Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter
|
List Price: Our Price: $5.00 You Save: $22.00 (81%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.94 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
Book Review: About time
Summary: 4 Stars
Nobel Prize Laurate Jimmy Carter wrote the necessary. Some might not agree with the book, but truth be told this is a must read with those who are obssessed with the holocaust, but cant see the jews commiting the same atrocities they love to complain about.
Book Review: Good Ideas, BUT They Could've Been Published in an Article
Summary: 3 Stars
Former President Jimmy Carter did a lot to advance Middle East peace, and he relies extensively upon personal meetings he had with Israeli and Arab leaders. I liked that "behind the scenes" aspect of the book.
However, the book is very repetitive and at times rambling. The book, 247 pages, could've been half that.
That criticism aside, I believe President Carter adds a useful voice to the Arab-Israeli peace process and the internal development of American policy toward the relevant players.
Drawing on his extensive dealings with the Arab and Israeli leaders over the course of four decades, President Carter surveys the development of the peace process during his presidency and then during those after.
From my perspective, the book was not particularly controversial - certainly no worse than what some "revisionist/reform" Israeli historians have written about their nation's relationship with Arabs.
I believe the book could've been condensed into an article, but it nevertheless adds to the discussion by providing a framework for a just, sustainable peace in the region (I don't support or oppose his framework necessarily, but it's good that he proferred an idea - something others should do instead of attacking his motives or charging him with anti-semitism). He believes UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 should guide future peace negotiations, and he believes that any "land-grabs" by the Israelis should be offset by Arab-annexations of now-Israeli land. Moreover, President Carter believes that a limited right to return should be granted to the displaced Palestinians with the rest being given just compensation.
The ideas aren't as radical as some in the media portrayed. The time has come for a discussion about America's role in the peace process and its foreign relations regarding Israel and the Arabs. Whether you agree or agree with President Carter, he adds to the discussion - a benefit.
And on a side note, the font is huge - as is the line spacing, so the book is a FAST read.
All said, do not buy this book for full price. Buy it hugely discounted (I got it for $1.00) or, dare I say this on Amazon.com, pick it up from your local library.
Book Review: Palestine: No easy solutions without sincerity and fair play!
Summary: 3 Stars
The book leaves many questions unanswered. The issue is not that simple and even though Carter tried hard, he wasn't able to (or for that matter, no one could) find a resolution to the conflict that has plagued the Middle East for decades. What is required is sincerity, commitment,vision and fair play; unfortunately none of the leaders in the region are willing to embrace these much touted values.Book Review: wacky but has some virtues
Summary: 2 Stars
I gave this two stars because if you're going to build an anti-Israel rant, this is a good one to read because (a) I could see how he twists the facts, by emphasizing the facts that make Israel look bad and downplaying the reality of Arab terrorism and (b) it is short and a fast read.
Having said that... other reviewers have taken apart Carter's factual claims so I'll just make a few observations here and there:
*Carter's actual remedy is fairly noncontroversial, and probably no different from what most supporters of Israel would endorse (a two-state solution with the Arabs getting most of what they lost in 1967). But the problem is: how do you enforce it? Israel is a centralized state and thus might actually comply with a peace treaty. But the Arabs have so many small militias (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc.) that even in the incredibly unlikely event that every single one of them signs on to a peace treaty, part of that group will probably splinter off into its own little jihad cell, engaging in terrorist attacks in Israel and thus depriving Israel of the benefits of any treaty. If the war in Iraq has taught us anything, it is that a few well-armed malcontents can make a nation ungovernable.
*Carter writes as if Israel has been steadily gobbling up territory, based on the movement of Jews into the occupied territories. But in fact, Israel has been gradually giving up territory, with lousy results. First they gave Sinai to the Egyptians (which hasn't worked out so badly). Then, in the 1990s, they gave a chunk of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority; the Palestinian Authority responded with the 2000 war. (Carter's description of these events is bizarre; he states that Israel got "much more" than Arafat, even though Israel was the nation giving away land for promises).
Then they basically gave Gaza to Hamas; Hamas responded with the current mini-war. When Israel has given up land, it has generally not gotten peace, or even the approval of Carter (who treats each award of land to the Arabs as a provocation because of its inadequacy). So why should Israel fall for the same trap again?
*Carter admits that Arabs had "no real commitment to establish a separate and independent nation" in the 19th century. Instead, "Strong ideas of nationhood began to take shape among the Arabs only when they saw increasing numbers of Zionists immigrate to Palestine." In other words, the so-called "Palestinian people" only exists because of anti-Semitism. If that is the case, why should their so-called nationalism be accommodated?
*Carter complains that Israel has withheld taxes "collected on behalf of the Palestinians." If Israel is so malevolent, why is Israel giving money to Arabs who are trying to kill them?
*Carter treats the 2000 war against Israel mostly by ignoring it. He writes that in 2006, the Arab leader Abbas informed him "that there had been no opportunity for a Palestinian leader to participate in peace talks for the past five years..." Carter simply does not mention that the absence of peace talks might have something to do with the fact that the Arabs were busy conducting suicide bombings inside Israel.
*Carter is obsessed with U.N. resolutions requiring Israel to give up the "occupied territories." Given the U.N.'s repeated singling out for Israel for attack (including the "Zionism = racism" resolution in the 1970s) isn't the U.N. essentially a kangaroo court? Most of its members are either dependent on Arab oil or have good reason to fear Arab terrorism (especially after the spread of al-Qaeda).
*Carter mentions that Hebron has 450 Jews and 150,000 Arabs. If Israel has been engaged in ethnic cleansing, obviously it hasn't been very successful.
Book Review: Disgusted
Summary: 2 Stars
As a two-time Emory Univ. grad (undergraduate & law), this man shames me. How could an alleged Christian become so anti-semetic & anti-Israel? People say it is possible to be "anti-Israel" or at least extremely critical of Israel w/o being an anti-semite. If so, I have yet to see such a person. Basically, its a "scratch a Russian, get a Tartar" situation. Always.
In between degrees at Emory, I slipped in an M.A. in History from Vandy. I was really meant to be a professor, but for selfish economic reasons went astray. Nevertheless, my decision has [economically] enabled me to read very widely in history. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jimmy Carter will go down in history as yet another one of those disappointed office seekers/leaders/politicians etc. who upon rejection by their "own" people, entered into a dangerous flirtation (or worse) with Fascism/Communism/Nazism etc., etc. If he lives long enough, I truly believe he will offer some sort of public support for totalitarianism of some ilk.