Matthew Yglesias (December 10, 2006) - The Case of Jimmy Carter (Foreign Policy)

What's wrong with the title, exactly? Or put it this way: how exactly is it inaccurate? I can see why you might think it defeats the book's own purpose because it's inflammatory, it alienates the intended audience, etc. But I don't see how anyone who knows anything about the daily lives of Palestinians in the occupied territories can really object, on factual grounds.

Posted by nandrews3 | December 10, 2006 2:02 PM

Yeah, "nandrews" got there first. What's wrong with the title? The Israeli right would like to institutionalize apartheid and call it peace, which is why the title is a good one -- it directly challenges that perspective.

Posted by MQ | December 10, 2006 2:41 PM

A US President who worked hard to protect Israel and has not evidenced any well documented anti-semitism titles his book in a provocative but arguably accurate way that aligns with the opinions of a significant chunk of Israelis and the vast majority of Europeans.

Problem?

I have heard the book itself is bad. Sigh.

Posted by MDtoMN | December 10, 2006 2:42 PM

Does anyone in the world take Peretz seriously? I'm not asking this rhetorically. There are plenty of awful punditws with terrible ideas who are influential in their own way--Krauthammer, for example. But does Peretz have any influence? He seems to me to mainly exist to be ridiculed by sensible people. Perhaps he represents a certain contituancy by voicing their basic worldview, but I don't think he's influential or in any way an important pundit.

Posted by RWB | December 10, 2006 2:44 PM

The title is "provocative" in the worst-possible sense, seemingly calculated to alienate rather than persuade.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 10, 2006 2:49 PM

Let's figure out how much of this "ooh, he said apartheid!" stuff is coming from people who, 20 years ago, didn't think apartheid was such a big deal in the first place.

Posted by DonBoy | December 10, 2006 3:15 PM

"Indeed, by Peretz's line of reasoning it should be impossible, in general, for countries to stop fighting wars with each other -- France and Germany would just be doomed to an endless series of armed conflicts."

Well, one of them could wipe the other out completely. Which would be just a nitpicking objection, but... Peretz.

Posted by Adrian | December 10, 2006 3:19 PM

MY, I would like to understand why you do not use words such as "dumb fuck-head" or "fucking dumb-head" before mentioning the name of Marty "stupid as a clam" Peretz?

Are you hedging your bets?

Posted by econBras | December 10, 2006 3:22 PM

Well, have it your own way. But at least take a step back and consider what you're doing. You're taking offense at the book title, rather than at the actual circumstances which the title (at least) fairly accurately characterizes. Just because lots of people are all too likely to do this doesn't mean that you should.

Posted by nandrews3 | December 10, 2006 3:23 PM

Well, the peace with Egypt also depends on Egypt remaining a dictatorship with an unpopular foreign policy.

Either an Egyptian democracy or an Egypt with a popular foreign policy would not be at peace with Israel in exchange for the Sinai. Unless you define peace in a way consistent with materially helping Palestinians who are trying to end the Zionist project.

Syria is a dictatorship, but one with a popular foreign policy. Is it willing to change for the Golan Heights?

I'm always amazed at how liberal supporters of Israel implicitly or explicitly present unpopular dictatorships in countries that border Israel as a good thing.

Posted by Arnold Evans | December 10, 2006 3:32 PM

Slightly off-topic, but one the funniest thing I've seen of late is the current tagline under Peretz's blog on TNR's homepage. It reads: "Baker's Israel Obsession".

Methinks Marty should know the topic well.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2006 3:33 PM

Remember that Egypt did not simply get the Sinai back - they also received $2 billion / year in US aid, and agreed to peace as a result of just having it had rubbed in their faces that they were not going to be defeating Israel anytime soon. So the parallel to Syria doesn't quite work. After the recent war in southern Lebanon, Syria is not feeling particularly impressed with the Israeli military and seems to think that there is a way that they could in fact win.

As for taking offense at the book title, from a factual basis: Apartheid was a system of racial and social discrimination denying economic and political rights to the majority population. But in Israel, Jews are the majority, and Arab Israelis have full political rights - with representation in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. So whatever complaints you have against Israel, Apartheid is not what is happening there.

As for the dire situation the Palestinians find themselves in, do you believe that people have any responsible for their own cirumstances? What kinds of actions you think Israel is allowed to take in self-defense against missiles and suicide bombers? Is Israel required to commit suicide so that you can feel morally superior?

