A Palestinian view of Jimmy Carter's book

[Tom Joad]

This was printed today in the Wall St. Journal, but is only available there in full for subscribers, it is also available here:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6310.shtml

President Carter has done what few American politicians have dared to do: speak frankly about the Israel-Palestine conflict. He has done this nation, and the cause of peace, an enormous service by focusing attention on what he calls "the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank."

The 39th president of the United States, the most successful Arab-Israeli peace negotiator to date, has braved a storm of criticism, including the insinuation from the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League that his arguments are anti-Semitic.

Mr. Carter has tried to mollify critics by suggesting that his is not a commentary on Israeli policy inside Israel's own borders, as compared with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem -- territories Israel occupied in 1967. He told NPR, "I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew. And so I very carefully avoided talking about anything inside Israel."

Given the pressure he has faced, it may be understandable that Mr. Carter says this, but he is wrong. In addition to nearly four million Palestinians living under Israeli rule in the occupied territories, another one million live inside Israel's pre-1967 borders. These Palestinians are descendants of those who were not forced out or did not flee when Israel was created in 1948. (snip)

Do read the whole article. That number again:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6310.shtml

[oberliner]

1. Are you opposed to a Two-State Solution as the author of this article is?

The author of this article is Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada.

He has recently written a book entitled: One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.

Have you read the book and if so, what are your thoughts on his proposal?

[Tom Joad]

2. the author is not so much opposed to a "two state" solution as he sees

that it is getting nowhere. Israel has rejected that, and even today made such a solution near impossible. How many in Israel want to give up the whole West Bank? certainly not the hundred of thousands of Jewish Israelis that live there. Certainly not the residents of the new settlement being opened this week on the West Bank, the first in over a decade. And then what of the Palestinian Arab residents in Israel... are they happy with the current situation? (some here would say they are just fine with it, and they feel like equals... but a man like Avigdor Lieberman is asked to join the govt who wants to shoot Palestinian lawmakers... god knows no Arab Israeli will ever be asked to join any Israeli govt. So i suspect Israeli Arabs may not be so keen on the status quo.

Have not finished the book but i think he presents the fairest and compassionate proposals for a resolution of the conflict that will work best for all the people of Israel/Palestine, and do heartily recommend it. Still, i don't necessarily oppose a *two state* or for that matter an *eight state* resolution. Its not up to me. I believe the resolution must be based on adherence to international law and not based on who has more military power.

My focus is on changing US policy in regards to its support for Israeli occupation and its brutal policies toward Palestinians.

[razors edge]

3. I'd settle for

an end to picking my pocket to pay for it.

[Tom Joad]

4. Exactly, we should not be paying for this conflict.

[question everything]

5. Foreign aid, to Israel and to others, comes with strings attached

Most of it has to be sent back to this country to purchase goods, mostly military equipment.

Now, you may be strongly opposed to any military activities and supplies, however as long as we do have it, Israel has been purchasing fighter jets and other equipment for years.

Further, first with the Soviet Union and now with Iran, the performance of US built military equipment is being tested against that of its enemies - on the Israeli battlefield.

[Tom Joad]

7. Yes, i think those who profit from killing people are very happy with the

arrangement. The rest of us pay to make them rich.

I don't think too highly of them. Sorry.

[barb162]

19. I take it that means you are also against US aid to Palestinians?

Hamas and several other groups are dedicated to killing Israelis, aren't they? Why give aid to either side?

[oberliner]

8. Democratic Party platform position

From The 2004 Democratic National Platform for America:

We support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. The creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. Furthermore, all understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And we understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:sUV_0E2bAgEJ:www.fairfaxcitydemocrats.org/docs/2004-dem-platform.pdf+The+Democratic+Platform+for+America&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

The United States should, in my view (and to paraphrase the platform) engage both sides in the I/P conflict the way that Bill Clinton did in an effort to bring about what is mentioned above.

That is my focus.

Personally, I feel that there is too much demonization on both sides, too much focusing on the extremists, less on the average people.

