political issues many American officials avoid. Pulling no punches, Carter prescribes steps that must be taken for the two states to share the Holy Land without a system of apartheid or the constant fear of terrorism.
The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known, the president writes. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key UN resolutions, official American policy, and the international “road map” for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel’s official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, US government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal of a just agreement that both sides can honor.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is a challenging, provocative, and courageous book.
President Carter, who was able to negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt, has remained deeply involved in Middle East affairs since leaving the White House. He has stayed in touch with the major players from all sides in the conflict and has made numerous trips to the Holy Land, most recently as an observer in the Palestinian elections of 2005 and 2006.
In this book, President Carter shares his intimate knowledge of the history of the Middle East and his personal experiences with the principal actors, and he addresses sensitive political issues many American officials avoid. Pulling no punches, Carter prescribes steps that must be taken for the two states to share the Holy Land without a system of apartheid or the constant fear of terrorism.
The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known, the president writes. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key UN resolutions, official American policy, and the international “road map” for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel’s official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, US government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal of a just agreement that both sides can honor.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is a challenging, provocative, and courageous book.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
699 people are currently reading
7667 people want to read
About the author
Jimmy Carter
276 books640 followersLibrarian’s note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
James Earl Carter, Junior, known as Jimmy, the thirty-ninth president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, creditably established energy-conservation measures, concluded the treaties of Panama Canal in 1978, negotiated the accords of Camp David between Egypt and Israel in 1979, and won the Nobel Prize of 2002 for peace.
Ronald Wilson Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter, the incumbent, in the presidential election of 1980.
He served and received. Carter served two terms in the senate of Georgia and as the 76th governor from 1971 to 1975.
Carter created new Cabinet-level Department of education. A national policy included price decontrol and new technology. From 1977, people reduced foreign oil imports one-half to 1982. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the second round of strategic arms limitation talks (SALT). Carter sought to put a stronger emphasis on human rights in 1979. People saw his return of the zone as a major concession of influence in Latin America, and Carter came under heavy criticism.
Iranian students in 1979 took over the American embassy and held hostages, and an attempt to rescue them failed; several additional major crises, including serious fuel shortages and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, marked the final year of his tenure. Edward Moore Kennedy challenged significantly higher disapproval ratings of Carter for nomination of the Democratic Party before the election of 1980. Carter defeated Kennedy for the nomination lost the election to Ronald Wilson Reagan, a Republican.
Carter left office and with Rosalynn Smith Carter, his wife, afterward founded the nongovernmental center and organization that works to advance human rights. He traveled extensively to conduct, to observe elections, and to advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations. He, a key, also figured in the project of habitat for humanity. Carter particularly vocalized on the Palestinian conflict.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/jimmyc...
James Earl Carter, Junior, known as Jimmy, the thirty-ninth president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, creditably established energy-conservation measures, concluded the treaties of Panama Canal in 1978, negotiated the accords of Camp David between Egypt and Israel in 1979, and won the Nobel Prize of 2002 for peace.
Ronald Wilson Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter, the incumbent, in the presidential election of 1980.
He served and received. Carter served two terms in the senate of Georgia and as the 76th governor from 1971 to 1975.
Carter created new Cabinet-level Department of education. A national policy included price decontrol and new technology. From 1977, people reduced foreign oil imports one-half to 1982. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the second round of strategic arms limitation talks (SALT). Carter sought to put a stronger emphasis on human rights in 1979. People saw his return of the zone as a major concession of influence in Latin America, and Carter came under heavy criticism.
Iranian students in 1979 took over the American embassy and held hostages, and an attempt to rescue them failed; several additional major crises, including serious fuel shortages and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, marked the final year of his tenure. Edward Moore Kennedy challenged significantly higher disapproval ratings of Carter for nomination of the Democratic Party before the election of 1980. Carter defeated Kennedy for the nomination lost the election to Ronald Wilson Reagan, a Republican.
Carter left office and with Rosalynn Smith Carter, his wife, afterward founded the nongovernmental center and organization that works to advance human rights. He traveled extensively to conduct, to observe elections, and to advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations. He, a key, also figured in the project of habitat for humanity. Carter particularly vocalized on the Palestinian conflict.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/jimmyc...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 675 reviews
August 11, 2022
As might have been expected, Israeli and Jewish leaders were apoplectic at Carter for daring to criticize Israel. David Ross, who worked with Carter, had published an Op Ed in the NY Times excoriating Carter for a factual error he had made in identifying a map in the book. Fourteen members of the board of Carter’s foundation resigned in protest. So what is all the fuss about?
Jimmy Carter - image from USA TODAY
Carter has a fluid, if dry writing style. One reads him for information and analysis, not for literary inspiration. It is difficult to imagine the guy cracking a joke. There will be no whoopee cushions appearing unexpectedly under Roslynn at the dinner table. But Carter is arguably America’s greatest living statesman, a serious, religious fellow who puts his beliefs into practice by attempting to resolve international conflicts. He is a force for good in the world, and stands out when compared with the post White House activities many of the other ex-presidents. Nixon engaged almost exclusively in self-serving memoir writing. Reagan looked for the big payday giving million-dollar-a-pop speeches in Japan. 41 did some fishing and played a little golf before he teamed up with Bubba to do some concrete good. Ford dropped out of sight. I imagine 43 has maintained a low profile, spending his time clearing brush and enjoying holidays with his Saudi friends. Obama has been quiet, but has an activist organization working on important public issues and has been working on a project to help fix our gerrymandered congressional districting. Carter is the ex who has been the most engaged in the world on a global scale. He may be the only American who might have been ever been deemed a candidate for UN Secretary General. While one may agree or disagree with him on the particulars of specific international conflicts, only a maniac would contend that he is not a force for sanity in the world.
Carter offers specific information on what was agreed to when, what was said, what was understood re the various dealings between Israel, the Palestinians, and the national enemies at Israel’s borders. It is clear from his reportage that Israel does not live up to the innocent victim image it is so fond of presenting to the world. There is a common view that the Palestinians could have had over 90% of what they wanted in their negotiations with Israel if only Arafat had not been such a hard-ass. Carter offers a very detailed explanation for why that view is seriously at odds with reality. He concludes that what Israel has created, in the occupied territories, is a form of apartheid, in which the Palestinians play the role of South Africa’s blacks. It is a compelling case, particularly when Carter points out the actual significance of Israeli roads that not only divide the West Bank, but which engender cushion-space around them that Palestinians may not enter, when he points out that the pattern of Israeli construction is having the effect of chopping the West Bank up into islands of separate space, incapable of being joined into a single political entity, when he points out all the rights the Palestinians, in their own land, are denied. I’d be blowing things up too.
This view fits with what I have learned from other sources, both in books and from the journalists with whom I worked briefly a few years back. They told first hand accounts of Israeli soldiers who would taunt the local Palestinian youth and then when these people responded with tossed stones, the Israelis would slaughter them with automatic weapons. It was clear to me then that the perennial victims had taken on the attributes of their tormenters. If anything I believe Carter understates the case for the demise of moral authority in Israel. As in the USA, Israel is a nation that has come under the sway of extreme elements. Not all, or even certainly a majority of Israelis hold with the view of the extremists that all the land of the West Bank is really a part of Israel, but as long as extreme elements hold political power, and as long as they insist, despite UN condemnation and international law, on building more settlements in occupied territory, the problems there will only worsen. And it is clear that Israelis in power have every intention of absorbing large swaths of the West Bank into Israel-proper, in fact if not in law. It is no wonder that a disgusted populace rallied behind a murderous Hamas.
Jimmy Carter may not be the most dynamic writer, but he is very effective at presenting the information he has, and in offering his very informed take. If you are at all interested in Middle-East politics, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid is a must-read.
=============================EXTRA STUFF
July 31, 2018 - NY Times - the article points out the continuation of troubling extremist leadership in Israel. They’re ‘Blood Brothers’ With Israel’s Jews. But Druse Call New Law a Betrayal. It is eminently clear that the problems Jimmy Carter wrote about in 2006, are as relevant and dark today as they were then.
September 20, 2018 - NY Times - How Israel Undermined Washington and Stalled the Dream of Palestinian Statehood - by Seth Anziska
Jimmy Carter - image from USA TODAY
Carter has a fluid, if dry writing style. One reads him for information and analysis, not for literary inspiration. It is difficult to imagine the guy cracking a joke. There will be no whoopee cushions appearing unexpectedly under Roslynn at the dinner table. But Carter is arguably America’s greatest living statesman, a serious, religious fellow who puts his beliefs into practice by attempting to resolve international conflicts. He is a force for good in the world, and stands out when compared with the post White House activities many of the other ex-presidents. Nixon engaged almost exclusively in self-serving memoir writing. Reagan looked for the big payday giving million-dollar-a-pop speeches in Japan. 41 did some fishing and played a little golf before he teamed up with Bubba to do some concrete good. Ford dropped out of sight. I imagine 43 has maintained a low profile, spending his time clearing brush and enjoying holidays with his Saudi friends. Obama has been quiet, but has an activist organization working on important public issues and has been working on a project to help fix our gerrymandered congressional districting. Carter is the ex who has been the most engaged in the world on a global scale. He may be the only American who might have been ever been deemed a candidate for UN Secretary General. While one may agree or disagree with him on the particulars of specific international conflicts, only a maniac would contend that he is not a force for sanity in the world.
Carter offers specific information on what was agreed to when, what was said, what was understood re the various dealings between Israel, the Palestinians, and the national enemies at Israel’s borders. It is clear from his reportage that Israel does not live up to the innocent victim image it is so fond of presenting to the world. There is a common view that the Palestinians could have had over 90% of what they wanted in their negotiations with Israel if only Arafat had not been such a hard-ass. Carter offers a very detailed explanation for why that view is seriously at odds with reality. He concludes that what Israel has created, in the occupied territories, is a form of apartheid, in which the Palestinians play the role of South Africa’s blacks. It is a compelling case, particularly when Carter points out the actual significance of Israeli roads that not only divide the West Bank, but which engender cushion-space around them that Palestinians may not enter, when he points out that the pattern of Israeli construction is having the effect of chopping the West Bank up into islands of separate space, incapable of being joined into a single political entity, when he points out all the rights the Palestinians, in their own land, are denied. I’d be blowing things up too.
This view fits with what I have learned from other sources, both in books and from the journalists with whom I worked briefly a few years back. They told first hand accounts of Israeli soldiers who would taunt the local Palestinian youth and then when these people responded with tossed stones, the Israelis would slaughter them with automatic weapons. It was clear to me then that the perennial victims had taken on the attributes of their tormenters. If anything I believe Carter understates the case for the demise of moral authority in Israel. As in the USA, Israel is a nation that has come under the sway of extreme elements. Not all, or even certainly a majority of Israelis hold with the view of the extremists that all the land of the West Bank is really a part of Israel, but as long as extreme elements hold political power, and as long as they insist, despite UN condemnation and international law, on building more settlements in occupied territory, the problems there will only worsen. And it is clear that Israelis in power have every intention of absorbing large swaths of the West Bank into Israel-proper, in fact if not in law. It is no wonder that a disgusted populace rallied behind a murderous Hamas.
Jimmy Carter may not be the most dynamic writer, but he is very effective at presenting the information he has, and in offering his very informed take. If you are at all interested in Middle-East politics, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid is a must-read.
=============================EXTRA STUFF
July 31, 2018 - NY Times - the article points out the continuation of troubling extremist leadership in Israel. They’re ‘Blood Brothers’ With Israel’s Jews. But Druse Call New Law a Betrayal. It is eminently clear that the problems Jimmy Carter wrote about in 2006, are as relevant and dark today as they were then.
September 20, 2018 - NY Times - How Israel Undermined Washington and Stalled the Dream of Palestinian Statehood - by Seth Anziska
March 23, 2008
When I told my parents I was going to do solidarity work in Palestine, they - in the midst of yelling and tears - asked me why. I said that I wanted to be able to come back and talk about what I had seen. My father's retort was something along the lines of "What about Jimmy Carter's book? What could you possibly say that a Nobel prize winning well respected ex-president couldn't?"
A year after coming home, I finally read it. There's very little that Carter and I have to say that's the same, as we're coming from very different places. Nonetheless, I was much more impressed than I expected to be. Though my critiques of the occupation would be more bottom-up and scathing, Carter still goes *much* further than any mainstream politician in the US has in years. Due to his fame, respect, and ultimately whiteness and Christianity, this book has quickly become the 101 text on the Israel/Palestine/Middle East conflict. As mainstream 101 texts go, it is surprisingly good.
In large part, the book details various peace talks and the main players in them, a very top-down and at times impersonal view of the conflict. Carter repeatedly chastises both Israeli and Palestinian leaders for their refusal to compromise, but certainly criticizes the Israeli leaders more. He notes that many of the milestones Palestinians have to meet for negotiations to continue are impossible and unfair. For example, the idea that all suicide bombings must be stopped is impossible when 1) Israel is imprisoning many of Palestine's most influential politicians, 2) Israel's much larger military can't even do that and 3) the root cause of the conflict isn't being discussed. Carter repeatedly pegs the occupation (albeit the one beginning in 1967, not the one in 1948) as the source of the conflict and even refers to Israel as a colonial power. He notes that Arafat could not realistically accept any of the offers made to him by Israel, including the "generous offer," because Israel insisted on maintaining control of all borders, air space, ocean access, and elctromagnetic frequencies (radio, TV, etc).
It's not until the last chapter that Carter really talks about the Wall and other ways that Palestinian lives are daily affected by the occupation. It's a strong ending, though it not being discussed earlier might make it difficult for some people to understand the stances Palestinian leaders took in negotiations.
All in all, I was pleasantly surprised. It's not by any means the first book I would recommend to someone already politicized looking to learn about the occupation, but it is much more accessible to someone like my liberal yet Zionist father.
A year after coming home, I finally read it. There's very little that Carter and I have to say that's the same, as we're coming from very different places. Nonetheless, I was much more impressed than I expected to be. Though my critiques of the occupation would be more bottom-up and scathing, Carter still goes *much* further than any mainstream politician in the US has in years. Due to his fame, respect, and ultimately whiteness and Christianity, this book has quickly become the 101 text on the Israel/Palestine/Middle East conflict. As mainstream 101 texts go, it is surprisingly good.
In large part, the book details various peace talks and the main players in them, a very top-down and at times impersonal view of the conflict. Carter repeatedly chastises both Israeli and Palestinian leaders for their refusal to compromise, but certainly criticizes the Israeli leaders more. He notes that many of the milestones Palestinians have to meet for negotiations to continue are impossible and unfair. For example, the idea that all suicide bombings must be stopped is impossible when 1) Israel is imprisoning many of Palestine's most influential politicians, 2) Israel's much larger military can't even do that and 3) the root cause of the conflict isn't being discussed. Carter repeatedly pegs the occupation (albeit the one beginning in 1967, not the one in 1948) as the source of the conflict and even refers to Israel as a colonial power. He notes that Arafat could not realistically accept any of the offers made to him by Israel, including the "generous offer," because Israel insisted on maintaining control of all borders, air space, ocean access, and elctromagnetic frequencies (radio, TV, etc).
It's not until the last chapter that Carter really talks about the Wall and other ways that Palestinian lives are daily affected by the occupation. It's a strong ending, though it not being discussed earlier might make it difficult for some people to understand the stances Palestinian leaders took in negotiations.
All in all, I was pleasantly surprised. It's not by any means the first book I would recommend to someone already politicized looking to learn about the occupation, but it is much more accessible to someone like my liberal yet Zionist father.
April 22, 2018
I felt this was an obviously truthful book, perhaps generating more controversy than it should have by using "apartheid" in the title. Carter has been in the Middle East so often (plus his inside knowledge from his years as President) that to think that he doesn't understand what is happening there is delusional. The last part of the book describes the Wall that Israel has constructed, which keeps the Palestinians away from Israeli (illegal) settlements, and makes it difficult for them to even get around in their own shrinking territory. The material he relates is infuriating and heartbreaking to read. Carter is truly a good person.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous review: Oblomov
Next review: Pafko at the Wall the opening section of Underworld
More recent review: Clockwork Orange
Previous library review: Yellow Wind Grossman
Next library review: India After Gandhi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous review: Oblomov
Next review: Pafko at the Wall the opening section of Underworld
More recent review: Clockwork Orange
Previous library review: Yellow Wind Grossman
Next library review: India After Gandhi
September 1, 2023
immy Carter is a despicable anti-Semite who holds a grudge against the Jewish people who he blames for his losing the 1980 Presidential
Election to Ronald Reagan.
Jimmy Carter is also a pathetic and immoral opportunist who has jumped on the 'hate Israel' bandwagon to get his wizened face back into the limelight.
Is Carter trying to remain in the limelight, at the expense of
Israel's people? And at the expense of peace , justice, and human rights (YES, folks, Israeli Jews have human rights too , it so happens)!
I intend, in this review, to answer some of Carter's repulsive charges against Israel and to show them up as the lies and blood libels which they are.
There are those who will challenge my characterization of Carter as an anti-Semite.
But here is proof that he is.
Singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion of any other Middle East country is anti-Semitic.
Especially coming from a man who connived to topple the enlightened and benevolent reign of Shah Reza Pahlavi, the two thousand year old
Persian Imperial house that gave full equality to women unlike, any other Islamic country at the time, other than perhaps Turkey.
He bares much blame for the repressive, cruel and genocidal Islamic
Fundamentalist regime of the diabolical Ayatollah Khomeini and his evil acolyte Mahmoud 'Haman' Ahmadinejad.
Comparing Israel and her leaders to the Nazis, as Carter does, is anti-semitic!
Anti-semitism is when Israel is held to a different standard than any other country in the world- as Carter does!
Anti-Semitism is when Israel is subjected to a unique double standard of judgement and criticism for it's actions in defending itself against threats to it's existance and population, as Carter does.
As is evident in the title of the book, Carter accuses Israel of being an Apartheid State. This is a vicious blood libel.
Almost 2 million people living in Israel are not Jews.
No laws on statute books prescribing living areas or movements.
Unlike under South African Aparthied laws there is no Israeli ideology, policy or plan to segregate mistreat or persecute the Arab population.
In Israel the State owns 93% of the land, which is leased to all citizens regardless of race. The remaining 7% can be bought by all
Israeli citizens.
There is no official seperate schoolig in Israel;people choose schools for their religious, linguistic or cultural background.
Non-Jews can become citizens if they comply with necessary imigration requirements as anywhere in the world.
Non-Jews can serve in the army as volunteers.
Israeli Arabs are full citizens, enjoy full political rights, can vote and stand for election and political association- hardly
Apartheid, Carter!
As regards the much maligned settlers, has Carter ever visited these communities he so maligns, I have!
They are beautiful and peaceful family orineted communities, half of them children, who are simply exercising the right to live in their ancient homeland. What is racist is the determination of the Arabs and their leftist supporters to get them off the land. since Biblical Times, Jews have lived in the West Bank and Gaza until forced to flee in 1948.
Jews have a biblical, historical and legal right to settle in the West Bank.
Under international law, territories are considered "occupied" only when taken in an act of agression.
These disputed territories were tkane by Israel ina defensive war against
Arab agression.
There are no signed agreements between Israel and the Arabs regarding buliding/expanding settlements.
Predictably Carter atacks the Security Fence built to keep Arab terrorists from getting into Israel and killing Jewish men, women and children.
It is to protect the lives of Israel's people, it is not racist as
Carter charges. It is only temporary and can be removed at any time when terrorist attacks end.
The international law, which Carter continually evokes to villify
Israel, does NOT ban expropriation of land in disputed territory completely. It bans only "extensive destruction and and appropriation of property not justified by millitary necesity.
The route of the fence is defined by security and topographical needs.
The security fence is NOT a wall (as reffered to by Israel-haters as the Apartheid Wall)
Only 5% of it's current length is concrete, near the most vulnerable and threatened Israeli areas.
The fence contains agricultural gates to enable farmers to continue cultivating their lands. Of course Carter does not mention this or any other truths inconvenient to his slander against Israel.
Carter calls for the return of the so-called 'refugees' as a way of destroying Israel and anihilating her people.
Some facts those who read Carter's propaganda pamphlet should remember:
In 1948 the Arabs were encouraged to leave Israel by their leaders, who promised to purge the land of Jews.
About 630 000 Arab refugees left Israel in 1948.
About 800 000 Jews fled Arab lands, where they had lived for centuries, with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. They were absorbed by Israel.
Arab refugees were intentionally not absorbed into Arab lands to which they fled so as tpo breed terrorism and push for the so- called "right of return" pushed by anti-Israeli racists like Jimmy
Carter.
The refugge problem is not soley between Israel and the 'Palestinian' Arabs but between Israel and the Arab States that attacked her in 1948.
Palestinian refugees have no legal right of return to Israel under the general international conventions, nor under major UN resolutions, nor under elevant agreements between parties.
To call for the 'return of "refugees"' as Carter does, is illegal.
Carter even implicitly defends suicide bombings.
Unlike what Carter declares, suicide bombings, it so happens, are not desperate acts.
Thos carrying them out are middle class, educated and brainwashed by evil fanatics.
These suicide bombers (or more correctly homicide bombers) fell themselves to be the ultimate heroic expressions of their communities and the political organizations which have primed them.
They thrive because of the specific political culture that fosters it, and believe in Paradise waiting for them after death.
Carter, also of course condemmns the targeted assasinations of evil mass-murdering terrorists like Ahmed Yassin, Abdulaziz Rantisi and
Mohammed Deif.
Hamas has declared a war of genocide against Israel and all of her
Jews down to the last child. All Hamas leaders are involved in and/or planning terrorist attacks and are therefore combatants.
Millitary and political wings of the terrorist groups Hamas, the
Popular Resistance Committees, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda overlap with no distinction.
The aim of Hamas et al is the same as the Nazis, the genocide of
Jews.
Therefore Israel's policy of targeting Hamas leaders for assassination is legal, Carter!
This book by Carter is a racist blood libel against the Israeli people and full of lies.
If you want truth and objectivity stay far away from it.
Election to Ronald Reagan.
Jimmy Carter is also a pathetic and immoral opportunist who has jumped on the 'hate Israel' bandwagon to get his wizened face back into the limelight.
Is Carter trying to remain in the limelight, at the expense of
Israel's people? And at the expense of peace , justice, and human rights (YES, folks, Israeli Jews have human rights too , it so happens)!
I intend, in this review, to answer some of Carter's repulsive charges against Israel and to show them up as the lies and blood libels which they are.
There are those who will challenge my characterization of Carter as an anti-Semite.
But here is proof that he is.
Singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion of any other Middle East country is anti-Semitic.
Especially coming from a man who connived to topple the enlightened and benevolent reign of Shah Reza Pahlavi, the two thousand year old
Persian Imperial house that gave full equality to women unlike, any other Islamic country at the time, other than perhaps Turkey.
He bares much blame for the repressive, cruel and genocidal Islamic
Fundamentalist regime of the diabolical Ayatollah Khomeini and his evil acolyte Mahmoud 'Haman' Ahmadinejad.
Comparing Israel and her leaders to the Nazis, as Carter does, is anti-semitic!
Anti-semitism is when Israel is held to a different standard than any other country in the world- as Carter does!
Anti-Semitism is when Israel is subjected to a unique double standard of judgement and criticism for it's actions in defending itself against threats to it's existance and population, as Carter does.
As is evident in the title of the book, Carter accuses Israel of being an Apartheid State. This is a vicious blood libel.
Almost 2 million people living in Israel are not Jews.
No laws on statute books prescribing living areas or movements.
Unlike under South African Aparthied laws there is no Israeli ideology, policy or plan to segregate mistreat or persecute the Arab population.
In Israel the State owns 93% of the land, which is leased to all citizens regardless of race. The remaining 7% can be bought by all
Israeli citizens.
There is no official seperate schoolig in Israel;people choose schools for their religious, linguistic or cultural background.
Non-Jews can become citizens if they comply with necessary imigration requirements as anywhere in the world.
Non-Jews can serve in the army as volunteers.
Israeli Arabs are full citizens, enjoy full political rights, can vote and stand for election and political association- hardly
Apartheid, Carter!
As regards the much maligned settlers, has Carter ever visited these communities he so maligns, I have!
They are beautiful and peaceful family orineted communities, half of them children, who are simply exercising the right to live in their ancient homeland. What is racist is the determination of the Arabs and their leftist supporters to get them off the land. since Biblical Times, Jews have lived in the West Bank and Gaza until forced to flee in 1948.
Jews have a biblical, historical and legal right to settle in the West Bank.
Under international law, territories are considered "occupied" only when taken in an act of agression.
These disputed territories were tkane by Israel ina defensive war against
Arab agression.
There are no signed agreements between Israel and the Arabs regarding buliding/expanding settlements.
Predictably Carter atacks the Security Fence built to keep Arab terrorists from getting into Israel and killing Jewish men, women and children.
It is to protect the lives of Israel's people, it is not racist as
Carter charges. It is only temporary and can be removed at any time when terrorist attacks end.
The international law, which Carter continually evokes to villify
Israel, does NOT ban expropriation of land in disputed territory completely. It bans only "extensive destruction and and appropriation of property not justified by millitary necesity.
The route of the fence is defined by security and topographical needs.
The security fence is NOT a wall (as reffered to by Israel-haters as the Apartheid Wall)
Only 5% of it's current length is concrete, near the most vulnerable and threatened Israeli areas.
The fence contains agricultural gates to enable farmers to continue cultivating their lands. Of course Carter does not mention this or any other truths inconvenient to his slander against Israel.
Carter calls for the return of the so-called 'refugees' as a way of destroying Israel and anihilating her people.
Some facts those who read Carter's propaganda pamphlet should remember:
In 1948 the Arabs were encouraged to leave Israel by their leaders, who promised to purge the land of Jews.
About 630 000 Arab refugees left Israel in 1948.
About 800 000 Jews fled Arab lands, where they had lived for centuries, with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. They were absorbed by Israel.
Arab refugees were intentionally not absorbed into Arab lands to which they fled so as tpo breed terrorism and push for the so- called "right of return" pushed by anti-Israeli racists like Jimmy
Carter.
The refugge problem is not soley between Israel and the 'Palestinian' Arabs but between Israel and the Arab States that attacked her in 1948.
Palestinian refugees have no legal right of return to Israel under the general international conventions, nor under major UN resolutions, nor under elevant agreements between parties.
To call for the 'return of "refugees"' as Carter does, is illegal.
Carter even implicitly defends suicide bombings.
Unlike what Carter declares, suicide bombings, it so happens, are not desperate acts.
Thos carrying them out are middle class, educated and brainwashed by evil fanatics.
These suicide bombers (or more correctly homicide bombers) fell themselves to be the ultimate heroic expressions of their communities and the political organizations which have primed them.
They thrive because of the specific political culture that fosters it, and believe in Paradise waiting for them after death.
Carter, also of course condemmns the targeted assasinations of evil mass-murdering terrorists like Ahmed Yassin, Abdulaziz Rantisi and
Mohammed Deif.
Hamas has declared a war of genocide against Israel and all of her
Jews down to the last child. All Hamas leaders are involved in and/or planning terrorist attacks and are therefore combatants.
Millitary and political wings of the terrorist groups Hamas, the
Popular Resistance Committees, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda overlap with no distinction.
The aim of Hamas et al is the same as the Nazis, the genocide of
Jews.
Therefore Israel's policy of targeting Hamas leaders for assassination is legal, Carter!
This book by Carter is a racist blood libel against the Israeli people and full of lies.
If you want truth and objectivity stay far away from it.
December 18, 2016
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter is a book I bought new ten years ago. Yes, it is that old. The middle east has more issues now but this book is about the Arab/Israeli situation then. The book starts out giving a history of the region going back thousands of years and how the region has changed leadership. President Carter then speaks personally about his trips to the middle east and what he sees, how he feels, what is said, who he talks with, etc. He is open and honest and shows the reader what he is up against politically and socially. It is a good lesson on both. Throughout the book, his love for peace and prosperity for both sides comes through. Not for one side over the other. I am not sure how the negative reviews found these things, I looked. I found none of this. Jimmy Carter presented himself as a President as someone that the USA could be proud of and he continues to do so. He is sweet and tenderhearted, working for the underdog, for peace, prosperity world wide, and has since he has left office. He didn't have to, he could just be sitting around and golfing but he is driven to do good for mankind and this book's pages express this. He is not the best writer but what he does write tells this. He let's his feels show honestly. He is a man that continues to this day, even with cancer, working for others. That is why I chose to read this book on his birthday, after all these years, because he may not be here much longer, and I wanted my review up to show that I did read it and I agree. Peace, not apartheid. Thank you Mr President for being a role model for all.
November 12, 2011
Mr. Carter is accused of anti-Semitism? Seriously? That's the opposite of the impression I had when reading his book and especially in the first 3 chapters.
I highly appreciate what he said about Gaza and mistreatments of the Palestinians especially in the last 5 years when the so-called "peace process" stopped.
I thought that he should express a direct blame to the brutal Israeli policies more than he did. I also think the US policies in recent years are contributing to eliminate any REAL peace attempts and that Mr. Carter should have said more about that.
After all these years he still sounds like a polite Politian.
Regardless, I'm so glad he wrote this book. It seems like he was filling a gap in the topic especially for Westerners. To us, Arabs, there is much more in it than this simplified analysis. There is pain and injustice.
My peace be upon you all, not APARTHEID!
I highly appreciate what he said about Gaza and mistreatments of the Palestinians especially in the last 5 years when the so-called "peace process" stopped.
I thought that he should express a direct blame to the brutal Israeli policies more than he did. I also think the US policies in recent years are contributing to eliminate any REAL peace attempts and that Mr. Carter should have said more about that.
After all these years he still sounds like a polite Politian.
Regardless, I'm so glad he wrote this book. It seems like he was filling a gap in the topic especially for Westerners. To us, Arabs, there is much more in it than this simplified analysis. There is pain and injustice.
My peace be upon you all, not APARTHEID!
May 17, 2013
Book Circle Reads 16
Rating: 3.5* of five
The Publisher Says: Following his #1 New York Times bestseller, Our Endangered Values, the former president, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, offers an assessment of what must be done to bring permanent peace to Israel with dignity and justice to Palestine. President Carter, who was able to negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt, has remained deeply involved in Middle East affairs since leaving the White House. He has stayed in touch with the major players from all sides in the conflict and has made numerous trips to the Holy Land, most recently as an observer in the Palestinian elections of 2005 and 2006.
In this book President Carter shares his intimate knowledge of the history of the Middle East and his personal experiences with the principal actors, and he addresses sensitive political issues many American officials avoid. Pulling no punches, Carter prescribes steps that must be taken for the two states to share the Holy Land without a system of apartheid or the constant fear of terrorism.
The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known, the president writes. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy, and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, U.S. government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal of a just agreement that both sides can honor.
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a challenging, provocative, and courageous book.
My Review: I do not have a dog in this fight. I'm not Jewish, I'm not Palestinian, and I'm not Christian so this isn't homeland or holy land to me.
But I'm a human being, and a very committed secular humanist. Israel's right to exist should be inarguable. The Palestinian homeland should be self-governing. But NEITHER should be run by gawd, since such an entity doesn't exist, and the rule books that the religions here in conflict use are both so revolting and reprehensible.
President Carter is a wise man, and his book is packed with commonsensical compromises. For those reasons alone, there is no chance whatsoever that anyone in power will listen to him. Wisdom is the garlic to the vampires of politics, and common sense can't get any traction where gawd is in the debate.
One side or the other must lose. There is no compromise that will make both sides happy enough to stop killing each other in gawd's name. So the inevitable must occur: Victory for one, defeat for the other, and many more generations of blood spilled over a scrap of desert with little to recommend it.
This is what religion does, people: It makes hate roil the never-calm waters of the human soul. Its purpose is to divide, separate, blame, vilify. It is very very good at those things. The reason is that it was created by humankind in humankind's own worst image. There is nothing "divine" about it...just humans bein' themselves, murdering apes.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Rating: 3.5* of five
The Publisher Says: Following his #1 New York Times bestseller, Our Endangered Values, the former president, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, offers an assessment of what must be done to bring permanent peace to Israel with dignity and justice to Palestine. President Carter, who was able to negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt, has remained deeply involved in Middle East affairs since leaving the White House. He has stayed in touch with the major players from all sides in the conflict and has made numerous trips to the Holy Land, most recently as an observer in the Palestinian elections of 2005 and 2006.
In this book President Carter shares his intimate knowledge of the history of the Middle East and his personal experiences with the principal actors, and he addresses sensitive political issues many American officials avoid. Pulling no punches, Carter prescribes steps that must be taken for the two states to share the Holy Land without a system of apartheid or the constant fear of terrorism.
The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known, the president writes. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy, and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, U.S. government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal of a just agreement that both sides can honor.
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a challenging, provocative, and courageous book.
My Review: I do not have a dog in this fight. I'm not Jewish, I'm not Palestinian, and I'm not Christian so this isn't homeland or holy land to me.
But I'm a human being, and a very committed secular humanist. Israel's right to exist should be inarguable. The Palestinian homeland should be self-governing. But NEITHER should be run by gawd, since such an entity doesn't exist, and the rule books that the religions here in conflict use are both so revolting and reprehensible.
President Carter is a wise man, and his book is packed with commonsensical compromises. For those reasons alone, there is no chance whatsoever that anyone in power will listen to him. Wisdom is the garlic to the vampires of politics, and common sense can't get any traction where gawd is in the debate.
One side or the other must lose. There is no compromise that will make both sides happy enough to stop killing each other in gawd's name. So the inevitable must occur: Victory for one, defeat for the other, and many more generations of blood spilled over a scrap of desert with little to recommend it.
This is what religion does, people: It makes hate roil the never-calm waters of the human soul. Its purpose is to divide, separate, blame, vilify. It is very very good at those things. The reason is that it was created by humankind in humankind's own worst image. There is nothing "divine" about it...just humans bein' themselves, murdering apes.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
November 23, 2017
This book is dead honest. It's a must read if you are interested in the Palestinian quest for freedom. It's not a road map nor is it a solution but it's consideration of what is sustainable. The Palestinian people deserve to be free to live a life free of segregation and oppression and this book highlights in simple terms what it means to replace an increasing moral decay, brought by decades of Zionist ideology and brainwash, with a peace. Co-existence in which ever form IS possible but it is only possible when the Zionist apartheid regime is replaced with a government that promotes a radical change in the way Israeli view or should view their brothers and sisters the Palestinians. And that would be the first small step in a giant leap towards a reconciliation that certainly doesn't need any more water under the bridge.
Jimmy Carter is the only honourable president the USA has ever had. He's not the best writer but his heart is in the right place. He has shared his thoughts and views and facts about one of the most pressing political and humanitarian issues of our time, the freedom for the Palestinians and the end of the apartheid in Israel.
Jimmy Carter is the only honourable president the USA has ever had. He's not the best writer but his heart is in the right place. He has shared his thoughts and views and facts about one of the most pressing political and humanitarian issues of our time, the freedom for the Palestinians and the end of the apartheid in Israel.
October 20, 2024
This would appear on first glance to be a strong statement from a US President, particularly given the use of apartheid in the title, but nuance is critical and with the Palestine/Israel situation nuance is everything.
Carter portrays himself to be at the forefront of senior US leadership when it comes to recognizing the issues at hand yet at the very beginning in the timeline of events, he completely glosses over any reference to the word or specific event of the "Nakba" (Catastrophe in English) - the word Palestinians use for their ethnic cleansing upon the formation of the State of Israel in 1948. He mentions they fled as is the standard Zionist line but we have no real context as to why the Palestinians need to be occupied other than security and terrorism - never mind their right to resist the occupation and theft of their land - this is not specifically the focus. There's a critical difference between "terrorist" and "resistance fighter". Also the idea of "state terrorism" seems to not be relevant in the context of the continuous terrorism of occupation.
In fact, there's not much mention of the occupation directly until the end of the book. Confronting the roots of the colonial project, or further even definining it properly are the keys to solving it. The roots are ugly, there was backing by patron states from the start and the power disparity has never approached equality - even before 1948. He never addresses issues in the ideology of Zionism itself which insists upon the whole land belonging to an elevated ethnic group. Admitting this would change the entire outlook on the intentions of the Zionists which has played out exactly as an ethno-state might since this book's publication in 2006. Further settlements in the West Bank, a siege on Gaza, new Knesset laws establishing the primacy of Jews and ever greater violence, in fact the worst period of violence (especially when adding in the present war) that the land has seen in the past 100 years has shown that nothing of substance has ever been addressed.
Actions more than words and a clear understanding of the Palestinian grievances is critical to understanding history and to move forward towards peace if it's even possible in the near future. All Camp David did was neutralize Egypt as a potential support to the Palestinian issue. All Oslo did was allow Israel to kick the can down the road while they continued in their settlement rush. All the Jordan peace arrangement provided was neutralization on Palestine's east border. All that has been accomplished are the conditions for further Israeli expansion and genocide. Actions since have shown all this to be true.
With all of this in consideration, books like this are potentially dangerous as a sly cover to the truth. Palestinians are presented as hopeless negotiating partners when they refuse peace deals that any sane person would never accept - deals for peace at the cost of permanent occupation and a rejection of autonomy in selecting leaders and policies. On the other hand the true intentions of the Israelis - by continuing expansion of settlements and occupation of Palestinians to allow it to happen - is never looked at directly despite the facts of history. There is no reason for this to stop. Zionist ideology believes the entire land to be theirs and until that fact is faced we are going to see the continuation of what is happening in front of us - the erasue of Palestinians from the land by whatever means necessary, genocide, domicide, cultural genocide, and the continued re-writing and denial of Palestinian history.
I want to believe Carter had good intentions and perhaps he did. The cynic in me says that he knew exactly what was happening, that the agreements would provide the Palestinians nothing of substance and that Carter's actions were to show that the US was putting forth a serious effort at establishing peace. It was political theater and nothing more. If I'm wrong I'd like to be shown how any of the actions described in the book - or the book itself - have changed things for the better. Maybe it's inspired someone to read further, then great. But I would never recommend this book as a starting point for clear understanding.
Carter portrays himself to be at the forefront of senior US leadership when it comes to recognizing the issues at hand yet at the very beginning in the timeline of events, he completely glosses over any reference to the word or specific event of the "Nakba" (Catastrophe in English) - the word Palestinians use for their ethnic cleansing upon the formation of the State of Israel in 1948. He mentions they fled as is the standard Zionist line but we have no real context as to why the Palestinians need to be occupied other than security and terrorism - never mind their right to resist the occupation and theft of their land - this is not specifically the focus. There's a critical difference between "terrorist" and "resistance fighter". Also the idea of "state terrorism" seems to not be relevant in the context of the continuous terrorism of occupation.
In fact, there's not much mention of the occupation directly until the end of the book. Confronting the roots of the colonial project, or further even definining it properly are the keys to solving it. The roots are ugly, there was backing by patron states from the start and the power disparity has never approached equality - even before 1948. He never addresses issues in the ideology of Zionism itself which insists upon the whole land belonging to an elevated ethnic group. Admitting this would change the entire outlook on the intentions of the Zionists which has played out exactly as an ethno-state might since this book's publication in 2006. Further settlements in the West Bank, a siege on Gaza, new Knesset laws establishing the primacy of Jews and ever greater violence, in fact the worst period of violence (especially when adding in the present war) that the land has seen in the past 100 years has shown that nothing of substance has ever been addressed.
Actions more than words and a clear understanding of the Palestinian grievances is critical to understanding history and to move forward towards peace if it's even possible in the near future. All Camp David did was neutralize Egypt as a potential support to the Palestinian issue. All Oslo did was allow Israel to kick the can down the road while they continued in their settlement rush. All the Jordan peace arrangement provided was neutralization on Palestine's east border. All that has been accomplished are the conditions for further Israeli expansion and genocide. Actions since have shown all this to be true.
With all of this in consideration, books like this are potentially dangerous as a sly cover to the truth. Palestinians are presented as hopeless negotiating partners when they refuse peace deals that any sane person would never accept - deals for peace at the cost of permanent occupation and a rejection of autonomy in selecting leaders and policies. On the other hand the true intentions of the Israelis - by continuing expansion of settlements and occupation of Palestinians to allow it to happen - is never looked at directly despite the facts of history. There is no reason for this to stop. Zionist ideology believes the entire land to be theirs and until that fact is faced we are going to see the continuation of what is happening in front of us - the erasue of Palestinians from the land by whatever means necessary, genocide, domicide, cultural genocide, and the continued re-writing and denial of Palestinian history.
I want to believe Carter had good intentions and perhaps he did. The cynic in me says that he knew exactly what was happening, that the agreements would provide the Palestinians nothing of substance and that Carter's actions were to show that the US was putting forth a serious effort at establishing peace. It was political theater and nothing more. If I'm wrong I'd like to be shown how any of the actions described in the book - or the book itself - have changed things for the better. Maybe it's inspired someone to read further, then great. But I would never recommend this book as a starting point for clear understanding.
October 21, 2022
التقييمات على الكتب من النوع ده بتتقدر بحجم الاستفادة من المعلومات-اللي كانت نوعا ما جيده هنا- وترتيب المعلومات بشكل سلس والربط ما بين الأحداث والشواهد واللى كانت أقل إلى حد ما في الكتاب.
February 14, 2011
The first political book I ever read. I learned a little more about the region and the charts that were included were really helpful. I read a lot of negative reviews for this book, but decided to read it anyway. Most reviewers, I have noticed, generally give a negative review on something (books, movies, music, etc.) and people that actually read, watch or listen, find them enjoyable. I have stopped listening to reviews and instead decided to gain my own perspective of the material. I am glad that this book was one that I decided to gain my own opinion of. It was a good read.
May 1, 2025
A Rare Voice of Courage
This book is notable for being written by Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States of America. A name with that type of cachet going against the grain by bringing attention to the plight of the Palestinians was a significantly positive development in a world where most American politicians uncritically parrot the Israeli point of view due to being bankrolled by wealthy Zionist donors such as Sheldon (and now his widow Miriam) Adelson, Haim Saban, Paul Singer, and so forth.
Carter's analysis, despite its good intentions, suffers from fundamentally incorrect premises resulting in flaws that will mislead the great mass of readers.
The Illegitimacy of the United Nations
He regards the United Nations General Assembly adoption of UNSCOP's partition suggestion (Resolution 181) as the right in which Israel claims allowed its birth, cloaking it in a veneer of superficial legality. No such right exists. The UN had no more authority to divide Palestine against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants in 1947 any more than it has today to arbitrarily divide the territory of the United States.
UNSCOP's partition plan suggestion was of course wildly biased in favor of the Jews, setting out for them 55% of Palestine's territory despite Jews being only a third of the population - and a vast majority of these being recent immigrants in the last 30 years during the British Mandate period beginning in 1917, brought in over the repeated protests of the majority Arab residents. Also, despite decades of intense purchasing activity for Jewish colonization, the Jews only owned 6% of Palestine's land. And even in the territory allotted to Jews by the plan, Arabs would have comprised somewhere between 40 to 50 percent of the population, and would have easily dwarfed the numbers of Jews soon due to higher birth rates, thus setting in motion theappallingly unjust monstrous crime of "compulsory transfer" (the Zionist euphemism for ethnic cleansing).
In addition, the shady backchannel diplomatic pressure brought to bear by the world Jewish community on many nations in order to vote in favor of Resolution 181, (which narrowly passed) in the first place is well known. An example of this is "Banana King" Samuel Zemurray (born Schmuel Zmurri), head of United Fruit Company, the largest fruit conglomerate in the world, leveraging his vast influence on the governments of Central and South America.
The Two State Delusion
Carter's thrust is that the remaining Palestinian territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War and occupied ever since is the chief obstacle in negotiating a "Two State Solution." Since ever increasing Jewish encroachment via illegal settlements in the West Bank is leading to a "One State" reality in which a huge number of Palestinians are officially second class citizens without the right to vote, this will lead to the apartheid in the book's title, causing a (further) collapse of Israel's international legitimacy and thus an end to the dream of a Jewish state in the Holy Land.
I won't digress on how the apartheid accusation is charitable. For whatever crimes the white South African regime was supposedly guilty of, they never attacked the black Bantustans with anything remotely like the destructive power Israel flamboyantly visits on Gaza every so often.
But the Two State Solution concept is worth elaborating on, because the Jews never, even for a minute, wanted any such thing, dating back to the earliest conception of Zionism. Anyone can Google "1919 Zionist territorial claims" and see for themselves the alarming maps submitted at the Paris Peace Conference by the World Zionist Organization with borders of a proposed Jewish State extending south all the way to El Arish in Egypt, east of the Jordan River to Amman, and north to Sidon in Lebanon (Theodor Herzl himself seemed to suggest that the Jewish State's frontiers would extend from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia/Iraq). Mind you, this proposal was coming from the "respectable mainstream" Zionist leadership embodied by figures like Dr. Chaim Weizmann. The "Revisionist" branch of extremist Zionists led by Vladimir Jabotinsky considered the Jordan River as merely marking the middle of the forthcoming Jewish State (Google: Irgun logo).
The Zionist program was to flood Palestine with a deluge of Jewish immigrants until they outnumbered the natives, after which a Jewish government would arise automatically. Any idea of "dividing" Eretz Yisrael (the biblical Land of Israel) was unthinkable, and it was only adopted much later as a pragmatic jumping off point in which the Zionists could plot in a position of safety and comfort until they considered the time ripe to conquer the rest of the region for Jews. In fact, a continued justification by Jewish territorial maximalists for holding on to the West Bank is that the entirety of the Holy Land is sacred soil, and continuing to settle Jews there to the detriment of the non-Jews is not one whit any more immoral than the the ethnic cleansing that founded Israel proper. To them, if the latter is acceptable (and virtually 100% of the international Jewish community thinks it is, often basing this belief on hoary long-disproven canards about mighty Arab armies ganging up on the poor helpless Jews), why not the former? Because "international law" and "world opinion" won't accept it? Says who? They've been completely impotent at stopping Israel so far.
Miscellaneous
One interesting thing I learned from this book is that Menachem Begin ceding the Israeli-occupied Sinai back to Egypt in the 1978 Camp David Accords under Carter's presidency was apparently to get Egypt strategically out of the way in a formal peace agreement so they would be one less thing to worry about when Israel decided to invade Lebanon in 1982. This separate peace drew swift hostility from the rest of the Arab nations, considering Egypt a traitor to their shared collective cause, and eventually resulted in Anwar Sadat's assassination by patriotic elements in his own army in 1981.
Additionally, he also debunks the popular Zionist fable about a nearly-achieved Two-State Solution final peace agreement under the auspices of Bill Clinton in 2000 being inexplicably scuppered by Yasser Arafat for no good reason:
Also, Carter does his readers a great service by relaying the more strident anti-Israel comments and opinions by the leaders of the surrounding nations he met with, without interjecting any annoying disavowals or qualifications, thus letting the readers decide for themselves the validity of such statements. Particularly interesting is the indignant, uncompromising vituperation by Hafez al-Assad, father of Bashar.
Conclusion
I am always reluctant to recommend books about relatively recent developments in the tragic saga of the Israel/Palestine conflict - particularly the sham negotiations of the fraudulent "peace process" - and this book is no exception. Anyone seeking to grasp a true understanding of the conspiratorial intrigues that led up to today's shocking headlines can profit much more from seeking out books that cover the events from about 1880 to 1950 or so, especially the British Mandate period from 1917-1948. Anything past that is an interminable waste of time, and more or less a repeat and an unavoidable result of the original events.
However, that does not discount the fact that this book at the time of its publication was a notable crack in the huge artifice of lies that prop up the murderous fraud of Zionism and will inevitably cause Israel's peaceful dissolution one glorious day in the future. It even garnered sufficient enough concern to warrant some heated responses by the usual truculent gang of Tribal berserkers. Carter's acknowledgment of Palestinian existence, dignified attempts to mediate evenly, and moving words regarding the disgusting offenses perpetrated against the Palestinian Christian community by Israel is undoubtedly why he alone among former Democratic presidents never received from the media and academic establishment the fawning praise bestowed after their turn in the Oval Office.
Rest in peace, Jimmy Carter. A devout Christian, a humble farmer, and a distinguished statesman of genuine sincerity.
This book is notable for being written by Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States of America. A name with that type of cachet going against the grain by bringing attention to the plight of the Palestinians was a significantly positive development in a world where most American politicians uncritically parrot the Israeli point of view due to being bankrolled by wealthy Zionist donors such as Sheldon (and now his widow Miriam) Adelson, Haim Saban, Paul Singer, and so forth.
Carter's analysis, despite its good intentions, suffers from fundamentally incorrect premises resulting in flaws that will mislead the great mass of readers.
The Illegitimacy of the United Nations
He regards the United Nations General Assembly adoption of UNSCOP's partition suggestion (Resolution 181) as the right in which Israel claims allowed its birth, cloaking it in a veneer of superficial legality. No such right exists. The UN had no more authority to divide Palestine against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants in 1947 any more than it has today to arbitrarily divide the territory of the United States.
UNSCOP's partition plan suggestion was of course wildly biased in favor of the Jews, setting out for them 55% of Palestine's territory despite Jews being only a third of the population - and a vast majority of these being recent immigrants in the last 30 years during the British Mandate period beginning in 1917, brought in over the repeated protests of the majority Arab residents. Also, despite decades of intense purchasing activity for Jewish colonization, the Jews only owned 6% of Palestine's land. And even in the territory allotted to Jews by the plan, Arabs would have comprised somewhere between 40 to 50 percent of the population, and would have easily dwarfed the numbers of Jews soon due to higher birth rates, thus setting in motion the
In addition, the shady backchannel diplomatic pressure brought to bear by the world Jewish community on many nations in order to vote in favor of Resolution 181, (which narrowly passed) in the first place is well known. An example of this is "Banana King" Samuel Zemurray (born Schmuel Zmurri), head of United Fruit Company, the largest fruit conglomerate in the world, leveraging his vast influence on the governments of Central and South America.
The Two State Delusion
Carter's thrust is that the remaining Palestinian territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War and occupied ever since is the chief obstacle in negotiating a "Two State Solution." Since ever increasing Jewish encroachment via illegal settlements in the West Bank is leading to a "One State" reality in which a huge number of Palestinians are officially second class citizens without the right to vote, this will lead to the apartheid in the book's title, causing a (further) collapse of Israel's international legitimacy and thus an end to the dream of a Jewish state in the Holy Land.
I won't digress on how the apartheid accusation is charitable. For whatever crimes the white South African regime was supposedly guilty of, they never attacked the black Bantustans with anything remotely like the destructive power Israel flamboyantly visits on Gaza every so often.
But the Two State Solution concept is worth elaborating on, because the Jews never, even for a minute, wanted any such thing, dating back to the earliest conception of Zionism. Anyone can Google "1919 Zionist territorial claims" and see for themselves the alarming maps submitted at the Paris Peace Conference by the World Zionist Organization with borders of a proposed Jewish State extending south all the way to El Arish in Egypt, east of the Jordan River to Amman, and north to Sidon in Lebanon (Theodor Herzl himself seemed to suggest that the Jewish State's frontiers would extend from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia/Iraq). Mind you, this proposal was coming from the "respectable mainstream" Zionist leadership embodied by figures like Dr. Chaim Weizmann. The "Revisionist" branch of extremist Zionists led by Vladimir Jabotinsky considered the Jordan River as merely marking the middle of the forthcoming Jewish State (Google: Irgun logo).
The Zionist program was to flood Palestine with a deluge of Jewish immigrants until they outnumbered the natives, after which a Jewish government would arise automatically. Any idea of "dividing" Eretz Yisrael (the biblical Land of Israel) was unthinkable, and it was only adopted much later as a pragmatic jumping off point in which the Zionists could plot in a position of safety and comfort until they considered the time ripe to conquer the rest of the region for Jews. In fact, a continued justification by Jewish territorial maximalists for holding on to the West Bank is that the entirety of the Holy Land is sacred soil, and continuing to settle Jews there to the detriment of the non-Jews is not one whit any more immoral than the the ethnic cleansing that founded Israel proper. To them, if the latter is acceptable (and virtually 100% of the international Jewish community thinks it is, often basing this belief on hoary long-disproven canards about mighty Arab armies ganging up on the poor helpless Jews), why not the former? Because "international law" and "world opinion" won't accept it? Says who? They've been completely impotent at stopping Israel so far.
Miscellaneous
One interesting thing I learned from this book is that Menachem Begin ceding the Israeli-occupied Sinai back to Egypt in the 1978 Camp David Accords under Carter's presidency was apparently to get Egypt strategically out of the way in a formal peace agreement so they would be one less thing to worry about when Israel decided to invade Lebanon in 1982. This separate peace drew swift hostility from the rest of the Arab nations, considering Egypt a traitor to their shared collective cause, and eventually resulted in Anwar Sadat's assassination by patriotic elements in his own army in 1981.
Additionally, he also debunks the popular Zionist fable about a nearly-achieved Two-State Solution final peace agreement under the auspices of Bill Clinton in 2000 being inexplicably scuppered by Yasser Arafat for no good reason:
There was no possibility that any Palestinian leader could accept such terms and survive, but official statements from Washington and Jerusalem were successful in placing the entire onus for the failure on Yasir Arafat. Violence in the Holy Land continued.
[...]
...it was later claimed that the Palestinians rejected a "generous offer" put forward by Prime Minister Barak with Israel keeping only 5 percent of the West Bank. The fact is that no such offers were ever made.
Also, Carter does his readers a great service by relaying the more strident anti-Israel comments and opinions by the leaders of the surrounding nations he met with, without interjecting any annoying disavowals or qualifications, thus letting the readers decide for themselves the validity of such statements. Particularly interesting is the indignant, uncompromising vituperation by Hafez al-Assad, father of Bashar.
Conclusion
I am always reluctant to recommend books about relatively recent developments in the tragic saga of the Israel/Palestine conflict - particularly the sham negotiations of the fraudulent "peace process" - and this book is no exception. Anyone seeking to grasp a true understanding of the conspiratorial intrigues that led up to today's shocking headlines can profit much more from seeking out books that cover the events from about 1880 to 1950 or so, especially the British Mandate period from 1917-1948. Anything past that is an interminable waste of time, and more or less a repeat and an unavoidable result of the original events.
However, that does not discount the fact that this book at the time of its publication was a notable crack in the huge artifice of lies that prop up the murderous fraud of Zionism and will inevitably cause Israel's peaceful dissolution one glorious day in the future. It even garnered sufficient enough concern to warrant some heated responses by the usual truculent gang of Tribal berserkers. Carter's acknowledgment of Palestinian existence, dignified attempts to mediate evenly, and moving words regarding the disgusting offenses perpetrated against the Palestinian Christian community by Israel is undoubtedly why he alone among former Democratic presidents never received from the media and academic establishment the fawning praise bestowed after their turn in the Oval Office.
Rest in peace, Jimmy Carter. A devout Christian, a humble farmer, and a distinguished statesman of genuine sincerity.
October 11, 2011
“Interesting to understand Carter's point of view. Written in a childish, Sunday school style. Biggest failing is the blindness to official, state anti-Semitism in the Arab world and the consequent wild, irrational hatred of Jews, not just Israelis by the Arab public. To listen to Carter one would think that the governments of Egypt and Syria have some legal disputes with Israel that being reasonable people they could be resolved by negotiations if the Israelis would only be reasonable too.
That these same people promote Holocaust denial and Nazi stereotypes of the world Jewish conspiracy to their own people is not mentioned by Carter. In fact, anti-Semitism is not an entry in the Index for the book.
The Arab governments have convinced their people that the Jews run the world behind the scenes, especially the US and Russia. To them, the Holocaust never happened and 9/11 was a US/Israeli plot to make Arabs look bad. This creates a conflict between Islam and the West far beyond any Israeli-Palestinian dispute. It also at least calls into question Arab sincerity in seeking a settlement with Israel as well as explains some measure of Israeli distrust.
I'm not saying that there are no answers or that peace isn't possible. What I do say is that someone like Carter who is blind to all of this doesn't have any of those answers and is not someone worth listening to about the issues. As he is an ex-President, his views have some historical importance. However when you read them you can see why no President since Carter has taken him seriously. Obama has barely mentioned him and has no role for him in dealing with the Middle East, which speaks well of the new President.
That these same people promote Holocaust denial and Nazi stereotypes of the world Jewish conspiracy to their own people is not mentioned by Carter. In fact, anti-Semitism is not an entry in the Index for the book.
The Arab governments have convinced their people that the Jews run the world behind the scenes, especially the US and Russia. To them, the Holocaust never happened and 9/11 was a US/Israeli plot to make Arabs look bad. This creates a conflict between Islam and the West far beyond any Israeli-Palestinian dispute. It also at least calls into question Arab sincerity in seeking a settlement with Israel as well as explains some measure of Israeli distrust.
I'm not saying that there are no answers or that peace isn't possible. What I do say is that someone like Carter who is blind to all of this doesn't have any of those answers and is not someone worth listening to about the issues. As he is an ex-President, his views have some historical importance. However when you read them you can see why no President since Carter has taken him seriously. Obama has barely mentioned him and has no role for him in dealing with the Middle East, which speaks well of the new President.
April 21, 2024
it’s a funny book because he’s like, here’s all i personally did for the peace in isntreal and the middle east, some of my closest life-long friends are isntreali officials, and here’s a cute anecdote abt the time i held a daughter of an arab official. the most radical thing he said was that isntreal must adhere to international law, which was right after he said - for the hundredth time - that most importantly all arab nations must respect isntreal as a reality.
when you read about palestine, you learn that carter was basically the friendliest to palestine among the us presidents. and then you read this book which, yes, lists a very few among isntreali war crimes & crimes against humanity, but they’re always preceded by the words “palestinians claim that”. be fucking for real.
when you read about palestine, you learn that carter was basically the friendliest to palestine among the us presidents. and then you read this book which, yes, lists a very few among isntreali war crimes & crimes against humanity, but they’re always preceded by the words “palestinians claim that”. be fucking for real.
September 8, 2022
A not very balanced approach to the conflict but I admire Carter’s fortitude in trying to find a way forward.
January 1, 2019
Jimmy Carter presented himself as someone who is fighting to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but any one who is fighting for Israel to have a state on Palestinian land advocates the eviction of people from their homes and striping them from basic human rights only because they claim to have a right to live on this land.
the book was really frustrating all it did was justifying Israel existence on Palestinian land and justifying every single attack done by Israel against the Palestinian people, which were either Palestinian "violence" or "terrorism attacks", as if Israel is an angel treading on earth that doesn't do any act of violence unless provoked, let alone the huge difference between Palestinian vs Israeli casualties, the attacks were always justified somehow!
It was also misleading, any one who doesn't have a prior knowledge of the conflict will think that Israel and Palestinian shared a land and the Palestinians just decided that they don't want to share it with the Israelis so they performed "violent" attacks and Israel responded by more violent attacks and the whole thing started. but of course Jimmy carter and every other Israeli advocate started the book by pointing out Israel right to exist on the land as its right, and here is the tragedy since saying that they have a right to exist , this justifies every thing they do and even if they did the war crimes performed by Israel is sufficient to strip them of this right.
now to get to Israel logic for their right, they say that the Israelis lived there two thousand years ago, well there were people living in the area before and remained to live there until Israel decided to place European Jews in these people's homes only because they're Jewish, so people from Europe who'd never set foot on Palestine were given the right to live there and given homes of previous Palestinian owners only because they are Jewish! because Israel logic says that every Israeli is Jewish and every Jewish is Israeli, so to them race and religion is one; I am an Arab and a Muslim, that doesn't make every Arab a Muslim nor every Muslim an Arab. So Jews any where are given "the right of return" only because they are Jewish without the need to provide any document to prove their ancestors lived there, but Palestinian who lost their homes in the 1948 war are not given that right!
throughout the book it was pointed out that in order for peace to occur, Palestinian militants need to drop all weapons as if doing so would stop israel from launching any attack on Palestinians, these militant groups weren't their before Israel decided to make its own state on another people's, they existed to resist the invasion of their land, and without any of their resistance and the aid of the Arab countries in previous years, Israel would have gotten hold of more lands and evicted more people. Israel doesn't want peace or two-state solution, to them their "promised land" doesn't stop at the 67 border it expands to include Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and parts of Iraq and Egypt, and every peace treaty has been broken by them.
the book was really frustrating all it did was justifying Israel existence on Palestinian land and justifying every single attack done by Israel against the Palestinian people, which were either Palestinian "violence" or "terrorism attacks", as if Israel is an angel treading on earth that doesn't do any act of violence unless provoked, let alone the huge difference between Palestinian vs Israeli casualties, the attacks were always justified somehow!
It was also misleading, any one who doesn't have a prior knowledge of the conflict will think that Israel and Palestinian shared a land and the Palestinians just decided that they don't want to share it with the Israelis so they performed "violent" attacks and Israel responded by more violent attacks and the whole thing started. but of course Jimmy carter and every other Israeli advocate started the book by pointing out Israel right to exist on the land as its right, and here is the tragedy since saying that they have a right to exist , this justifies every thing they do and even if they did the war crimes performed by Israel is sufficient to strip them of this right.
now to get to Israel logic for their right, they say that the Israelis lived there two thousand years ago, well there were people living in the area before and remained to live there until Israel decided to place European Jews in these people's homes only because they're Jewish, so people from Europe who'd never set foot on Palestine were given the right to live there and given homes of previous Palestinian owners only because they are Jewish! because Israel logic says that every Israeli is Jewish and every Jewish is Israeli, so to them race and religion is one; I am an Arab and a Muslim, that doesn't make every Arab a Muslim nor every Muslim an Arab. So Jews any where are given "the right of return" only because they are Jewish without the need to provide any document to prove their ancestors lived there, but Palestinian who lost their homes in the 1948 war are not given that right!
throughout the book it was pointed out that in order for peace to occur, Palestinian militants need to drop all weapons as if doing so would stop israel from launching any attack on Palestinians, these militant groups weren't their before Israel decided to make its own state on another people's, they existed to resist the invasion of their land, and without any of their resistance and the aid of the Arab countries in previous years, Israel would have gotten hold of more lands and evicted more people. Israel doesn't want peace or two-state solution, to them their "promised land" doesn't stop at the 67 border it expands to include Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and parts of Iraq and Egypt, and every peace treaty has been broken by them.
November 26, 2008
I just finished reading Jimmy Carter’s controversial book on the Palestine-Israel conflict. It’s both fascinating and accessible. Everyone should read it, no matter where they stand on this divisive issue. President Carter, responding to some of the vitriol that surrounded his book tour, said that we need to have a discussion and his book opens up space to have that discussion. I heartily agree.
Carter provides much needed historical and political context to the problem, covering the issue not only from the dominant Israeli / US point of view but also from Palestinians, surrounding Arab nations and his own personal intersection with the region through his faith, his presidency and his work with The Carter Center. In the conclusion, he writes “voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories” (Carter 2006:209). This book helps bring other pieces of information and experience to the table.
A common theme throughout the book is Carter’s insistence that the United States needs to talk to both its friends and its supposed enemies. Diplomacy is paramount. While you surely can talk to your friends, it’s imperative that you reach out to people with whom you disagree. The U.S. did that with its deadliest enemy, the Soviet Union, but in recent years and under the George W. Bush administration, it has failed to practice this fundamental tenet of international relations. Carter writes, “A major impediment to progress is Washington’s strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues is a privilege to be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and withheld from those who reject U.S. demands” (Carter 2006: 202-203).
He also writes about how the White House and U.S. Congress have been less than vocal in response to illegal Israeli actions, partly due to the immense power of the Israeli lobby in the United States. This influence is strengthened by its practice of silencing dissent by labeling it anti-semitic. Let’s just be clear here, opposing Israeli state policy is not anti-semitic in and of itself; just as opposing Iranian state policy is not anti-Islamic.
Very near the end of the book, Carter reflects back on a remark he made to the Israeli Knesset in 1979 that still rings true in 2007: “The people support a settlement. Political leaders are the obstacles to peace” (Carter 2006:211). He meant leaders on both sides as well as international actors. It is sad that almost thirty years have passed, countless lives have been lost, millions have become refugees, and still our leaders cannot sit down, talk and settle this problem. Let’s hope this book kicks the process in the butt and gets it moving once again.
Carter provides much needed historical and political context to the problem, covering the issue not only from the dominant Israeli / US point of view but also from Palestinians, surrounding Arab nations and his own personal intersection with the region through his faith, his presidency and his work with The Carter Center. In the conclusion, he writes “voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories” (Carter 2006:209). This book helps bring other pieces of information and experience to the table.
A common theme throughout the book is Carter’s insistence that the United States needs to talk to both its friends and its supposed enemies. Diplomacy is paramount. While you surely can talk to your friends, it’s imperative that you reach out to people with whom you disagree. The U.S. did that with its deadliest enemy, the Soviet Union, but in recent years and under the George W. Bush administration, it has failed to practice this fundamental tenet of international relations. Carter writes, “A major impediment to progress is Washington’s strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues is a privilege to be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and withheld from those who reject U.S. demands” (Carter 2006: 202-203).
He also writes about how the White House and U.S. Congress have been less than vocal in response to illegal Israeli actions, partly due to the immense power of the Israeli lobby in the United States. This influence is strengthened by its practice of silencing dissent by labeling it anti-semitic. Let’s just be clear here, opposing Israeli state policy is not anti-semitic in and of itself; just as opposing Iranian state policy is not anti-Islamic.
Very near the end of the book, Carter reflects back on a remark he made to the Israeli Knesset in 1979 that still rings true in 2007: “The people support a settlement. Political leaders are the obstacles to peace” (Carter 2006:211). He meant leaders on both sides as well as international actors. It is sad that almost thirty years have passed, countless lives have been lost, millions have become refugees, and still our leaders cannot sit down, talk and settle this problem. Let’s hope this book kicks the process in the butt and gets it moving once again.
July 24, 2011
Jimmy Carter was demonized for writing this mild, sober book with a strong title; go figure. That’s how nervous alleged “pro-Israel” propagandists are about his even-handed assessment of Israel’s colonizing practices. Prez Carter, do recall, brokered the Camp David peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, but that hasn’t stopped the bizarre claim that he is an anti-Israel Christian anti-Semite--whatever. Few “buts” about it, the book is an apt intro to the Is-Pal conflict, one speckled with less than satisfying accounts of Carter’s meetings with high-level leaders. Arafat, no surprise, comes off as evasive and weird and though Carter is too gentlemanly to expand on his disagreements with Begin and Bush, reading between the lines you can sense the tension. One telling image is Carter jogging around Jerusalem with some Israeli bodyguards who unnecessarily rough up two elderly Arab bystanders reading the newspaper. Carter apologizes to the Arabs and berates the Israelis for overreacting.
January 14, 2025
First of all, rest in peace Jimmy Carter ❤️ I wish I knew more about him before reading this, but this book left me incredibly impressed. His combination of great intelligence and love for all people. He really was the definition of living in God’s image.
Prior to this book I had little to know knowledge of this conflict other than a youtube video or two, college protests, convos with Penelope, and instagram infographics. This book was a great 101 that left me feeling like I know my stuff (I even took notes in it so I could remember the things I learned better). I read in another review that it was “top down” and I fully agree that it is a very specific point of view on the conflict with a focus on specific conversations with leaders, but sense I have been growing interested in politics and specifically foreign affairs I found that incredibly interesting. I felt like I got to learn the logistics of what these negotiations look like. Its like reading the news but I like the news. But again, for a better understanding of the life of an average Palestinian I will need another book.
My only small complaint with this book is that the timeline got confusing at points to me. Like I felt like I was trying to make a storyline in my head and there were a lot of names and dates jumbled up. But I suppose theres no way to fix that issue lol. Especially because there is so much back and forth in this conflict between new hope for peace and things going downhill.
I also felt myself thinking the whole time why is the US and the United Nations not putting pressure on Israel? Perhaps I just don’t know enough about being allies, but I found it confusing that the Jimmy Carter would condemn Israeli leaders in peace talks all he wanted, but Israel never had any concern about the US when they continued to move more settlers into Palestinian territory or do a ton of other things. Idk I guess I want to learn more.
I liked that Jimmy Carter’s perspective was one that showed a deep love for Israel and Palestine. He definitely is more critical of Israel but his tone makes the book really accessible to all people.
Another thing to cross off the knowledge list, P 💛
I am now doing long ass reviews in Penelopes honor
Prior to this book I had little to know knowledge of this conflict other than a youtube video or two, college protests, convos with Penelope, and instagram infographics. This book was a great 101 that left me feeling like I know my stuff (I even took notes in it so I could remember the things I learned better). I read in another review that it was “top down” and I fully agree that it is a very specific point of view on the conflict with a focus on specific conversations with leaders, but sense I have been growing interested in politics and specifically foreign affairs I found that incredibly interesting. I felt like I got to learn the logistics of what these negotiations look like. Its like reading the news but I like the news. But again, for a better understanding of the life of an average Palestinian I will need another book.
My only small complaint with this book is that the timeline got confusing at points to me. Like I felt like I was trying to make a storyline in my head and there were a lot of names and dates jumbled up. But I suppose theres no way to fix that issue lol. Especially because there is so much back and forth in this conflict between new hope for peace and things going downhill.
I also felt myself thinking the whole time why is the US and the United Nations not putting pressure on Israel? Perhaps I just don’t know enough about being allies, but I found it confusing that the Jimmy Carter would condemn Israeli leaders in peace talks all he wanted, but Israel never had any concern about the US when they continued to move more settlers into Palestinian territory or do a ton of other things. Idk I guess I want to learn more.
I liked that Jimmy Carter’s perspective was one that showed a deep love for Israel and Palestine. He definitely is more critical of Israel but his tone makes the book really accessible to all people.
Another thing to cross off the knowledge list, P 💛
I am now doing long ass reviews in Penelopes honor
June 11, 2025
It's always good to look to history for answers. This book was a good brief overview of the recent history of the region, especially as it relates to the United States and US interests.
November 5, 2014
I figured it was long past time I learned a bit more about the Middle East conflict, so decided to read Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by former US president Jimmy Carter. Who better to explain the issue than the individual who has probably spent more time and energy working towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict than anyone alive (he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 in part for these efforts). As I expected, the issue is a complicated and twisted mess. But Carter does a nice (if somewhat dry) job outlining the situation, the history, and the points of view of the parties involved.
And of course, because he doesn’t take sides and holds Israel’s feet to the fire regarding United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 … he was branded as an anti-Semite after the book came out (because the only reason someone could possibly have for criticizing the policies of Israel is if they hate the Jews … or something). However, I will grant his critics that the subtitle of the book is unnecessarily provocative, and of dubious historical accuracy (the roots of apartheid were entirely racial in nature, while those in the Middle East are also historical, cultural, religious, economic and political).
Today, the Middle East continues to be engulfed in turmoil. This, despite the fact that everyone knows that the solution involves:
1. An independent Palestinian state.
2. The departure of Israelis from the occupied territories.
3. That the Arab world recognizes Israel’s right to exist.
4.That both sides declare an end to violence.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of these actions taking place anytime soon seem very slim due to the lack of political will.
And of course, because he doesn’t take sides and holds Israel’s feet to the fire regarding United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 … he was branded as an anti-Semite after the book came out (because the only reason someone could possibly have for criticizing the policies of Israel is if they hate the Jews … or something). However, I will grant his critics that the subtitle of the book is unnecessarily provocative, and of dubious historical accuracy (the roots of apartheid were entirely racial in nature, while those in the Middle East are also historical, cultural, religious, economic and political).
Today, the Middle East continues to be engulfed in turmoil. This, despite the fact that everyone knows that the solution involves:
1. An independent Palestinian state.
2. The departure of Israelis from the occupied territories.
3. That the Arab world recognizes Israel’s right to exist.
4.That both sides declare an end to violence.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of these actions taking place anytime soon seem very slim due to the lack of political will.
March 8, 2013
An awful, ahistorical book by a treasonous ex-President.
Carter re-invents history to minimize the Jewish historical footprint on the Near East, with the aim of delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish state.
Carter re-invents history to minimize the Jewish historical footprint on the Near East, with the aim of delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish state.
January 21, 2008
A really crappy view of the world. Makes the most asinine statement that it's OK for Palestinian suicide bombers to keep attacking Israel until Israel gives up some more of its land.
July 31, 2025
I’m not being dramatic when I say that Jimmy Carter is among the greatest peacemakers in the world. His integrity and heart for the Lord shines through everything he did, but it particularly shines through in the way he used his power and influence to diplomatically resolve international conflicts. He’s the greatest president our nation has ever had, not because he was the most popular (because he certainly wasn’t popular by the time his administration ended), but because he didn’t sacrifice his/our nation’s humanity on the altar of violent nationalism. It’s disheartening that this book is just as relevant as it was in 2006, but these two quotes from his summary chapter give me hope that peace will eventually and inevitably prevail:
“Despite these immediate challenges, we must not assume that the future is hopeless. Down through the years, I have seen despair and frustration evolve into optimism and progress and, even now, we must not abandon efforts to achieve permanent peace for Israelis and peace and justice for Palestinians…”
“‘…Political leaders are the obstacles to peace.’ Over the years, public opinion has shown that the majority of Israelis favor withdrawing from Palestinian territory in exchange for peace…”
“Despite these immediate challenges, we must not assume that the future is hopeless. Down through the years, I have seen despair and frustration evolve into optimism and progress and, even now, we must not abandon efforts to achieve permanent peace for Israelis and peace and justice for Palestinians…”
“‘…Political leaders are the obstacles to peace.’ Over the years, public opinion has shown that the majority of Israelis favor withdrawing from Palestinian territory in exchange for peace…”
April 29, 2008
Carter, the fellow who backed monied interest bullies and poverty pimps in third world elections against “Liberation Theology” leaders and the poor wherever he was invited, and acted as postman to every terrorist who returned his call, again tries to play the game of honest broker.
What follows is not a geo-political discourse, though Carter brings it out in his book -- but calls into the question the credibilty of the author on the subject of human rights. One, I argue, the author of the book has little to espouse upon since he lacks experience in that area.
When he visited Haiti, he was met with graffiti calling him what he was: "Carter, a lawyer for soldiers and thugs." He is not a lawyer, but he pushed for the corrupt and trigger happy junta to be pardoned and not exiled while making the once Catholic "liberation theology" priest and former democratically elected president, Aristide, a pariah.
Carter knowingly and willfully armed Indonesia against Timor. He left hundreds of thousands dead there when he was president and knew that Indonesia was game hunting against Timor. His gun running for Indonesia occurred during the height of the Timor genocide. As his under-secretary of State, Holbrooke, said: "I want to stress I am not remotely interested in getting involved in an argument over the actual number of people killed. People were killed and that always is a tragedy but what is at issue is the actual situation in Timor today...what is the big fuss?"
He personally jump started Robert Mugabe's political career as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, supported the Sandinistas over the objections of the later assassinated "liberation theology" archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Romero. Carter also gave China full trading status rights despite its anti-human rights policy in promoting slavery and prison sweatshops.
He sucker-punched the Russians into invading Afghanistan while Carter funded and trained the Mujahadeen. Now we know who took over that role in that region. He financially punished the American farmer for his own deeds in Afghanistan, by blocking the farmer's from selling any more grain to Russia.
The Carter center? A rube's Valhalla for the wispy of mind, bought and paid for by such notables as the Saudi Bin-Ladin Group,Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, Agha Hasan Abedi, King Fahd and other Saudi terrorist tied financiers which makes the Carter Center a 'non-partisan' fun place to work.
Any condemnation from Carter on how his financial backers rule a country which is the pits for human rights and still stone women? Of course not. Carter knows that money does not talk, it silences.
Bush and Reagan friends who owned Iran-Contra’s financial laundering cash cow, BCCI, took his peanut farm out of near bankruptcy.
Poor kid, he wants to be ever-so-popular with the bad boys on the playground. He is a 'death-eater' like other warped power brokers, despite his smoke and mirror halo.
One could argue if he is either incredibly cynical or deluded, but the verdict is pretty well evident he is yet another hypocrite in a long line of Reagan-Bush toadies. They went for the money, he went for the tin plate prize.
He does build a good house, though.
September 2, 2011
I've read a handful of books on the Israel/Palestine situation, and this one definitely was one of the most useful. Why? A couple reasons:
1. Jimmy Carter writes with a simple, easy-to-read tone. He doesn't wax literary, but just tells a first-person account of his interactions with all sides in the Palestinian conflict over 3+ decades of peacemaking in the Middle East.
2. He has had a front row seat to the political maneuvering over the years. That means he explains the issues from a practical, political standpoint. Over the years, I've mostly caught snippets in the news about the different peace treaties, settlement issues, political figures, and mini-wars; the book makes all that coalesce into something that makes sense. Plus, it's nice to read about what was actually happening, rather than just conjecture and opinion.
3. He explains his position clearly. His position makes sense. He leans more toward supporting the Palestinian cause (though not exclusively), and it's not hard to see why. I'd be curious to read a similarly rational book leaning toward the Israeli side, but I don't know if one exists.
4. Finally, Jimmy Carter is my 10th cousin, and that automatically makes the book good. :D
So yeah, definitely an excellent read to get a basic overview to what has gone on in Israel over the last 40 years.
1. Jimmy Carter writes with a simple, easy-to-read tone. He doesn't wax literary, but just tells a first-person account of his interactions with all sides in the Palestinian conflict over 3+ decades of peacemaking in the Middle East.
2. He has had a front row seat to the political maneuvering over the years. That means he explains the issues from a practical, political standpoint. Over the years, I've mostly caught snippets in the news about the different peace treaties, settlement issues, political figures, and mini-wars; the book makes all that coalesce into something that makes sense. Plus, it's nice to read about what was actually happening, rather than just conjecture and opinion.
3. He explains his position clearly. His position makes sense. He leans more toward supporting the Palestinian cause (though not exclusively), and it's not hard to see why. I'd be curious to read a similarly rational book leaning toward the Israeli side, but I don't know if one exists.
4. Finally, Jimmy Carter is my 10th cousin, and that automatically makes the book good. :D
So yeah, definitely an excellent read to get a basic overview to what has gone on in Israel over the last 40 years.
November 20, 2017
This book was a pleasant surprise. I started reading it with an expectation bias that President Carter would pander to both sides in an effort to alienate neither. This wasn't the case at all. He apportions the majority of blame for the failure to achieve peace between Palestine and Israel to Israeli intransigence, prevarication, and duplicity. It was a refreshing departure from the status quo.
If you aren't well read on the century-long struggle, this probably isn't the best book to start with. President Carter glosses over many significant events as is often the case with books of such breadth. If you are, the book provides unique insight to the peace process as seen through the eyes of an individual who has contributed and been involved with so much of it. It's a very quick read, just over 200 pages.
If you aren't well read on the century-long struggle, this probably isn't the best book to start with. President Carter glosses over many significant events as is often the case with books of such breadth. If you are, the book provides unique insight to the peace process as seen through the eyes of an individual who has contributed and been involved with so much of it. It's a very quick read, just over 200 pages.
October 27, 2020
Carter writes simply, like he was explaining the geo-historical situation to his Sunday school class. He has listened to all parties, and he conveys their views or concerns respectfully. It's a far more gracious approach to diplomacy that we normally see in our political figures. He clearly admires Israel, but he also respects ordinary Palestinians. And speaking as an American who values equal rights for all, he must note the accumulation of land seizures, evictions, ethnic cleansings, settlements on conquered lands, economic blockades, enclosures of communities within walls, and collective punishments. Naturally, he fears the emergence of a society based on force-backed inequality between ethnic groups. His hope for Israel and Palestine is akin to Nelson Mandela's hope for South Africa.
June 9, 2011
A fascinating look at the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian situation from someone who has been actively involved in the process, first as US President, and then as the head of an organisation helping to run democratic elections in the Middle East. A refreshing perspective from a well-known American, who is frank, open, and even-handed in his treatment. It is written in simple language and is a great primer for people wanting to understand the background of the situation, and where it was at when he wrote this.
_(14803713123).jpg){kind=link}
August 3, 2011
Absolutely everybody should read this book!!!... It is a very good introduction to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It starts kind of slow and you don't really know what to expect, but after the first chapter it gets very interesting. It begins with a little of the history of both cultures so you can understand where it all started, and then it explains in a very clear and easy way how the events developed. If you thought Arabs were the bad guys you should check this out, it will enlighten your brain!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 675 reviews