Posted by Russ | December 10, 2006 3:36 PM

It always seemed to me that the heroes were Anwar Sadat, who reached out to Israel and, to a smaller extent, Menachim Begin, who overcame natural suspicion to take Sadat at his word.

Carter didn't do much more than provide them a quiet place to hash out the details. For him to claim credit for peace is like a hotel manager claiming credit for the consummation of a marriage in the honeymoon suite.

Posted by Rey | December 10, 2006 3:37 PM

Russ:

But in Israel, Jews are the majority, and Arab Israelis have full political rights - with representation in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. So whatever complaints you have against Israel, Apartheid is not what is happening there.

Wow! This is an incredibly compelling case, one that would surely destroy Carter's argument if we lived in an alternate universe where Carter had written a book called Israel: Peace Not Apartheid.

Posted by grh | December 10, 2006 3:53 PM

I can see 3 reasons the word apartied can be used correctly:
1) Israel discriminates in favor of Jews in its immigration policy (Apartied vis a vis the rest of the world).
2) The refugees
3) Israel doesn't require Muslims to serve in the military

As for Muslims within the green line, only #3 applies. But that is actually a bonus. The only serious point for apartied is the refugee situation. But, given history, recent events, and just plain old fashioned prudence, you might forgive them for not wanting to let them in and become a majority arab-muslim state (an ever-increasing majority).

Posted by pjgoober | December 10, 2006 4:02 PM

Rey: Carter did quite a bit more than just provide a neutral talking ground for Begin and Sadat. Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims" (yes, the Benny Morris who recently lost his mind and started advocating for population transfers; bear with me) has an excellent run-down of the events at Camp David: Carter basically dragged Begin kicking and screaming to the agreement, and was intimately and personally involved in every stage of the negotiations. The Camp David accords really were a three-man accomplishment, and Carter deserved every accolade he got.

Posted by Doctor Memory | December 10, 2006 4:19 PM

pjgoober: as grh just pointed out, Carter is not talking about the conditions inside Israel. His assessment is limited to what is taking place in Gaza/West Bank.

Posted by joe | December 10, 2006 4:21 PM

pjgoober: as grh just pointed out, Carter is not talking about the conditions inside Israel. His assessment is limited to what is taking place in Gaza/West Bank.

This is part of the reason I think the "apartheid" rhetoric is a not-so-hot idea. On one construction, it's terribly unfair to Israel, which does not operate on apartheid-style principles. On another construction, you limit your analysis to the Occupied Territories and actually wind up selling Palestinian claims short.

Objecting to the situation on "apatheid" grounds open the door to Ariel Sharon's latter-day solution where Israel unilaterally redraws the borders to as to leave the vast majority of the settlements inside Israel. Then you withdraw from the rump West Bank and grant whichever Palestinians wound up on the wrong side of the new boundary the normal Israeli Arab status.

During Sharon's term in office, the Palestinian Authority -- rightly, I think, -- objected to this idea as an unfair land-grab. It would, however, completely meet the apartheid objection. Which merely shows that it's not the right objection. The normal terminology of "occupation" of foreign lands captures the situation in a way that's both less-inflammatory and closer to the terms in which the putative victims of Israeli policies understand the problem.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 10, 2006 4:50 PM

"... Is Israel required to commit suicide so that you can feel morally superior?"

Israel needs friends, not enablers. After the experience of the last generation, can anyone honestly maintain that the routine degradation, humiliation, "collateral damage" done, and consequent radicalization of the Palestinian public has served Israel's long-term security? If that's called being a friend, then your crack dealer must really have your interests close to his heart.

Israel has always needed a political strategy that would identify relative moderates on the other side and maximize their influence. But too many Israelis failed to grasp that they would ever really need to negotiate anything. They preferred instead to seize the land and develop it (or tolerate the settlements) and fantasized about mass roundings-up and forced relocations to Jordan. Well, we're all reaping the sad harvest of this -- in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel itself.

Yes, the security threats are real. But the West Bank that the Israelis have created and intend to perpetuate -- with walls, confiscated landholdings, settlements and their "bypass roads," and endless checkpoints (not to mention the occasional retaliatory raid, or bloody incursion) -- only serves to ensure that the threats will never subside. To keep the Palestinians subjugated in this way is to try to maintain a bantustan. If Avigdor Lieberman ever has his way, the racist parallels will be followed with some precision.

Carter is doing everyone a service here -- even those who are maligning him -- by speaking out with appropriate candor, and in effect calling bullshit by its Anglo-Saxon name. For what the Israelis have done, and are doing, he's using the correct Afrikaans term. Too bad that Matthew Yglesias, in this case at least, prefers the usual euphemisms.

Posted by nandrews3 | December 10, 2006 4:54 PM

Remember that Egypt did not simply get the Sinai back - they also received $2 billion / year in US aid, and agreed to peace as a result of just having it had rubbed in their faces that they were not going to be defeating Israel anytime soon.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Egypt wasn't trying to "defeat" Israel in '74. They had very exact aims (drawing the U.S. and Soviet Union back out of their acceptance of the status quo status of the Sinai, securing the U.S. as a patron vs. the Soviets, etc..) and very exact strategies to secure this goal. There was nothing stopping the Egyptians for a good long while from developing their positions and moving their SAM envelope up the way and taking the southern half of Israel if that was their goal. It wasn't their goal because likely the end result was at least a nuclear blasted middle-east and depending on how the U.S. and Soviets reacted maybe the planet (it almost went that way anyway). This isn't speculation, this is history with an enormous amount of eye-witness and documentary providence to back it up. What it isn't is some knee jerk idiocy about poor little Israel and blood-thirsty Arabs.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 10, 2006 4:56 PM

Then you withdraw from the rump West Bank and grant whichever Palestinians wound up on the wrong side of the new boundary the normal Israeli Arab status.

That would be a lot of Arabs on the wrong side of the fence. Are you sure that was the plan? Was there maybe a wink and a nod toward making sure most of them for some reason or another weren't on the Israeli side of the fence when it went down? That sounds like something that would send the usual "demographic timebomb" folks into fits.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 10, 2006 4:59 PM

The book is excellent, clearly and accurately written. Without minimizing the criminality of Palestinian suicide bombers, Carter presents the facts about Israeli policy toward Palestinians, facts that are better known and more widely discussed in Israel than in the US.

As for the word apartheid, its primary meaning in Afrikaans is simply apartness or segregation; as a result of the way it was used in South Africa, it has acquired the connotation of repression and forced inequality on the basis of tribal or racial factors. With either meaning, there are few words that describe Israeli government policy more accurately.

Matt, I suggest you change your plans and read the book rather than dismissing it so readily. While it is written for a general audience, not for well-informed wonks, I think you would find new information in it. I did.

Posted by Robert Silvey | December 10, 2006 5:02 PM

Objecting to the situation on "apatheid" grounds open the door to Ariel Sharon's latter-day solution where Israel unilaterally redraws the borders to as to leave the vast majority of the settlements inside Israel. Then you withdraw from the rump West Bank and grant whichever Palestinians wound up on the wrong side of the new boundary the normal Israeli Arab status.

Err...isn't this what the Bantustans were all about? And weren't those a key part of apartheid?

Posted by John | December 10, 2006 5:31 PM

Adel Kaddan sued in 1995 and won to move into a Jewish village in green line Israel after he had been barred for being Arab. He still hasn't gotten a house. This is an "Israeli Arab" supposedly in green line Israel. Also within the 1948 borders these same Arabs are de facto if not de jure forced into dilapidated schools packed with asbestos and go home to shacks where little infrastructure has been built in the last half a century.

I remember Matt referring to the U.S. circa WWII as an apartheid quasi-democracy and while I think it's apt, I don't understand the queasiness in applying it not only to the West Bank but the highly theoretical, green line Israel as well.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 10, 2006 5:40 PM

Matt Y.'s statement that the Sharon-ist "unilateral withdrawal" plan is unrelated to apartheid is odd. The bantustan system that South Africa tried to set up was rather similar to this -- withdraw from certain undesirable areas of the country, concentrate blacks in those "bantustan" areas, then give those areas nominal sovereignty while controlling all movement in and out and exerting police power within the bantustans whenever they wished to.

It is hard for an *objective* observer to deny that there are pretty close parallels between Israel's policies, especially as they are likely to develop in the future, and apartheid. The argument that "Israeli Arabs get the vote!" is particularly laughable, since the issue is never the small minority of "Israeli Arabs" but the total population of non-Jews under Israeli sovereignty.

Whether Israel's version of apartheid is justified by security concerns is a different question than whether it exists. Let's not forget that South African apartheid was justified by understandable fears over how whites would be treated if blacks took over. Although the worst fears have not come true, black-ruled South Africa has seen enormous increases in black-on-white crime

Posted by MQ | December 10, 2006 6:44 PM

Oh c'mon Matt. The title is, as nandrews3 and others have stated, accurate. Isreael really is pursuing a strategy in the West Bank that is similar to what the South African National Party sought to create via the passbook and bantustan system (for short, "aparthied"). In addtion to being racist, cruel, and illegal, its an almost surreally bad strategy. As Carter documents in his book, as the settlements have grown, Israelis have grown progressively less secure. I don't think Carter is trying to persuade Alan Desrschowitz wor Marty Peretz of his views, he's just doing his bit to open up enough space in our political discourse to allow the reversal of our anti-strategic subisidization of Israel's occupation, tolerance of its nuclear arsenal, and endorsement of its illegal land siezures. Just to be clear, I'm using "illegal" here to describe Isreael's actions because the very Camp David Accords you praise explicitly commit Israel to dismantle its mitilary and civillian administration in the occupied teritories once Palestinians hold a democratic election. Honestly, I had no idea that the Camp David accords said that, and wouldn't have known it without reading Carter's book.

Posted by Rich C | December 10, 2006 6:54 PM

MY:'the "apartheid" rhetoric is a not-so-hot idea.'

Maybe it's not a hot idea. But I'm surprised to hear you say that its provocative in the "worst-possible" way rather than just plain-ol-wrong, and even agree with the idea that maybe Carter "doesn't like Israelis or hates Jews".

Posted by Jeremiah J. | December 10, 2006 7:24 PM

Yet another flaw of Peretz's is his assertion that Syria "attacked" Israel even though it had the Golan Heights already. MY seems to buy this construct by pointing out that Egypt held Sinai when it "went to war" with Israel. Egypt was unquestionably the aggressor in 1973, but it didn't have the Sinai then. If Peretz and MY are referring to the 1967 war, well, who was the aggressor and who wasn't is a lot more complex than that. Israel was the one who actually attacked first. Israel's defenders say that Egypt and Syria engaged in a variety of aggressive moves. But, to cite Righteous Victims by Benny Morris again, Israel had been pushing for a pretext for a fight with Syria and/or Egypt since the '50s, on the theory that it would be easier to defeat them militarily before they got too strong. That's part of the reasoning behind Israel's involvement in attacks on Egypt during the Suez Cana; nationalization.

Posted by honestpartisan | December 10, 2006 7:34 PM

I'm just wondering, in what parallel universe does a person who claims to be interested in foreign events not read Carter's book.....

Posted by serial catowner | December 10, 2006 7:58 PM

Desmund Tutu and Nelson Mandela should both be credited with some knowledge of apartheid. Both clearly labeled Israel treatment of the Palestinians as apartheid. Certainly there are differences in specifics between Israel and Sough Africa, but the key elements are there: racial inequality, differential rights and benefits, geographical separation, etc.

Regarding the rights of Israeli Arabs far too much is made of the ability to vote. The Arabs have never been part of any governing coalition and consequently have never had power. Labor once came out of an election with close to 50% of the vote and could have formed a government with the Arab parties who had a similar left leaning program, but Labor chose Likud. Further most of the benefits and programs that citizens can benefit from come from Jewish organizations or if from the government are conditioned on having been in the military, which excludes most Arabs. The right of Israeli Arabs to vote is nothing more than a PR fig leaf.

The condition of Arabs in Israel was clearly seen in the recent Hezbollah/Israel conflict. Jewish citizens left the north of Israel. The Arabs were without any means to leave or anyone or any agency to take them in central or southern Israel. They stayed and were the bulk of civilian casualties in Israel.

It is unfortunate, but if you speak honestly about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict you will be forced to use language and facts that will cause offense to “true believers”.

Posted by PJ | December 10, 2006 8:00 PM

"in what parallel universe does a person who claims to be interested in foreign events not read Carter's book"

Another strange aspect of MY's post. If Dick Cheney ten or twenty years from now wrote a book about the problems in the Middle East, I'm sure that most concerned people would want to know one way or another about the kinds of claims which are made in the book rather than just debate the title. Because, agree or disagree, Cheney is like Carter a pretty intelligent guy who as an elected leader had a heck of a lot to do with the issue. And yet we allow Carter to be dismissed as some ignorant crackpot.

"Regarding the rights of Israeli Arabs far too much is made of the ability to vote."

Fine, but let's be clear here--Carter's book is categorically not about the situation of Israeli Arab citizens, but about the predicament of Arabs in the territories. Carter has said on his book tour that there is "no semblance of anything relating to aparteid" within Israel proper.

http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0611/hb112806carter.mov

"The right of Israeli Arabs to vote is nothing more than a PR fig leaf."

No, this is an absurd claim. Israeli Arabs are not equal in every way (we are after all taking about a state with an ethnic basis), but that's a qualitatively different issue than the problem of occupation. The fact the African-Americans have a hard time electing African-Americans in the South despite having 20-30% of the voters in some areas does not equal aparteid or anything like it.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | December 10, 2006 9:22 PM

"The careless and tendentious use of the Israel-South Africa comparison blurs the major differences between the two societies and political cultures that make the comparison irrelevant. For instance, the mutual economic dependence of blacks and whites in South Africa bears no relation to the Palestinians' one-sided dependence on Israel. This interdependence made it impossible to create a true territorial division in South Africa. In addition, the significant black majority in South Africa is not similar to the demographic near-parity that exists west of the Jordan. In South Africa, blacks and whites share the same faith; even if some racist statements were made in the name of religion, there were still common values that allowed for the post-apartheid appeasement process. In Israel, though, the Jewish-Muslim clashes are becoming stronger."

--Meron Benvenisti, 5/19/2005, Haaretz.

Posted by buermann | December 10, 2006 9:27 PM

And, he continued:

"the personal connection between blacks and whites in South Africa was much more intimate than the connection between Israelis and Palestinians. Although this relationship was effectively that between a horse and his rider, these connections nonetheless softened people's stances, prevented demonization and allowed for a successful transition to a multiracial nation. ... in contrast to Israel, which destroyed Palestinian Authority institutions, smashed the economy in the territories and put the financial burden on the international community."

Posted by buermann | December 10, 2006 9:30 PM

Yes, the security threats are real. But the West Bank that the Israelis have created and intend to perpetuate -- with walls, confiscated landholdings, settlements and their "bypass roads," and endless checkpoints (not to mention the occasional retaliatory raid, or bloody incursion) -- only serves to ensure that the threats will never subside. To keep the Palestinians subjugated in this way is to try to maintain a bantustan

Which was sort of the point of the withdrawals from Southern Lebanon and Gaza. The claim was that it was the Israeli presence in both places, with the checkpoints and so on needed for security, which were causing the problems. So Israel withdrew from both places. The result? Both became armed camps for those who wished to attack Israel. Roughly 1000 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza alone in the past year. The threats did not subside - they became worse. Withdrawing completely just made things worse. The problem is that it is not the Israeli presence in disputed territories that causes the Arabs to hate Israel. It is the Israeli presence in Haifa and Jerusalm and Tel Aviv. It is the very existence of Israel that they hate. So how exactly is Israel supposed to react? Hamas has been quite explicit - all previous agreements made with Israel are null and void, and the goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. So where's the peace?

Posted by Russ | December 10, 2006 9:52 PM

Ooooh, I hope Russ doesn't forget to address the way he didn't know what the title of Carter's book is.

Posted by grh | December 10, 2006 10:08 PM

Russ, Israel never negotiated the withdrawal from Gaza with the PA, which might have helped curb Islamic Jihad, who's 5000 homemade rocket attacks from Gaza killed about 5 Israelis. Very existential I know, but not exactly "worse". Likewise to say removal of the settlers constituted "withdrawing completely" when Israel continued swooping in and kidnapping civillians, among other continued resorts to force in Gaza after the withdrawal, is a little specious, or at least confusing.

The remaining Hez/Lebanon/Syria sticking point on the withdrawal from Lebanon is that they all have concurred that the Shebaa farms is part of Lebanon and Israel hasn't withdrawn from there, giving the Hez a pretext to continue opposing Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights in general without giving Israel a pretext to go after Syria.

And southern Lebanon didn't "become an armed camp" after Israel left, its being an armed camp was why they left. They never should have invaded in the first place.

"where's the peace"?

I believe Matt kind of explained that part in the post.

Posted by buermann | December 10, 2006 10:09 PM

Sheesh, here I was looking for brendan, and he's nowhere to be found. Must be on a pre-holiday vacation.

My understanding is that the talks between Sadat and Begin nearly fell apart and that Carter actually had to do quite a bit of pushing to get them back to the table. Hendrik Hertzberg (not necessarily an unbiased source, of course) wrote a firsthand account of how Carter very likely put his presidency on the line at one point by scheduling a spur-of-the-moment trip to the Middle East to chase them down, where an embarrassment would have finished him off politically and where he had very little to gain from a success. (This was before the Iran Hostage Crisis.)

Posted by JP | December 10, 2006 10:25 PM

So Israel withdrew from both places. The result? Both became armed camps for those who wished to attack Israel.

