The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.Carter, who is intensely critical of the complete absence of criticism, apparently has never visited the United Nations. Nor apparently does he read the New York Times or the Washington Post. Apparently Carter is content to resorting to the tried and true formula of whining how no one in the US ever complains or criticizes Israel.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
One would think that if you put together all the people who attack Israel while simultaneously complaining that they are the only ones who do because of the nefarious pro-Israel Lobby--you'd get quite a sizable number.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace...Does he mean he reluctantly used outside sources for his book? Is he claiming that he had no choice but to use Ross' maps without permission? Is it clear what he claims to be uncertain about?
the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.Can he name what part of the Roadmap actually has been accepted by the PLO? Have they actually fulfilled any part of it? Have they stopped the terrorist attacks. Come on--they cannot even fulfill a ceasefire for more than a few hours. Has Israel actually "largely rejected" the Roadmap? What in the world is Jimmy Carter talking about?
Carter also claims:
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.If he is describing events in Palestine and not in Israel, then we must assume he is talking about Gaza and the West Bank--but the Palestinian areas there are under the control of the PA. If democracy does not prevail in those areas, as is clear from the corruption and the shootings by Palestinians, the ones responsible are the Palestinians.
One other point: if Carter is so concerned about the imbalance of the criticism:
o Why is it that the "Pro-Israel" media does not call the Palestinians "terrorists" but instead has been extremely supportive of the 2-state idea and tends to repeat every anti-Israel claim the Palestinians produce.See also the scathing review of Carter's book in the Washington Post.
o Where is Carter's criticism of the Palestinians? After all, shouldn't he be the model for 'balanced' criticism? Or is he claiming that because everyone is pro-Israel, he must balance out the media by being purely critical?
Powerline also has an analysis of the contradictions and just plain nonsense we have come to expect from Jimmy Carter.