To answer your question, I would say absolutely that the majority of Israelis would support giving up the West Bank in return for a promise of peace and security.

And yes, Avigdor Lieberman is an unsavory character. There are many unsavory characters within the Palestinian Legislative Council as well.

Can't we focus on trying to do everything we can to bridge the gap, build consensus, and work towards a lasting peace?

[barb162]

20. Hamas has rejected a two-state solution, not Israel

Yours:"Israel has rejected that, and even today made such a solution near impossible"

Since the beginning of the so-called ceasefire, the Palestinian IJ terrorists are shooting rockets into Israel daily and Israel hasn't responded even though innocent Israeli civilians are getting injured from these rockets. Israel has been showing huge restraint against the lack of Palestinian enforcement of the ceasefire.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. Israel did reject the two-state solution throughout the 90's

certainly they could have made a peaceful settlement way back in 93 after Oslo. Instead Israel rejected peace and embarked on the most massive expansion of settlements and land confiscation in its history.

When in came to the summer 2000 at Camp David. Israel refused to negotiate in good faith and made such outrageous and ridiculous demands that they derailed the whole process. Once again rejecting the two-state solution and once again rejecting peace

It was not until the ends of December 2000 and under tremendous pressure from Washington that Israel started to get serious about negotiating. Unfortunately time ran out with with Israel facing its elections, Israel unilaterally broke off talks on 28 January 2001.

Even after the election of the Hamas led government, the Hamas leadership did make numerous appeals for talks, again rebuffed and Israel embarked on its campaign of "targeted assassinations". Even the so called unilateral disengagement form the Gaza was accompanied by accelerated settlement expansion, apartheid road building and massive land confiscation on the West Bank.
_____________

The ink wasn't even dry from signing the Oslo Accord in September, 1993 and Israel was engaging in the most massive settlement expansion project in its history, along with building the Apartheid roads and imposing closure policies which devastated the Palestinian economy. Oslo was actually used as a pretext to justify closure policies which made a viable economy virtually impossible. And this was well before one single suicide bombing ever occurred; this first happening in Afula on April 6, 1994. In September of 1993 there were a total of about 95,000 Israeli settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. By 2000 the number had increased to the multiple hundreds of thousands. Estimates range between 300,000 and 400,000.

When the Israeli and Palestinian delegations met in the summer of 2000 for final status talks, the only offers the Palestinians were given were so outrageous that even a lead negotiator and the Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami has said very clearly that he would have rejected the offer if he had been Palestinian. links:
http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

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

It was not until the very final days of the Barak Labor government and under tremendous pressure from President Clinton did the Israeli government get serious about a credible offer.

Unfortunately with Mr. Sharon who was widely expected to win the election pledging that he would not honor the agreement and then Mr. Barak deciding to distance himself from the Taba negotiations, Israel--not the Palestinians unilaterally withdrew from the Taba talks on January 28, 2001. It must be said in fairness that Israel was just a couple weeks away from the election at that point:

Here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2001:

"Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba

"In the current reality of terror attacks and bombing raids, it is hard to remember that Israel and the Palestinians were close to a final-status agreement at Taba only 13 months ago."

By Akiva Eldar

Ha'aretz
14 February 2002 - link: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip" This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to the rest of Mr. Eldar's analysis as well as complete summary documents known as the "Moratinos Document"

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html
_________________________________

link to a summary of what was actually offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in the Summer of 2000:

link:

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

"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
__________________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University Connecticut

link:

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf
_________________________

[barb162]

24. I disagree with this. Read Clinton's autobiography

Israel bent over backward and its peace overtures were rejected by Arafat. And Hamas does reject a two state solution

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. forgive me for jumping in and playing the know-it-all once again

But I literally read the book just yesterday. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with the author, but I really wanted to find out just exactly what Mr. Abunimah was proposing.

I will say this that after reading about 30 to 40 different book on the Israel/Palestine conflict over the past two years. This is the first genuinely optimistic book I have come across.

Ali Abunimah is a Palestinian-American residing in Chicago who is the co-founder of the Website,Electronic Intifada. However, he himself was born in Jordan of parents who had fled Palestine in 1948 when serious fighting came to their area and right before the actual Declaration of Independence by Israel.

Al Abunimah's father was the Jordanian Ambassador to Brussels, Belgium where young Ali spent much of his childhood and teenage years. This is actually extremely relevant to his vision of a single federated Israel-Palestine state. Because Belgium as a country has a long history of great conflict between the French speaking Catholic side and the Dutch (or actually Flemish) speaking Protestant side. The author argues that in spite of tremendous ethnic hatred and recriminations that went back centuries, the people of Belgium were able to find a workable solution. Mr. Abunimah draws a parallel between Israel and Palestine in arguing that simply dividing the country would have left too many people on the wrong side of the border to provide a satisfactory arrangement the would would be mutually agreeable and still provide contiguity.

A state must be devised that recognizes the cultural, religious and language rights of both major communities in a federated manner.

Mr. Abunimah points out that the two communities in Belgium still fight all the time, but in the halls of Parliament rather than in the streets.

A central point of the author is that when the two-state solution first acquired currency among Palestinians, every Palestinian agreed that the two-state solution was not just or fair. But it was pragmatic. Remembering that at that time no major Israeli political party would even publicly consider the possibility of two states. Mr. Abunimah argues that the past two decades have revealed that the two-state solution is simply not so pragmatic after all. The populations are just too mixed to satisfy both sides. The extension of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 1967 makes removing the settlements or establishing a genuine contiguous Palestinian state is politically nonviable to point of being almost impossible. He maintains that neither Israel or the Palestinian leadership are simply willing to make and stick to an agreement on two-states that will actually work. And even if they did it would leave so many festering wounds that it would set the stage for more conflict.

Ali Abunimah argues that Belgium and other examples such as the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreements offers examples of how a it is possible to build a federated state that respects the rights and protects the culture of different peoples. Under such an agreement, the author argues, the Jews could still experience the benefits of a Jewish state and the Palestinians could experience the benefits of a Palestinian state.

Personally, I would agree that at this stage the idea sounds a bit utopic. However, Mr. Abunimah may have a point that this utopian sounding idea might actually be more pragmatic that the two-state solution.

It was just so pleasant to read an optimistic sounding book on Israel/Palestine for a change.
___________

Amazon link to One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse by Ali Abunimah:

http://www.amazon.com/One-Country-Proposal-Israeli-Palestinian-Impasse/dp/0805080341/sr=11-1/qid=1167196689/ref=sr_11_1/102-8701952-4352901
___________

link to and interview regarding the book given by the Author on KPFA, Berekley

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5877.shtml

link to a talk regarding the book and the single state proposal given by the author at the Palestine Center in Washington, D.C.

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/store/548.shtml

.

[Tom Joad]

9. Thanks, a great review of the book. I think those who expect that what he is

proposing is the worst possible resolution of the conflict from the point of view of Jewish Israelis would do well to listen to what Ali Abunimah is actually saying, and not what they imagine he might be saying.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. he emphasizes that such a proposal MUST have trip-wires

built into the system such as exist in the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement or the Belgium system (and actually Switzerland as well) that prevent any one group from unreasonably dominating the other.

This proposal, the likes of which have been already been very successfully established in other countries experiences, could protect the cultural and religious identity of all the parties. It would NOT mean the end of the experience of the Jewish state for the Jewish people living in the new Israel-Palestine.

I'm hesitant to back the idea completely. But since two-state proposals are not getting aware, it is worth thinking about other alternatives; alternatives that have been experienced by other bi-national societies with equally violent histories of conflict and recriminations.

[cali]

11. A pleasant sounding solution to you and

a complete non-starter for Israelis. Talking about a one state solution is absurd. It's simply realistic. Virtually the only way such a state would come into being is through horrific violence. The only people who support such a solution are those who avidly look forward to the end of a Jewish State.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. if someone grasp the nature of what is actually being proposed

I think that it may not be quite such a non-starter. The proposal and there have been others along the some line, emphasizes a federated - again for emphasis; FEDERATED - state (some have described it as two nations/one state) in which the Jewish citizens would have the Jewishness of their institutions; their cultural religious and language rights fully protected and Palestinians would also have their cultural, religious and language rights fully protected. The system would be designed to insure that no group unreasonably dominates the other. There are models of successful systems like this that do work.

Until the early 1990's ALL major Israeli political parties supported a single state. In fact to propose a two-state solution was practically considered supporting terrorism. Unfortunately, the thinking of that era did not consider Palestinian rights at all.

Personally I am kind of neutral on the matter. Whatever can bring a just and lasting peace, I am all for it. However, there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence at this time that a genuine two-state solution is much of a starter.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. I might add that there were a number of early Zionist such as Martin Buber

who were strong bi-nationalist and imagined a country in which Arabs and Jews lived and worked in peace together. In fact this idea actually had a significant albeit minority following among early Zionist.

[Tom Joad]

23. Judah Magnes. I like the museum named in his honor right here in Berkeley.

[pelsar]

18. Lebanon?

The system would be designed to insure that no group unreasonably dominates the other. There are models of successful systems like this that do work.
....Yugosaliva?

the political models are problematic in that after time..things change. Quebec in Canada? But more important of all were talking about the middle east where the cultures that are involved are also subjected to forces/cultures from other countries. Meaning the muslim brotherhood will have their influence as will a host of other fanatics muslim groups (the jews dont have any on that scale....) as well as countries like iran that the Palestinians will have to "contain".

An outside country could easily tear it apart....Lebanon being the prime example. This is the middle east, not Europe...and the Palestinians do not have a stable history of democracy..in fact they have no history of democracy at all (elections do not make a democracy).....

back to the two state solution...at least for the time being, a federation sounds nice, but first we need to get ourselves separated, and the Palestinians have to work out their own differences first, are they secular (fatah) or theocratic (hamas).

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Early Zionist advocates of a binational state...

..included Martin Buber. While it was definately a minority view amongst Jewish settlers in pre-Israel Palestine, there were minority Zionist groups in Palestine who did advocate binationalism...

I haven't read Ali Abunimah's book, but from what I've read he supports nothing different than that - one secular state where all citizens are equal. On a pragmatic level I support the two-state solution*, but agree with what he's said about it becoming less realistic a solution as time goes on and the populations intermingle through Israel's settlement building throughout the West Bank. It will probably get to the stage where neither solution is particularly realistic and then I'll opt for the fairest one, which is one secular state with equal rights for all....

* Note that I support a two-state solution based on the Green Line and the dismantling of most if not all settlements in the West Bank. This would make the Palestinian state a viable one where the territory is contiguous. I've read things from some folk who say they support a two-state solution, only to find out what they're talking about is Israel and Jordan, or for some it means a Palestinian mini-state in the West Bank cut up into four or more sections...

[cali]

17. That there was

early zionist support for a binational state, and even that there was some marginal Israeli support for a binational state until a 10 or 15 years ago, has no bearing on the status today. A binational state is far more unrealistic than a 2 state solution, and probably that will remain true for many years to come.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. How is it far more unrealistic?

Both solutions are unrealistic, and the two-state solution has been (it's not something that will happen in many years to come) heading into being nearly as or just as unrealistic as the one-state solution for quite a few years now. And when both are unrealistic, picking the least fair solution because it's a bit less unrealistic is kind of giving in...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. What a pleasure

to hear a respected, admired, moral American figure speak truth about the occupation, even if he whitewashes the situation of Israeli Arabs.

Every Democratic elected official should have a required sit-down with Carter.

It's hard to argue with Carter's POV.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. welcome to DU

I hope your perpective will be heard more often on this forum.

[msmcghee]

22. Welcome to DU and the dungeon ;-)

I notice you identify yourself as a Muslim. Have you ever lived in or visited the ME? I look forward to learning more about the I/P conflict from your pov - especially if you have some experience living in the region. :thumbsup: