Jimmy Carter on Israel, Iran, Barack Obama and the Chances for Middle East Peace
In the newly published We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work, former President Jimmy Carter outlines a policy proposal for the Obama administration and argues that now is the time for Middle East peace. The 39th president spoke with U.S. News about his latest book, the controversy surrounding one of his previous books, the recent Israeli elections, and more. Excerpts:
You've written a number of books on the Middle East. What will surprise readers familiar with your previous books?
The simplicity of the agreement that almost has to be worked out between Israel and the Palestinians to bring peace that both people want, and the need for a strong hand from Washington to help make it possible.
Do you think that President Obama should read your book?
Well, he has, I believe—I gave him a copy. In fact, I gave him the first copy of the book I had. The one that the editors or the publishers sent me early. I read it over to make sure there were no errors in it, and I gave him the only copy I had the night I met with him, which was before the five presidents had lunch together.
Did he say anything about it?
He said he was going to read it, and he thanked me for bringing it to him. And I gave him a written summary of the main points in the book—just a couple of pages that I typed.
Have you met with President Obama since then?
Well, I met with him the next day when the five presidents had lunch together. And I met with him again on Inauguration Day. I was going to meet with him earlier in the fall, but I went over to meet with the leaders in Lebanon and Syria in December, and he asked me to wait until after I got back from that trip before we had a meeting. So, that's why we met the first week in January.
What was the outcome of that meeting?
It's not proper to describe what he said or I said. But I gave him a rundown of what I had been doing over the previous 12 months or so, and I would say we spent about half the time concentrating on the Middle East trip.
In what ways is your new book a response to the controversy regarding the title of your previous book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid?
It's just a natural follow-up. There's no need to insert division or a contradiction between them. The first take was completely balanced. It was fair. It was a report about what needed to be done about a Palestinian issue inside the West Bank and Gaza. It was strictly limited to that and on the plight of the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. But the word apartheid was taken out of context, in my opinion, and emphasized excessively by people that criticized the title.
How would you describe your feelings about the controversy that generated?
I knew there was going to be some debate or controversy aroused by the use of the word apartheid in the title, which is an accurate description of what's going on in Palestine. The book is about Palestine, not Israel. But I didn't equate, ever, apartheid and what's going on in Palestine with South Africa. I define what apartheid means—it means when two people occupy the same land and they are forcefully segregated, one from another, and one people dominates the other. That's the definition of apartheid. But I do point out in this book that one of the reasons I think it's time for this two-state solution to prevail is because many Israelis, many of whom I quote in this book, strongly condemn any possibility of a one-state solution.
How do we draw the line between bad actors acceptable to negotiate with and the bad actors that aren't? Should there be a line drawn at all?
Yes, there should be a line drawn. I went over [to North Korea in 1994] and negotiated with Kim Il Sung, whom I had despised when I was a submarine officer in the Pacific Fleet during the Korean War. He was a military dictator of North Korea. But in order to prevent a greater war between North Korea and South Korea, I went over and negotiated successfully with him to resolve the nuclear issue at that time and turned over the results of my negotiation to Bill Clinton, who adopted all my agreements as national policy. Obama has said that he would open up communication with Iran. And, of course, there's no way to have peace between, among the Palestinians without including Hamas.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Carter's folly
The reason we are now talking about a nucleur Iran is because of the bleeding heart and appeasement of President Carter. True, the Shah was not a saint but had the U.S. supported him for the time being until a true democracy was established in Iran we wouldnt have the insanity that now exists nor the threat of war between Israel and Iran. The mere fact that Mr. Carter is willing to support the murderers of Hamas who will never recognize Israel as a homeland for Jewish people says that Carter follows the "Prime Minister Chamberlin philosphy" of negotiation..just appease, just appease.
Carter and Peace in the middle east
Jimmy Carter is a good hearted man, and we all know that the world is running out of such great people. The only thing war prevents is peace, and today in the United States we all can agree, that it prevents the U.S. and the world from maintaining and creating prosperous economies for our children and grandchildren, here and around the world. Its time that we all(The Whole World) work together on healing our earth's more important issues such as the enviorment, and space exploration etc. Muslims and the Jews both are related any way, children of Abraham, both of them deserve a home of their own, in the holyland, to live in peace and work together to become an economic contender in the world. The same goes for North Korea, South Korea, Russia, China, Europe, South America, Africa, Australia, Asia. Greed and Jealousy is the suspect of our battles and our problems on earth. Thanks to people like Jimmy Carter who remind us children, That we are adults that must work together against mother nature, the population of the world is a big issue, thats the reason for some much tension, the muslims should understand that isreal is not as populated(Big) as the muslims, and the jews must and should defend itself to exist, however not start a war at every turn, the jews have the upper hand and should use diplomacy, not battles, nor war,and same goes for the muslims, if hamas is what they have to move forward with peace, the jews should understand and deal with them. Thank you Mr. Jimmy Carter and those Peace makers, for you are all REAL MEN, and Blessed by my Religon Christianity
Carter's Expertise
While I genuinely believe that President Carter has a good heart and in concerned about the fair treatment and good of people, History has shown that Carter's judgements and opinions are not sound. Decisions to cut military spending led to deminishing military capabilities that led to a position of weakness that led to hostage situation that led to helecopters stranded in a desert. Bank deregulation (The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 begun under Carter.....magnified by Clinton Administration)led to um....... Carter is, however, pretty good with a hammer.JMO
advertisement








