Carter says Clinton "not accurate" about Arafat missing opportunity to resolve Palestinian crisis.

[flpoljunkie]

Former President Carter was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer today on "The Situation Room." Carter said more than once that he did not know why Clinton said these things in his book, "My Life." Carter also pointed out that Ehud Barak never Clinton's proposal either, although Clinton said Barak accepted the proposal in this same book.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/28/jimmy-carter-iraq-invas_n_35097.html

BLITZER: But -- Netanyahu, but Barak, Ehud Barak, they offered,

under the last days of the Bill Clinton administration, a deal which

would give up most of the West Bank, including parts of Jerusalem

itself. And Clinton said Arafat missed a major opportunity to resolve

this crisis right then.

CARTER: That is not quite an accurate description of it, which the...

BLITZER: Well, let me read to you what

CARTER: ... the accurate description...

BLITZER: Let me read to you what Jim -- what Bill Clinton wrote in

his book, "My Life." He was the president who as negotiating at Camp

David...

CARTER: OK.

BLITZER: ... and then at Taba, trying to resolve this. And Barak,

the prime minister...

CARTER: Right, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) yes.

BLITZER: ... who made some major...

CARTER: OK. Go ahead.

BLITZER: ... major concessions. He said: "Right before I left

office, Yasser Arafat thanked me for all my efforts and told me what a

great man I was. 'Mr. Chairman,' I replied, 'I am not a great man, I am

a failure and you have made me one.' Arafat's rejection of my proposal

after Ehud Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions."

CARTER: OK, well...

BLITZER: That's what the former president wrote in his book.

CARTER: All right. Well, in my book, which I think is accurate --

I hate to dispute Bill Clinton on your program because he did a great

and heroic effort there. He never made a proposal that was accepted by

Barak or Arafat.

BLITZER: Why would he write that in his book if...

CARTER: I don't know.

BLITZER: ... if he said Barak accepted it?

CARTER: I don't know...

BLITZER: And Arafat rejected it.

CARTER: You could check with all the records. Barak never did

accept it. And at Taba, for instance, which you've mentioned, not only

were Americans included, but Barak subsequently said I never authorized

any Israeli to negotiate at Taba with any Palestinians. And they never

did have any negotiations there.

What President Clinton proposed was never put in a map. But I've

got in this book a map, as interpreted by the Palestinians, the

enlightened Palestinians that want peace, and interpreted by the

Israelis. It's completely different. And one major difference is who

controls the entire Jordan River Valley.

The Jordan River Valley, as you know, is on the Jordan border, on

the eastern side of the West Bank, and it is controlled by the

Israelis. That completely excludes the Palestinians from having access

to anything in the east, including Jordan.

[blm]

1. Clinton's book also said he didn't pursue Bush's crimes because he wanted Bush to

have a peaceful retirement. He also never ONCE mentions BCCI - as if there was nothing significant that mattered to him, I guess.

His book also gave all credit to McCain for spearheading Vietnam normalization, even though it was wellknown, even in McCain's book, that it was Kerry who spearheaded that effort and who kept McCain from falling apart during the ordeal.

Why revise little AND big issues in the retelling? What WAS the purpose in that?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Let's See, Who's Telling The Truth... Carter or Clinton

Gee, that's a tough one!

:rofl:

[IntravenousDemilo]

3. My gut says to believe Carter. n/m

[papau]

4. My gut says Clinton because Carter's gone technical about no written offer or

telling the press what you are proposing is somehow proof that you did not propose it.

Carters slant is a bit of bull that is used to pretend what happen at Taba and the side agreements and the land split offer were either not made or were no big deal.

Carter was on Hardball tonight when it was pointed out his statement that Israel is the worst human rights oppressor ever, having produced a situation much worse than apartheid over the Palestinians, and was the worst human rights violation in Carters experience, was on its face ridiculous given the many genocides in Africa where the dead number in the millions, and Carter lost it - saying he was here to discuss the evils of Israel, he had gone to Israel and seen the roadblocks and the hardships of the Palestinians and what Israel has done with road blocks is the worst human rights violation he had ever seen - and that he was not on hardball to discuss other countries and their actions.

It appears Carter has an axe to grind and a book to sell and doesn't much like the current leadership of Israel.

I think Clinton told it like it was, and the Clinton version conforms to both the media reports at the time and to my memory of what I was being told at the time.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Carter Said That?

Carter said that Israel was the worst human rights oppressor ever? I knew he was naive, but I never thought he was nuts - do you have a link?

Thanks!

[papau]

6. It was just on tonight's hardball - there is no transcript for 24 hours. n/t

n/t

[flpoljunkie]

13. "Clinton version conforms to both the media reports at the time..." You expect truth from MSM?

[ShockediSay]

7. "the terms of the trade bordered on insulting"

"In exchange for the 9 percent of the West Bank annexed by Israel, Arafat would have gotten land as large as 1 percent of the West Bank. And, whereas some of the 9 percent was choice land, symbolically important to Palestinians, the 1 percent was land whose location wasn't even specified."

http://slate.msn.com//?id=2064500

Recommend this article for background on the subject.

[Tom Joad]

9. Bill didn't just lie about dress stains.

[Tom Joad]

12. Clinton was a strong President. Like Bush. Clinton's sanctions on Iraq

effectively ended the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Children. This, in israeli-speak, is a sign of a "strong" US president. What did Clinton's Sec. of State, that strong woman, Madeline Albright, say about this?
"It was all worth it." came the candid answer.
To hell with "strong" presidents. Even if they are elected twice. Like Clinton. Or Reagan. Or Nixon.

[Andromeda]

8. Carter is jealous of Clinton and he always has been...

Clinton was elected twice and Carter was a one-term washout. He was weak and indecisive and the only thing he can claim, and not immodestly either, is that he worked out a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. Naturally he takes all the credit even though it was so long ago nobody remembers it. He brags that they kept the agreement, which has nothing to do with Carter but everything to do with the parties who entered into the agreement. Larry King was so bored hearing Carter boast about his only accomplishment over and over again that he couldn't wait to change the subject.

If Bill Clinton had been negotiating with sane people instead of Arafat, a peace agreement would have been worked out. It's failure wasn't for want of trying. Maybe Carter has forgotten how involved Clinton was in the Northern Ireland peace talks and how hard he worked to unite people.

Nancy Pelosi quickly rebuked Jimmy Carter's use of the word "apartheid" in the title of his book and said that Democrats stand with Israel.

Howard Dean also took issue with Carter’s assessment:

“While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Dean wrote in a statement. “On this issue. President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors.”

http://www.thecornerreport.com/index.php?title=democrats_repudiate_carter_book&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the use of apartheid in the title “does not serve the cause of peace and the use of it against the Jewish people in particular, who have been victims of the worst kind of discrimination, discrimination resulting in death, is offensive and wrong.”

In his statement Tuesday, Conyers said he called Carter “to express my concerns about the title of the book, and to request that the title be changed. President Carter does not build upon his career as a proponent of peace in the Middle East with this comparison and I hope he and his publisher will reconsider this decision.”

http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/10/john_conyers_st.html

[Tom Joad]

10. The apartheid description does serve the truth, but makes some donors unhappy.

Which one is Dean concerned about??? 'nother tough question... donors or truth?

[flpoljunkie]

14. Jealous of Clinton? Hardly! You prove Carter's point about Dems not having courage to do what

is necessary for both Israel and the United States--and that is for Israel to make peace with Palestine, using the 1967 borders as the basis for a lasting peace for Israel and its neighbors in the Middle East. Would Democrats feel this way if the Pro-Israel lobby was not so powerful? I doubt it.

[Andromeda]

18. If Carter had, had more courage and backbone...

he would have been elected a second term. He was weak on foreign policy and showed how indecisive he was when confronted with the ME hostage crisis. Mr. Carter's image was damaged party because of ambitious Republicans behind the scenes who negotiated the release of the hostages after Reagan won the election.

Mr Carter is jealous of Clinton's perceived success with winning the hearts and minds of most of our foreign allies. Bill Clinton is treated like a rock star wherever he goes. Jimmy Carter never had that kind of star quality that could excite crowds.

I used to like Jimmy Carter---at least I never thought he would stoop so low as to write a book that alienates a large portion of our constituency and insults our intelligence by saying he wants "debate" on the I/P crisis and that's the purpose of his book.

He got his debate all right.

[Tom Joad]

11. Clinton promised Arafat that he would not be blamed if things did not

go well, that is, if the Israelis offered to take the Jordan Valley, for example. (NOT very "generous", except for themselves). But Clinton was not truthful to Arafat, or to the American people.

[TomClash]

15. Carter is right

You can ask Robert Malley. Barak would not accept returning significant amounts of land without a national referendum. And there was never any 95 or 97% offer. Not that Arafat would have accepted anyway - without addressing the right of return.

[Stockholm]

16. Should shut the if only the Palestinians had not thrown away...

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. The Myth of the Generous Offer: Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

snip: "Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations -- link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

.