There has been much talk of Jimmy Carter's new book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." The former President of the United States has admitted that he intended to provoke with his title.
Carter is now placing the blame for the continued conflict squarely on Israel. According to Carter, Palestine has long recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace, but Israel has never agreed to recognize an independent Palestinian state.
This is highly ironic, because Carter is now blaming Israel for a policy that he himself advocated. When he was President of the United States, Jimmy Carter opposed the creation of an independent Palestinian state
During his tenure, Carter expressed support for the rights of the Palestinians living under occupation. But that was in the context of the West Bank being annexed to Jordan. When it came to an independent Palestinian state, Carter's position was crystal clear.
"Let me assure you that in this negotiation, as we work for the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, recognized in the Camp David accords by Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat, that we will countenance no action whcih could hurt Israel's security. This is because of our commitment to Israel's security and well-being, and it's because Israel's security is so closely linked to the security of the United States of America.
... I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States interests. (Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference, February 25, 1980)."
One month later, in a ceremony marking the First Anniversary of the Camp David accords, Carter reiterated his opposition to the Palestinian state.
"That concept offers a first real hope for keeping our common pledge -- a pledge made by all three of us -- to resolve the Palestinian problem in all its aspects while fully protecting the security and the future of Israel ...
And we oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America's own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel's security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer to the world. A strong Israel and a strong Egypt serve our own security interests."
At the same ceremony, Carter stated his commitment to an undivided Jerusalem.
We are committed to Israel's right to live in peace with all its neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism. We are committed to a Jerusalem that will forever remain undivided with free access to all faiths to the holy places. Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and committments.
This should not be terribly surprising. A common myth stated by critics of Israel is that they are required by UN resolutions to cede all land occupied in 1967 to the Palestinians. In fact, UN Security Council Resolution 242, while it calls on Israel to withdrawal from territories in exchange for full recognition of Israel from its enemies, nowhere states that territories were to be part of an independent nation. Largely, the belief was that Israel would cede most (though not all) of the territories back to the nations which held them before the six day war. Any chance for immediate peace however, was negated by the Arab League's three "no's" at the Khartoum Conference (No Peace. No Recognition. No Negotiations).
Over the course of the next 25 years, things changed. Once Jordan relinquished its claims to the West Bank, it was clear that the only possible solution would involve an independent Palestinian State. And after the first intifada, both the Israel and the U.S. agreed to a framework where it would negotiate with the Palestinian National Authority (a creation of the Oslo Accords which transformed the PLO guerilla movement into a recognized entity to negotiate with) the final terms of a peace accord.
President Clinton staked enormous political capital on bringing peace to the middle east. Yitzhak Rabin paid his life for it. Since then, even the most conservative of Israeli prime ministers have had to work within the framework of the Oslo accords, even if they initially opposed it.
Israel has not agreed to cede all of the occupied territories to the PNA, that much is true. Yet again, to demand that Israel withdrawal from all of these territories and grant sovereignty to an entity that has not agreed to recognize its existance is something that Carter cautioned against. On Meet the Press in January of 1976, Carter stated:
I would not recognize the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO, nor their leaders under any circumstances, diplomatically, until they recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace in their present location in the Far East—in the Middle East. I think that ultimately Israel might have to withdraw to—from some of the boundaries, toward their 1967 boundaries. There’s some that I would not cede if I were the premier of Israel. One would be control of the Syrians—by the Syrians of the Golan Heights and I would not relinquish control of the, of the Jewish and Christian worship places in Jerusalem, but I think the recognition of the Palestinians as an entity and as a nation will be an integral part of the future of Middle Eastern settlement.
Here, Carter does indicate that a resolution of the conflict would allow for the creation of a Palestinian State (which he later backtracked from). Yet he also makes clear that he would not recognize a government that rejects Israel's right to exist in peace, and also makes clear that Israel would not be required to withdrawal from all of the territories occupied in 1967. He completely cedes the Golan Heights to Israel, and allows for Israeli control of the Jewish and Christian sites in Jerusalem.
In this weekend's interview, Carter tries to explain this away by saying that he envisions a 1 for 1 land swap as per the Geneva Accords. This is a nimble way of trying to cover up past statements, but not very credible.
Ultimately, Carter creates a remarkably one sided narrative attempts to blame the continuance of this conflict on Israeli rejectionism, ignoring the fact that Israel has sought peace and that Israel is faced with enemies that have never in fact recognized its right to exist in peace. More troubling, however, is Carter's attempt to blame Israel for policies for which he himself advocated, even when it was Israel and the United States that played a critical role in a shift AWAY from those policies.
The purpose of this diary is not to absolve Israel of all responsibility over the past 40 years. Rather, I wish to point out that Carter himself was a powerful advocate for the policies that he now claims are Israel's fault. For him now to wash his hands of that and blame Israel for the lack of a Palestinian state, when it has in fact taken steps that would allow its creation, is shameful.
UPDATE: I see that many people are missing the point of this diary. The problem is not whether Carter had a bona fide change of mind and whether that was acceptable.
The problem is that, as president of the most powerful nation of the world and active participant in Middle East negotiations, Carter ADOPTED a certain policy which he now tries to pass the blame onto Israel. Furthermore, he completely ignores that it was Israel, along with one of his successors as president, Bill Clinton, that in fact created the frame work that a) he deems necessary for a lasting peace and b) he unfairly accuses Israel of rejecting.