Israel never left Sheeba Farms, kept a number of hizbollah hostages for bargaining chips, routinely sonic boomed Beirut just to make a point that they could for the last six years and generally have been behaving as the neighbor from hell for the last quarter century or more.

Those hostage were a cause celebre in Lebanon for years and they were the impetus for Hizbollah trying to get their own bargaining chip, at which point Israel freaked out and destroyed half of Lebanon (That's Olmert's words. He said talk of a loss was exageration and said "Look, we destroyed half of Lebanon").

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 10, 2006 10:27 PM

"Carter very likely put his presidency on the line at one point by scheduling a spur-of-the-moment trip to the Middle East to chase them down"

Nobody left Camp David to chase down, to my knowledge. During his trip in March 1979 he did have to spend an unexpected week and a half in Israel making further concessions in order to get Begin's cabinet and the knesset to approve the treaty.

Posted by buermann | December 10, 2006 11:13 PM

During his trip in March 1979 he did have to spend an unexpected week and a half in Israel making further concessions in order to get Begin's cabinet and the knesset to approve the treaty.

Interestingly, for all the talk about security, that wasn't the hangup, it was getting the U.S. to pay for all the oil exploration equipment they were leaving behind.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 10, 2006 11:28 PM

Ed, that's pretty funny.

Posted by buermann | December 10, 2006 11:52 PM

'Buerman' posts above two quotes from Meron Benvenisti, if memory serves an Israeli political scientist. The point of which is that the Israeli/Palestinian situation is not 'apartheid, rather, it is much worse.

Posted by pj | December 10, 2006 11:55 PM

How would "negotiating" with the PA have curbed Islamic Jihad?? Every concession Israel has ever made has led to greater attacks. They gave up Gaza totally - what more was there to negotiate?

As for Shebaa Farms, it's an excuse. It was never considered Lebanese territory. Israel captured it from Syria - the UN even certified that Israel had 100% withdrawn from Lebanon. Shebaa was a new claim invented by Syria and Hezbolla to provide excuses for continued action against Israel. That Syria now declares it Lebanese territory does not change anything, especially given that Syria considers all of Lebanon to be rightfully theirs in any case.

And this is the way it works. No matter what Israel does, the Arabs invent a new excuse - a new demand.

I note that nobody has any real suggestions on ways that Israel could defend herself that would work without being condemned over and over.

Posted by Russ | December 11, 2006 12:07 AM

It has been widely reported that Carter's book has important factual errors (Eric Alterman's take - it, "alas, stinks"), and even a good book with such a polemical title (yes, Mandela did start off as a terrorist, but does Carter know that Olmert was elected on a platform of giving up 90+% of the WB?) would be counterproductive. The Palestinians have been cursed with poor supporters as they've been cursed with poor leaders. Carter's been a great ex-president (and his presidency is probably unfairly maligned) - I hope this book doesn't too adversely affect his legacy.

Posted by rilkefan | December 11, 2006 12:08 AM

If you look at the population growth rates, it's clear that the Palestinians will be the majority in Israel within the next 20 years or so. They have the world's highest growth rates - Arafat once called the Palestinian women's womb his greatest weapon. Once that occurs, Israel has three options: 1) apartheid 2) the end of Zionism and the start of binationalism or 3) instant withdrawal. This is the primary motive behind Sharon's Gaza withdrawal: the realization that Greater Israel was dead unless Israel committed itself to apartheid, ethnic cleansing or genocide. It looks like Israel is now stalled in its tracks. All of the AIPAC types have to realize unless they reach out to Israel's left and the Palestinians, Israeli democracy - and pretty much the whole reason to support Israel - is finished.

Posted by Reality Man | December 11, 2006 1:30 AM

"the Arabs invent a new excuse - a new demand."

Russ, the post was about a peaceful settlement between Israel and Egypt - you know, like all those inventive Arabs you talk about? - that's lasted over 30 years. Perhaps re-analyzing your assumptions in light of this fact would make benefit your understanding of the matter.

rilkefan: "but does Carter know that Olmert was elected on a platform of giving up 90+% of the WB"

I highly doubt it. The platform of which you speak never says anything about "giving up" the West Bank. It says "Jerusalem and large settlement blocks in the West Bank will be kept under Israeli control."

When you get into the actual proposals by Kadima officials on this it was what they called "realignment" of 11 "legal" settlements, moving 15,000 or so settlers from those outposts into said "large settlement blocks in the West Bank" that contain the other 200,000+. This move, furthermore, "would not include handing the land back to Palestinians".

