Israel Week

This Sunday, June 10th, marks the 40th anniversary of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. In case you have noticed, I haven't been posting much of my own writing. I had absolutely no inspiration, but now there is an anniversary that deserves attention.
I will be writing a series of essays about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict this week. Mostly I will be writing about the myths and red herrings. I have spent a few years arguing with Liberal Jews who support Israel, in varying degrees, and have come up with some fake roadblocks, propaganda and some intelligent debate. So in the next days I will deal with these issues that Israeli policy supporters use to end debate. The first installment will be on the line that "Hamas/PA/Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
SInce I have yet to write my first essay I will post my piece I did for my writing class. It deals with the conflict also.

On March 26th 1979 U.S. President Jimmy Carter brought together the leaders of two countries, which had been in a perpetual state of war for twenty-nine years, for a historic moment. After nearly three decades of on again off again war, the two countries, Israel and Egypt, came together to sign a peace treaty, Israel’s only peace treaty until the 1996 treaty with Jordan, which has lasted to this day. So how could it be that 28 years later Carter, a man who helped Israel create some peace in its neighborhood, would be branded an anti-Semite?

Menachem Begin, a former guerilla fighter who fought to free his country from British Occupation, was Prime Minister of Israel at the time. Begin’s legacy is controversial, some say he was a war criminal for his attacks against the British and the killing, terrorizing and displacement of the Arab natives while others view him as a champion of their dream for a Greater Israel, without the original Arab inhabitants. Begin went into the diplomatic dialogue knowing that it would be in his country’s best interest to attempt to negotiate in a one on one setting as opposed to Israel negotiating with the entire Arab world.

Anwar Al-Sadat, the third President of Egypt, also fought against British domination of his country, much like his Israeli counterpart. In 1977 Sadat made a bold and, amongst his fellow Arabs, unpopular move and became the first Arab leader to travel and speak to the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset. Sadat had hoped that this gesture, of essentially recognizing the state of Israel, would please America with the hopes that maybe the US could help the beleaguered Egyptian economy.

In September of 1978 President Carter invited both leaders and their respective negotiating teams to Camp David for secret talks that lasted 13 days. At numerous times, during those 13 days, both sides had wanted to end the peace process each time President Carter brought them back to the table. Carter would shuttle back and forth between the cabins of the two sides and then relay the information to a third party, whom would then inform either side of what has transpired.

Out of these 13 days of tense and trying negotiations came, what is now known as, the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in Washington by Sadat and Begin, a peace treaty that has lasted for almost 28 years without incident. Sadat would later be assassinated for creating peace with Israel by many of the same people who would later fight the Russians in Afghanistan and finance the attacks perpetrated against the U.S. on September 11th 2001.

Since leaving office Former President Carter has become one of the world’s leading champions of human rights and democracy. His Carter Center has monitored 67 elections in over twenty-five countries and he personally won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his humanitarian work around the globe.

Four years after winning the Nobel Prize, President Carter released a book entitled “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” in which he is critical of the Israeli’s treatment of the Palestinians. The book was condemned even before it was published by future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who said, “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.” Another fellow Democrat, John Conyers, now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has said he called the Former President “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.”

The Anti Defamation League wrote a letter to Carter telling him, “using the incendiary word "Apartheid" to refer to Israel and its policies is unacceptable and shameful” and “Apartheid, that abhorrent and racist system in South Africa, has no bearing on Israeli policies.” But Carter said: "Apartheid is the forced separation of two peoples in the same area and the forced subjugation of one to the other. No one can argue that that is not the situation in the Palestinian territories right now." Later the ADL went on to claim “[Carter has] been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.”

Some of Carter’s supporters point out that the word “apartheid” is a regular part of Israeli discourse. DePaul Professor Norman Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors, reminds us to “take the case of Ha’aretz, Israel's leading newspaper….in their editorials, they routinely refer to the apartheid-like regime in the Occupied Territories.” He then goes on to ask, “so why is it illegitimate for a former American president to use a term which is a commonplace? Why are you in the United States disqualified from participating in what in Israel is part of the mainstream discourse?”

The few book reviews that were published also attacked Carter. Martin Peretz of the New Republic claimed, “Now, I have read this book. Or as much of it as I could stand. It is a tendentious, dishonest and stupid book.” Deborah Lipstadt of the Washington Post said of the book, “It trivializes the murder of Israelis.” She went on to say that by “almost ignoring the Holocaust, Carter gives inadvertent comfort to those who deny its importance or even its historical reality” and that “Carter has repeatedly fallen back … on traditional anti-Semitic canards” Jeffrey Goldberg, also writing in the Washington Post says that “One gets the impression that Carter believes that Israelis -- in their deviousness -- somehow mean to keep Jesus from fulfilling the demands of His ministry.”

Though leading the charge in the criticism of the former President is Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Professor Dershowitz has written several articles attacking Carter and his book for “His use of the loaded word ‘apartheid,’ suggesting an analogy to the hated policies of South Africa”.

UCLA English Professor, Saree Makdisi, thinks differently. “Israel maintains two sets of rules and regulations in the West Bank,” he tells us, “one for Jews, one for non-Jews. The only thing wrong with using the word ‘apartheid’ to describe such a repugnant system is that the South African version of institutionalized discrimination was never as elaborate as its Israeli counterpart -- nor did it have such a vocal chorus of defenders among otherwise liberal Americans.”

Professor Dershowitz has compared Carter to Nazi sympathizers. “In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.”

In the early part of 2007 Carter was invited to speak at Brandies University, a university founded by American Jews but is secular in nature. Though there has been debate surrounding the various invitations, according to The Brandies Hoot, the college’s paper, Carter had been invited three times. According to the Hoot, “The first invitation, extended by Faculty Senate Chair Harry Mairson, was declined by Carter after Carter advisor and Brandeis trustee Stuart Eizenstat told Carter he was uncertain if the professor had an agenda behind his invitation.”

Then the university suggested the former president, the first to visit since the 1957 commencement speech by the late Harry Truman, debate Alan Dershowitz. Many saw this as puzzling. “I don’t think you ask a President of the United States to come and debate anyone. It’s just not dignified,” said Brandeis Professor Gordon Fellman. Carter turned down the invitation saying “I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz… there is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.” Dershowitz fired back arguing, "President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate. Then why won’t he debate?”

Carter responding to a caller on CSPAN, who called him a racist, bigot and anti-semite, said, “The pre-eminent goal that I have had in my mind is to bring peace to the people of Israel.”
In the end all of these attacks against the former President have taken a toll on him. "I've been hurt and so has my family by some of the reaction," Carter said. "This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist. This has hurt me."