Tough Love: Jimmy Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

Yossi Beilin: Of course, Carter is not just another media pundit or a leftist Israeli.

A former president of the United States and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, he has been one of the world’s most accomplished statesmen in the past three decades, a public figure of enormous moral clout.

His words weigh heavier than those of others, and his actions make a difference, in the real sense of the term.

* * *

The Camp David summit he convened in September 1978, which resulted in the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, was a historical watershed for the entire region.

It inaugurated the Arab-Israeli peace process, without which the Oslo peace process would not have been possible, nor the 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan.

In light of the failure of the second Camp David summit of July 2000, Carter’s successful mediation between such starkly different leaders as Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat is all the more impressive, and his achievement — which was a truly personal achievement — all the more remarkable.

Every Israeli, and every Jew to whom the destiny of Israel is important, is indebted to Carter for breaking the ring of hostility that had choked Israel for more than 30 years.

No American president before him had dedicated himself so fully to the cause of Israel’s peace and security, and, with the exception of Bill Clinton, no American president has done so since.

This is why the publication of Carter’s recent book, and perhaps more than anything else, the title it bears, has pained so many people.

And I must admit that, on some deeply felt level, the title of the book has strained my heart, too.

Harsh and awful as the conditions are in the West Bank, the suggestion that Israel is conducting a policy of apartheid in the occupied territories is simply unacceptable to me.

But is this what Carter is saying?

I have read his book, and I could not help but agree — however agonizingly so — with most if its contents.

Where I disagreed was mostly with the choice of language, including his choice of the word “apartheid.”

But if we are to be fair, and as any reading of the book makes clear, Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” is first and foremost metaphorical.

Underlying Israel’s policy in the West Bank, he argues, is not a racist ideology but rather a nationalist drive for the acquisition of land.

The resulting violence, and the segregationist policies that shape life in the West Bank, are the ill-intended consequences of that drive.

* * *

Somewhere down the line ... the destructive nature of occupation will turn Israel into a pariah state, not unlike South Africa under apartheid.

In this sense, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a stark warning, to both Israelis and Palestinians, of the choice they must make.

That choice is between peace and apartheid, for the absence of one may well mean the other.

Carter’s choice is clearly peace, and, for all its disquieting language, the book he has written is sustained by the hope that we choose peace, as well.

“Inventing History”?

• DMZ

Ken Stein says, his minutes say:

But plainly, his minutes say the exact opposite:

Hafez al-Assad (Syria president) rejects a statement made that day by Shimon Peres (Israel foreign minister), that Syria would accept a demilitarized Golan Heights.

Assad takes that statement to mean (as I do), a DMZ entirely on Syrian land (unilateral demilitarization). (Golan belongs to Syria, it’s under military occupation by Israel).

Assad then proceeds to explain, in the next sentence, that he’s happy to demilitarize Golan, or part of it, provided the zone straddles the border, and is not hosted entirely on Syrian land, if Israel shares the burden of it, mutually demilitarizes an equal portion of its own adjacent land, hosts an equal portion of the international observers, the DMZ-watchers (bilateral demilitarization).

Reciprocity. An equal investment in peace.

What Ken Stein’s minutes show Assad said, that’s precisely what Jimmy Carter then announced, at the press conference, as a feasible agreement.

He could not proclaim it feasible, rationally, unless Assad said he would do it.

All sorts of people would very quickly discover it, if Jimmy Carter simply invented this idea, not least U.S. government officials, who could pick up the telephone and ask Assad if it was true, that he would agree to that.

• “My notes of the trip”

Holy scripture?

And God said:

Here, Ken Stein asserts, by implication, he was the only note-taker for the trip.

And so naturally, then, when discussing business, Jimmy Carter always had, by implication, by his side, Ken Stein.

But Jimmy Carter says he makes his own notes, at his meetings or afterwards, I haven’t heard him say, and he famously travels with another note-taker, the famous Rosalynn, his childhood sweetheart and wife.

Was Rosalynn at that meeting?

And did she take notes?

Ken Stein doesn’t tell us.

He gives no complete list, of who was at the meeting, only a partial list, in this caption, framing an image of one page of a notebook:

____________________

“Minutes of a Meeting Between Syrian Pres. Hafez al-Assad and Pres. Jimmy Carter.

March 16, 1990, 1:30-4pm, Damascus, Syria.

Notes taken by Ken Stein, Middle East Fellow, Carter Center. (Others present at this meeting include a translator and Syrian FM Farouk al-Sharaa).”

____________________

(The caption is contradictory. “Minutes” are something you write later, a shortened summary of what you think important in the “notes.” The image shows a neat hand, suggesting the words were written later, as unrushed minutes, or copied notes, and are not original notes, written in haste, in real time, in the meeting, but they might be.)

And, Ken Stein doesn’t tell us this:

Did Jimmy Carter have meetings or conversations Ken Stein did not attend?

If so, then Ken Stein’s notes might be a “full set of my notes of the March 1990 trip.”

And, they might even be trustworthy.

But, a very misleading, untrustworthy, omission:—

Are they incomplete.

A “full set” of incomplete notes.

Which did not record the full trip.

Which omit meetings during that trip.

A book with pages missing.

If so, then, on a full set of facts:—

Hardly holy scripture.

Hardly the word of God.

And merely a third set of notes anyway.

The gospel according to Ken.

The gospel according to Jimmy.

The gospel according to Rosalynn.

• “This meeting”

Ken Stein asserts it to be a fact, that Jimmy Carter, in his book, recounted “a meeting” with Assad “at his presidential office,” “reworded the conversation,” and “invented the substance of this meeting.”

But Jimmy Carter wrote no such thing.

Ken Stein quotes what Jimmy Carter said, in his book, which plainly does not refer to any particular meeting, or any particular conversation.

The image of Ken Stein’s minutes, the caption, says the meeting lasted 2-1/2 hours (1:30-4pm).

Speaking 11 days later, Jimmy Carter said, he and Rosalynn had spent 7-1/2 hours with Assad.

This additional 5 hours of conversations excluded, I presume, Ken Stein, and that’s likely where Assad said this, which Ken Stein asserts Jimmy Carter also lied about in his book:

This is a secret negotiating position.

Assad would not want to concede this, unless he had to, and so Assad would not want Ken Stein to know about it (how far Assad was willing to go), or any other stranger he didn’t trust.

Jimmy Carter would be glad to know about it, because he was a mediator. His task was to form a judgment, an opinion. What would his recommendation be? Is an agreement feasible? Is it worthwhile to mobilize a big production, multilateral peace talks? Or, instead, in the end, would it be a waste of time, money, effort, goodwill?

____________________

March 27 1990, Washington D.C.:

Jimmy Carter: (Applause.) Thank you.

Well, first of all, let me apologize for being late.

I was with the President and the Secretary of State, and I’m not the one to close those meetings these days. (Laughter.)

But I’ve been looking forward to the chance to come back and be with you.

I’m going to make a brief opening statement and spend what time we have available answering your questions.

And then I go to Capitol Hill to meet with a group that Tom Foley has put together.

And then over to the Senate. George Mitchell has a few people gathered together this afternoon.

* * *

Rosalynn and I spent 7-1/2 hours with President Assad.

A lot of that time accompanied by his Foreign Minister Sharaa who, interestingly enough, in the last three years has been greatly promoted, in my own assessment, in his stature and his influence.

I’ve known him for a number of years since 1983. He was at the Carter Center, representing Syria, but he’s now playing a very strong role there.

And again, we had interesting conversations.

We talked about a wide range of issues, and I answered questions later on.

I think the most important as far as the peace process is concerned is that Assad made it clear to me, as he has previously, that he didn’t object at all to the format of an international peace conference, either under US-Soviet sponsorship or the five permanent members of the Security Council.

He didn’t want the convening powers to play a major role except to provide the forum.

He did not want the Soviet Union or anyone else to impose will on the Middle East participants.

He was ready to adjourn immediately after expressing Syria’s best case to the world, to direct bilateral talks with Israel in order to resolve all the differences that exist between Syria and Israel—straight bilateral talks.

We had a long range of discussions, I am not authorized to speak in detail, but I can tell you my own opinion is that a resolution can be worked out at the Golan Heights issue, if both sides are amiable to this, to demilitarize the area on both sides of the international zone and to have international observers there to confirm that an agreement is being carried out.

* * *

Question: Mr. President, what is it like for you after 11 years since the Camp David signing, to see that there is still so much pain, so much suffering, so much needless death?

What is it like for you, personally?

Jimmy Carter: Well, it’s distressing to me, to see that very little movement has been made since 1980-81.

I have been pleased recently at the strong emphasis that has been placed on the Middle East peace process by President Bush and Secretary Baker.

And this is appreciated, I think, by all parties in the Middle East.

* * *

Question: Your statement on the Syrian position drove some of us to believe that Syria is really changing its position.

And it drove some of us to say that, no, Syria is still on the same lines as it were before, say, 10 years.

Will you kindly be more elaborate on that?

Jimmy Carter: Well, let me make clear something I shouldn’t have to, and that is, I’m not here speaking for Assad. But I’ve been meeting with him since 1977. The first time was in, I think, May or June of ’77 when I met with him in Geneva {May 9 1977}. He’s never been to this country. I went back in 1983 and again in 1987 and again just a couple weeks ago.

There’s no doubt in my mind, that Assad’s attitude toward the peace process is much more constructive, much more moderate, than it was before.

He acknowledges freely to me, and to others, that Israel— about Israel’s right to exist.

He recognizes, that Israel is there permanently.

And he’s willing to recognize Israel, to the extent of meeting with Israeli leaders, on an equal basis, to negotiate the differences that exist between his country and others. He’s willing to do this on a bilateral basis.

As you know, he strongly condemned Sadat, and broke diplomatic relations with Egypt — which almost all the other Arabs did — because Sadat negotiated directly with Israel, instead as of as a united Arab group.

Now, Assad is prepared to negotiate directly with Israel, as a second step in an international peace conference ... the convening of an international peace conference, in accords with U.N. Resolution 338 ...

And then there would be a general agreement with which Assad agrees, and authorized me to say, that the Soviet Union or others should not impose the superpowers’ will on the Mideast peace participants. They would not attempt to veto any agreement that was negotiated bilaterally.

The other two things that the superpowers or the convening parties would do is to guarantee that agreements reached would be carried out, maybe by taking this to the UN Security Council, or providing observation forces, and so forth.

And the last thing is that they would help be responsible for raising funds, to pay for the cost of the peace process, which might be substantial.

So this is what—

All of this, that I’ve just told you, I’ve been authorized by Assad to quote as his position. Whether he’s sincere, I have no way to know.

But the fact that he’s— now says that, is certainly a dramatic difference, compared to what it was, five or more years ago.

____________________

Defamation

Plain to see, Ken Stein’s evidence, proves nothing of what he claims, and does not even prove his description of his own minutes.

And especially, Ken Stein’s evidence does not prove his inflammator