Posted by buermann | December 11, 2006 3:23 AM

Russ, the post was about a peaceful settlement between Israel and Egypt - you know, like all those inventive Arabs you talk about? - that's lasted over 30 years. Perhaps re-analyzing your assumptions in light of this fact would make benefit your understanding of the matter.
The peace agreement called for an end to demonization and establishment of peaceful ties, not simply an end to attacks. State-owned Egyptian media regularly broadcast anti-Semitic propaganda and Egypt has no trade with Israel to speak of. Yes, the Egyptian Army has not directly threatened Israel, at least in part because of the agreement to demilitarize the Sinai, which would make war rather difficult. Egypt has instead resorted to use of the Palestinians to wage a proxy war against Israel. At best, there is a "hot peace" between Egypt and Israel.

If you look at the population growth rates, it's clear that the Palestinians will be the majority in Israel within the next 20 years or so. They have the world's highest growth rates
Actually, not. The statistics which have shown this turn out to be largely based on miscounting and false assumptions.

Posted by Russ | December 11, 2006 4:06 AM

I have a question: what's wrong with people like Russ?

I ask this in all seriousness. It's enjoyable, for a while, to ridicule them for their incredible ignorance and/or stupidity. But is there anything that can be done to lessen their numbers? Given the various catastrophes this country has experienced thanks to their efforts, it seems like a pretty urgent issue.

Posted by grh | December 11, 2006 6:14 AM

Let's figure out how much of this "ooh, he said apartheid!" stuff is coming from people who, 20 years ago, didn't think apartheid was such a big deal in the first place.

Let's see how many people who say "what's wrong with calling Israel an apartheid state?" immediately tune people out who talk about Muslim Arab states treating their minorities as "dhimmis." I mean, if the issue with apartheid is suppression of unfavored communities, are we allowed to discuss how those groups fare in Muslim countries? We have the Copts on line one who want to know when their book is coming out, Baluchis on line two, Druze on line three, hello Carter Center is anyone answering the phone?

Posted by Brittain33 | December 11, 2006 8:56 AM

Well, have it your own way. But at least take a step back and consider what you're doing. You're taking offense at the book title, rather than at the actual circumstances which the title (at least) fairly accurately characterizes. Just because lots of people are all too likely to do this doesn't mean that you should.

Didn't we go through this four months ago with The Party of Death?

Posted by Brittain33 | December 11, 2006 8:57 AM

Not to get all agist or anything, but Carter's 82. I'd be very surprised if he has the concentration left to write a good book on the conflict.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 11, 2006 9:40 AM

Here's Hertzberg's account. Apologies for the long post, but I don't think this is available online.

Carter's role at the Camp David summit with Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin is well known. His perseverance, his determination, his ability to listen, his refusal to quit when others lost hope -- these qualities of his came into focus like a laser beam at Camp David. But six months later, negotiations on the peace treaty itself had stalled, and it looked as if the entire agreement might collapse.

So in March 1979 Carter decided to go to the Middle East. I went along on that trip. It was very different from any other presidential trip that I had ever read about, let alone experienced. Presidential trips abroad are carefully scripted. Advance teams go to the site weeks or months beforehand to make preparations down to the tiniest detail. If there are agreements to be signed, they are worked out well ahead of time. Nothing is left to chance.

This trip wasn't like that. The decision to go was made only five days before Air Force One took off. There was very little time for preparation. As we flew across the Atlantic, everybody tried to get some sleep -- everybody except me. I was up working on the address Carter would make to the Egyptian parliament after we landed. I remember tiptoeing down the plane's darkened hallway and seeing Cyrus Vance, the secretary of state, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser, sleeping head to toe next to each other on a banquette. When these men were awake there was a sometimes intense rivalry between them. But now, as the plane sped east through the night, they had their little Air Force One pillows under their heads and their socks peeking out from under their little Air Force One blankets over them, and they looked as peaceful as a couple of kids at a slumber party.

Not just for me but for many of us, that journey was the high point of our White House service. What it showed about Carter is that he was willing to risk everything for peace. There was absolutely no guarantee of success. In fact, right up to the last day of the mission we were convinced that it was going to fail. It would have been a very public, very costly, very humiliating failure, which would have cemented the notion that Carter was a well-meaning incompetent.

But the mission didn't fail. The reason, I think was that Begin and, especially, Sadat were deeply impressed by Carter's courage. He had put his presidency on the line. He had made it personal. He had taken the leap into the abyss and dared them to follow. They could not refuse.

Coming home from that trip, being greeted at Andrews Air Force Base by our friends and co-workers and loved ones, we all got a taste of what it must be like to return in triumph from a victory in war. The fact that it was a victory in peace made it all the sweeter.

Again, though, the political rewards were minimal. We had an easier time of it on Capitol Hill for a few weeks, and then the bump in the polls faded and we were back to the normal back-biting and bickering. But the satisfaction remains to this day; and every time ex-President Carter goes on one of his quixotic journeys, those of us who went with him to Cairo and Jerusalem remember and smile.

Posted by JP | December 11, 2006 10:31 AM

Its interesting to see Matthew state, "After all, Egypt went to war with Israel when it already had the Sinai Peninsula, so how could Egypt possibly agree to peace in exchange for getting the Sinai back?" The only problem is that Egypt did not attack Israel in 1967. Israel established the precedent for the recent Iraq War by carrying out a "pre-emptive" invasion of Egypt, the Occupied Territories, and later Syria. But as usual, even among the liberal left, history is irrelevant in the case of Israel. They must take a position that is not too offensive, or too far from the mainstream line. This is further exemplified by Matthew's displeasure with the title of Carter's book. Despite the fact that longtime anti-Apartheid activist and esteembed international human rights lawyer John Duggard laid out that the Israeli occupation shared the worst characteristics with South African Apartheid system, while being much worse in many respects. But what the hell does he know, American liberals know the limits of respectable critique.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2006/11/29/1129edcarter.html

Posted by Zaid Khalil | December 11, 2006 12:52 PM

Yglesias:

The title is "provocative" in the worst-possible sense, seemingly calculated to alienate rather than persuade

The title is provocative only to those who keep a warm place in their hearts for the settler movement, and resent the recent decision to start printing maps in Israel that show the 1967 boundary (after years of refusing to do so).

The word is accurate and strips bare the disgusting lust for Palestinian land that has sadly been at the core of Israeli character since its founding. If the naked truth is not "persuasive," its because the audience has already fooled itself into believing the fantasy about a Greater Israel.

The Israelis have been lucky that the Palestinian "Mandela" ended up being that murderous stooge Arafat instead of a person with the character of a Mandela or Ghandi (although if he had been, some other Palestinian radical would have murdered him). Palestinian terrorism has made it easy to sweep under the rug the oppression of the Israelis, which is allegedly only a response to Arab bad behavior. Nonsense -- the Israelis have been practicing their own softer form of terrorism against Arabs since before Israel was founded, and continue to do so in the occupied territories for the purpose of acquiring more land.

The Israelis are not beleagured innocents, and the West Bank is apartheid-like; it only makes sense to call it what it is.

Posted by dmbeaster | December 12, 2006 1:22 PM

Supporters of Israel, even liberal ones like Matt, can't seem to get the basics of history right. Israel attacked Egypt in '56, and again in '67, not the other way around. I know many are persuaded that the '67 strike stopped a planned assault by Egypt, but in his recent book, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's former foreign minister, paints quite a different picture. Most Israeli historians seem to agree that their nation's leaders, especially the army,were itching for war, and were dedicated to seizing on any pretext. Egypt, with a big portion of its army off on some misadventure in Yemen, was looking to avoid conflict. Facts, which, of course will have no impact on supporters of Israel.

Posted by facts are stupid things | December 12, 2006 2:24 PM

I know many are persuaded that the '67 strike stopped a planned assault by Egypt

There was definitely agressive behavior by Egypt in the run up to the war. But what is the evidence of a planned Egyptian attack other than Israeli claims that "I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him back first"?

That was an era when the Israeli storyline dominated everything. In hindsight, given the naked IIsraeli agression of the '56 war, its very understandable that the '67 war was something of a pre-emptive repeat.

Posted by dmbeaster | December 12, 2006 9:22 PM

Why don't you plan to read Carter's book?

You believe, without reading it, that you wouldn't learn anything from it? Or that the book is so irretrievably biased you'd have to balance it with another book further to the right? Or is it just a subject you're not going to delve any deeper into?

I'm seriously asking.

Posted by Nell | December 21, 2006 4:06 PM

One more bit on the book's title: Carter makes clear in the book itself, and in every interview he's done about it, that he is using 'apartheid' to Israeli policy wrt the occupied territories, not to Arab citizens of Israel.

The Washington Post reviewer simply lied when he said that there was no clarification of this in the book itself. My copy's on loan right now, or I'd substantiate this by citing the page. Would very much appreciate anyone who does have one to hand doing so.

Posted by Nell | December 21, 2006 4:11 PM

The Case of Jimmy Carter

Comments (58)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories