I am not alone in my dismay. A former Carter aide, one-time executive director of the Carter Center where he has at least nominally been a senior fellow, and professor of Middle Eastern history Kenneth Stein has publicly rebuked Carter's book and resigned his fellowship. In a letter explaining his decision, Sten wrote that the book is “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments.” (See here for the New York Times article and here for the Washington Post's coverage.)
Obviously a former president's take on a historical event is rarely going to meet the standards of scholarly history, but Stein hits the point precisely when he writes, "being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information." Stein is light on specifics because, apparently, he is preparing a review of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which should be an explosive read.
15 comments:
Went back and read that article of yours you linked. It was a good one.
Thanks, MUL! You are in a very select (read: small) group!
dcat
When Carter was president my one-liner was that either the US or Russia would collapse first. He put Russia under tremendous pressure due to his emphasis on human rights. Of course Carter lost the next election. So Russia collapsed first. It's clear to me that Carter greatly strengthened the refusniks and gave Gorbachev room to maneuver.
It's also clear to me that Carter's portrait of what is going on in the Israeli-Palestinian is very accurate. I recommend that everyone read it.
It is critical that the settlers be removed from the settlements if we in the US are ever to have the cloud of nuclear destruction lifted from our cities. The settlements are a major inspiration, for a long time they were the only inspiration, of suicide terrorists. Now we have Iraq also. See the work of Prof. Robert Pape of U. Chicago.
That said, I think that both the US and Israel should independently say that a nuclear explosion in one of their cities will result in a nuclear explosion in a Shiite and in a Sunni large city.
Then we should solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, root out existing terrorists world-wide, engage in no more pre-emptive wars and no forced exporting of democracy. Deterrance plus a good defense worked in the Cold War and it's our best bet now.
Robert --
Thanks for writing.
You may say that Carter's views on the Middle East are "accurate," but I guess I'd like to hear what you have to say about the comments from a professor of Middle Eastern History that they are not only inaccurate, but in some cases flat wrong. Plus, he lost me with the apartheid analogy. Israel has problems with race, if we want to use that term, but using "apartheid" automatically means the user does not want to engage in dialogue, but rather in noxiousness. Plus, there really aren't a lot of Afrikaans speakers in Israel. So applying an Afrikaans word derived (indeed, coined) from particular historical circumstances shows that the user is stacking the deck. If you want to talk about Israel's problems with, say, its Arab minority, that's fine. Though that Arab minority has more rights in israel than Arab majorities have in most of Israel's neighbors, but Israel's critics love to hold the country to higher standards than the rest of the region.
As for settlements, I agree that Israel should withdraw. I have for years advocated a two-state solution. And when it did withdraw in Gaza, what happened? Israel was pilloried for unilaterally doing what Palestinian supporters had demanded that Israel do. And what was the response? Bombs lobbed into Israel from Gaza. So by all means, give back the settlements. And then once the first bomb is lobbed from the West Bank (read: the first act of war) take those settlements back. And make it clear that once those settlements are taken back, the odds of them ever becoming part of Palestine diminish exponentially.
dcat
You can bet that no ambassador to the U.S. would feel comfortable making a remark of this sort.
I think the simplest way to boil down the differences between European and American views on this is that the American view emphasizes responsibility (can anyone seriously argue that the Israeli leadership has been anywhere near as irresponsible as the Palestinian leadership has been?) versus the European view of just urgently "making solutions happen" because hey, the current situation is just so melancholy and makes people angry.
Lieberman's apparent racism, of which I have not much more than passing knowledge, is likely not much more deplorable than his likely desire for that to manifest in a policy of moving Arab Palestinians out of the West Bank or even from Israel. Deplorable as that is - (its likely impossibility notwithstanding), I do not understand why Europeans and many others always seem to think that a solution can ever be at hand, when a longstanding and more or less reciprocal view has now been unabashedly expressed w/the ascension of Hamas - a view that is common among Palestinians in general, their leadership, and not merely one cabinet minister. You cannot have any starting basis for negotiations w/a party that doesn't accept your basic right to existence - it is impossible.
So given the lack of forward traction that comes with such a stance, I have no problem w/calling out the Palestinian leadership as the less responsible party especially when considering the expected results it yielded in 1948, 1967, and 2004. I simply do not understand why so many seem to think that Israel's actions alone would change the willingness of the Palestinians to accept its existence, while they still largely aim to "reverse" the events of 1948, and largely, always have.
The ambassador was called on this, as you rightly point out. My point in bringing it up was to allude to a possible difference between the American and European diplomatic millieus (that you also allude to while confidently denying that the latter could somehow harbor anti-Semitic sentiments) which led to his comfort with speaking this way. While I can't be sure that this sort of thing would never occur in American diplomatic circles, let's take into consideration a historic legacy of European anti-Semitism that never existed to anywhere near the same degree in America before making such assertions about what goes and what is prematurely assumed to have gone away for good in various cultural environments before jumping to such a conclusion. If I could poll the number of Europeans who also believe Israel's existence to be a historic mistake and compare it with the number of Americans who disagree, then perhaps you would also reconsider the assumptions required in your statements.
There is much room for thoughtful consideration of the wisdom of Israel's actions. Never mentioning the intransigence of Palestinian aims, however, does not do such an approach anything but a most insincere disservice.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out Israel's wrongs, by either their political left or center or by NGOs or from abroad. But when that discussion devolves into a vague way to equivocate between actions and intentions and between Israeli aims and Palestinian aims, then it loses its capacity for shedding any insight on how the conflict can be resolved, assuming it can be. If I can be blunt, it seems that at such a point the discussion becomes meaningless feel-good political rhetoric. I honestly wonder if acknowledging wrongs felt by either side can't only go so far in defusing and resolving the conflict, but perhaps you disagree.
If you have evidence to the effect that "most (Palestinians) heavily favour a two-state solution and want peace," I would greatly appreciate a link to it, goodliberal. Addressing this clarifies the distinction between the current Palestinian atrocities that you feel I believe you underplay, and their ultimate goals - which if anything is my larger point and one that I think is being ignored at great cost.
A greater degree of recognition of human/individual rights among the Palestinian population by their own government would be quite helpful too.
Gentlemen --
You've been having such a good conversation that I have been reluctant to intervene.
My problem with Good Liberal's arguments is that they seem a little too close to moral equivalence for my tastes. The reality is that almost all of the problems that Israel brings to the table are problems of reaction and too often overreaction.
I have said all along that Israel has issues it needs to deal weith with regard to its Arab minority and Palestinian neighbors, but that Israel cannot be expected to address those issues as long as people are blowing up pizza shops and buses and are lobbing bombs from across Gaza walls.
As for me granting Sten privilege because he is a history proefessor -- i am giving him the benefit of the doubt when he says that the book is riddled with factual errors and that it has attribution problems. Anbd he lost me at "Apartheid." Use that term as an accusation in the context of the Israeli-palestinian conflict and you've lost me. What is contained within the pages might be fantastic, but unless I am given a review copy and an assignment to write about it, I am not buying such a book. I won't pay for Ann Coulter, I won't buy Jonah Goldberg's book as long as it invokes Hitler and equates totalitarian leaders with liberals, and I won't buy books that insinuate Israel as an apartheid state.
(Has Dershowitz ever been described as a "Middle East Scholar"? I know he wrote "The Case For Israel," (which few have called a work of scholarship) but he is a law professor. he is not listed at Harvard as being a Middle East specialist, in any case.)
I too have issues with the assertion that a majority of Palestinians want a two-state solution and want peace. The only polls that matter are the ones that people take when they go to the voting booth, and in electing Hamas, which denies Israel's very existence, the Palestinian people interested in making their voices heard spoke loudly as to their true views.
dcat
Don't be so easily led, G.L. What percentage of Palestinians are prepared to give up a "right of return" of the descendants of descendants of descendants of 1948 refugees into Israel itself with which to turn it into a second Palestinian state? Even the Geneva proposal that supposedly was the major, moderate, reasonable alternative to government efforts was lambasted on the Palestinian street over this point.
Today it was reported that Hamas gunmen mowed down 4 children of Fatah loyalists over their alleged intelligence activities. This is not about devils and angels but about acknowledging that extremists on both sides are not equally empowered and a will against anarchy and a semblance of responsible government plays a part in that. One need only look at Israel's, indeed Ariel Sharon's! willingness to effectively abandon Gaza - a major portion of the disputed territories by population - as a contrast. So again, this is not about bad vs. worse - although I would not contest dcat's point if he thinks otherwise - but as I would argue, it is about intentions (ultimate aims) and the degree of pluralization and tolerance for it among each population, and the effectiveness of the respective governments that matter.
I think I meant to say "degree of pluralism and tolerance for it".
Also, I can't access the BBC link. What would be interesting to note is whether that article distinguishes between accepting Israel, (and 2 distinct states), permanently or as part of an "interim" measure. It is not even clear if the only viable Palestinian opposition, Fatah, has come to accept 2 states as a permanent settlement. I can refer you to Faisal Husseini's comments about the "Trojan Horse" of Oslo, and of course, if you think Arafat was trustworthy in the slightest, then I could provide some correctives for that as well. Abbas seems like more of a pragmatist but it is difficult to see Fatah re-emerging as a political force with him in charge anyway. And challenger Marwan Barghouti is serving terms in Israeli prisons for his murderous duplicity.
GL --
I guess I'm just not sure that I buy that the majority of Palestinians do want to see a two-state solution. But in dealing with the conflict, Israel cannot address the will of Palestinians as they may hope it to be. They have to address the will of the leaders the Palestinian people have chosen to speak for them. I don't buy that corruption is the sine que non of Hamas'existence. The Palestinains know full well what Hamas believes because Hamas has never been unclear about that.
I find it interesting that you go to the Hitler-Stalin analogy when I claim you are engaging in moral equivalence. Which, pray tell, are the Jews in that one? Because I'm actually pretty comfortable in casting Hamas in those lights given their desire to eradicate Israel. I am not going to place liberal, Democratic Israel in either category.
And what of Israel's neighbors? This conflict does not occur in a vacuum. Israel is surrounded by states and groups that have long been dedicated to seeing it, oh, what was nasser's felicuitous phrase? Ahh yes -- driven to the sea. So forgive the Jews for taking such talk seriously and for reacting in kind when Palestinians blow themselves up in cafes, kill elderly people sitting down for holiday meals, and slaughter children on buses. And forgive me for seeing a difference when Israel responds against those who house murderers.
I agree that we must forge forward with a process that envisions a legitimate two-state solution, that pulls the settlers back for good (or, at minimum, makes it clear that they will not have the ear of the Israeli military if they choose to stay) and that lessens Israel's influence in the territories. But it is not Israel that constantly scuttles agreements and that reinvigorates violence at every turn.
The Palestinian people are caught in an awful vise, but in choosing the leaders that they have, they cannot claim merely to be victims. Disavow violence. Demand leaders who promote peace. Don't give cover to terrorists. Report them where they are known.
I've said it before, echoing others, but Israel has tried to secure peace in hopes of establishing security. That has always failed them. Israel now is in an era of maintaining security and hoping peace can follow.
But yes -- hold Israel's feet to the fire as well. But Israel holds its own feet to the fire more stringently than anyone else does theirs in that neighborhood.
dcat
You might want to embed the links within the comments as hypertext. Blogger has a nasty habit of cutting off nekkid URLs. I've tried a couple times here to display the a href="(insert URL here)"..../a format, but it's complicated to do without being mistaken for actual hypertext. If the above format makes sense, just remember to close that first "a" up until the the elipsis with brackets <>, and to repeat around the "/a" at the end. The elipsis forms your actual text.
I'm basically responding quickly here since I think it's important to keep the conversation going, so some of the references (other than for the cut-off URLs) I'll have to look into later, such as the International Crisis Report. I'm not sure what organization represented this or what is its standing, or in what sense its recommendations are authoritative or even if they would be accepted, particularly by the descendants of refugees.
Other than that, the P.A.'s capacity to govern - difficult as that is to separate from what are its priorities in governing - , the size of the West Bank, modern day Kennans (if only Israel's population were big enough to make the likelihood of such persons more commonplace), and the pragmatism of Hamas (perhaps they define "pragmatic" differently than would you or I), are all good points. DCat is right however, in pointing to the context of the conflict. Right now Iran is aspiring for regional hegemony, nukes, the legitimization of both Holocaust denial and its stated desire to destroy Israel. Maybe Ahmadenijad's efforts will backfire, and will make Iran under his stewardship look even more like the horse's ass over time. Until then, its hard to argue that the Palestinians wouldn't mind hedging their bets in his favor. And with Jim Baker seeking Iran's assistance w/the view of Israeli concessions as yummy delicious carrots for Iran, I wonder if we are not promoting an atmosphere of reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians with an eye to the fairness of the thing, but w/the help of the very extremist elements whom we hope to delegitimize, rather than to further empower, embolden and help ultimately brand and bless as a regional power broker.
But who knows, maybe it will work in the long-run.
In the meantime, all of the details you mention are worth looking at as ways of possibly building trust - that is, a trust in a fair and stable reconciliation, of course - as long as we don't lose sight of the larger direction of where the whole thing is being led, both from without and from within.
Let's keep in mind that Ahmadenijad is holding a conference right now of Holocaust deniers. So yes, I'd say context is important.
I also would argue to Good Liberal that terrorism from the Palestinians comes independent of "the brutality of the occupation." After all, Gaza is not currently occupied and right now, it is Gazans who are throwing missiles Israel's way. The occupation becomes a straw man for palestinian actions. Does this mean that the occupation has not been brutal? At times it has certainly been tough. But the toughest times have also been those when Israel was in the midst of cracking down on militants who had engaged in attacks on Jews in Israel. What else would we expect to have happen?
News on the Matsuzaka front -- must run . . .
dcat
Good Lib --
I agree. I think you and MUL in particular brought a lot to the table. And I cannot believe I forgot to insult your mother during all of this. Next time . . .
dcat
Post a Comment