What do you think?
Rate this book
We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work
In this urgent, balanced, and passionate book, Nobel Peace Laureate and former President Jimmy Carter argues that the present moment is a unique time for achieving peace in the Middle East -- and he offers a bold and comprehensive plan to do just that. President Carter has been a student of the biblical Holy Land all his life. For the last three decades, as president of the United States and as founder of The Carter Center, he has studied the complex and interrelated issues of the region's conflicts and has been actively involved in reconciling them. He knows the leaders of all factions in the region who will need to play key roles, and he sees encouraging signs among them.
Carter describes the history of previous peace efforts and why they fell short. He argues persuasively that the road to a peace agreement is now open and that it has broad international and regional support. Most of all, since there will be no progress without courageous and sustained U.S. leadership, he says the time for progress is now. President Barack Obama is committed to a personal effort to exert that leadership, starting early in his administration.
This is President Carter's call for action, and he lays out a practical and doable path to peace.
Carter describes the history of previous peace efforts and why they fell short. He argues persuasively that the road to a peace agreement is now open and that it has broad international and regional support. Most of all, since there will be no progress without courageous and sustained U.S. leadership, he says the time for progress is now. President Barack Obama is committed to a personal effort to exert that leadership, starting early in his administration.
This is President Carter's call for action, and he lays out a practical and doable path to peace.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 16, 2009
About the author
Jimmy Carter
240 books510 followersLibrarian’s note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
James Earl Carter, Junior, known as Jimmy, the thirty-ninth president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, creditably established energy-conservation measures, concluded the treaties of Panama Canal in 1978, negotiated the accords of Camp David between Egypt and Israel in 1979, and won the Nobel Prize of 2002 for peace.
Ronald Wilson Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter, the incumbent, in the presidential election of 1980.
He served and received. Carter served two terms in the senate of Georgia and as the 76th governor from 1971 to 1975.
Carter created new Cabinet-level Department of education. A national policy included price decontrol and new technology. From 1977, people reduced foreign oil imports one-half to 1982. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the second round of strategic arms limitation talks (SALT). Carter sought to put a stronger emphasis on human rights in 1979. People saw his return of the zone as a major concession of influence in Latin America, and Carter came under heavy criticism.
Iranian students in 1979 took over the American embassy and held hostages, and an attempt to rescue them failed; several additional major crises, including serious fuel shortages and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, marked the final year of his tenure. Edward Moore Kennedy challenged significantly higher disapproval ratings of Carter for nomination of the Democratic Party before the election of 1980. Carter defeated Kennedy for the nomination lost the election to Ronald Wilson Reagan, a Republican.
Carter left office and with Rosalynn Smith Carter, his wife, afterward founded the nongovernmental center and organization that works to advance human rights. He traveled extensively to conduct, to observe elections, and to advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations. He, a key, also figures in the project of habitat for humanity. Carter particularly vocalizes on the Palestinian conflict.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/jimmyc...
James Earl Carter, Junior, known as Jimmy, the thirty-ninth president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, creditably established energy-conservation measures, concluded the treaties of Panama Canal in 1978, negotiated the accords of Camp David between Egypt and Israel in 1979, and won the Nobel Prize of 2002 for peace.
Ronald Wilson Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter, the incumbent, in the presidential election of 1980.
He served and received. Carter served two terms in the senate of Georgia and as the 76th governor from 1971 to 1975.
Carter created new Cabinet-level Department of education. A national policy included price decontrol and new technology. From 1977, people reduced foreign oil imports one-half to 1982. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the second round of strategic arms limitation talks (SALT). Carter sought to put a stronger emphasis on human rights in 1979. People saw his return of the zone as a major concession of influence in Latin America, and Carter came under heavy criticism.
Iranian students in 1979 took over the American embassy and held hostages, and an attempt to rescue them failed; several additional major crises, including serious fuel shortages and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, marked the final year of his tenure. Edward Moore Kennedy challenged significantly higher disapproval ratings of Carter for nomination of the Democratic Party before the election of 1980. Carter defeated Kennedy for the nomination lost the election to Ronald Wilson Reagan, a Republican.
Carter left office and with Rosalynn Smith Carter, his wife, afterward founded the nongovernmental center and organization that works to advance human rights. He traveled extensively to conduct, to observe elections, and to advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations. He, a key, also figures in the project of habitat for humanity. Carter particularly vocalizes on the Palestinian conflict.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/jimmyc...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
May 27, 2016
I was not versed with the real situation in Israel, except for the slightest inkling about major events such as the Balfour Declaration, the time of the creation of an Israeli state, the Arab Israeli wars, Ariel Sharon, Yasir Arafat and his PLO. The Palestinian struggle was rooted in mystery with conflicting versions of villains and heroes from the print and electronic media.
This book in merely 182 pages demystified 60 years of complicated Holy Land history. Carter's writing prowess is commendable. I read the book twice in three days to get a grasp on things. In a nutshell Carter's book tells us "might makes right."
As a non-westerner and non-Christian, who is not burdened with the doubled guilt of Jewish persecution over the centuries culminating in the holocaust, I was intrigued by the basic premise of Israel. Ironically a "secular" post second world war world controlled by US and Europe, ordained a Jewish State, mainly inspired by Biblical tales. An inhabited land was claimed by a religious group claiming Divine Sanction.
The basic premise of Israel in the modern secular world, is hence a gigantic blind spot of Carter who finds it perfectly admissible, as a Christian. He of course is not alone in this thought, and hence the greater western world finds Israel to be a legitimate entity. The same argument applies to the creation of the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where native populations were displaced and decimated in the interest of colonization by the Christian West-also in the religious spirit of Christian evangelism termed the "white man's burden". Many "civilized" modern nation states become questionable entities if the basic premise is explored. However, Israel is different from the creation of Australia and the USA-where too the weaker indigenous population was not a consideration-because Jerusalem is holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It was promised to Abraham (pbuh) and his descendants, which include both Ishmael and Isaac. The religious premise itself, guarantees living rights to both the Muslims and Jews, and not just the Jews. Secondly, it was the conquest of Jerusalem by the world of Islam circa 638 AD, which allowed 44 Jewish families to settle there. During the next 1,200 years of Islamic rule, the Jews were treated the best they have ever been, including in Jerusalem. Israel has managed to turn the world of Islam against it, in one single stroke in 1948.
Carter's book does not define how the borders were defined for the State of Israel declared in 1948, because that would mean admitting invasion and occupation, which would instantly take Israel from victim to villain. There is mention of a war and Israel capturing more Arab territory. Here Carter is sympathetic to Israel calling it a tiny new nation attacked by neighboring Arab states-ignoring their own newly won freedom from brutal colonization- despite the fact that a foreign body was planted in the heart of hitherto undivided Arab land. However, when describing violence-especially relating to the first Intifaada- Carter is more even handed in his coverage of casualties on both sides.
The book takes us through Israel's continuous usurpation of Palestinian land, to the point that Palestinian demands have progressed from the agenda of annihilating Israel, to a more accommodating peaceful coexistence through a two-nation state, and finally to aspirations of becoming subjects of the Jewish State by gaining rights as Israeli Citizens.
The Arab States and Palestinians, growing weary of war and acknowledging their helplessness in the face of American support have offered a complete truce, conditional only upon Israel's containment. However, Israel has been on an expansionist mission-violating all United Nations Resolutions.
Throughout the book, one can see Carter and other American leaders pressurizing Arab States and Palestinians to bend over backwards-which they do-only to find Israel yet more emboldened. Carter's bias towards his "civilized" Israeli counterparts is obvious, given that he treats them on an equal footing. Carter does not describe the traits of any Arab leader. Nor does he show the slightest sense of loss over Egyptian President Sadaat's assassination, over the latter's exceeding concessions to Israel at Carter's behest. However, when referring to Israeli PM Begin-whom he initially defines as a "terrorist"-Carter has words of praise listing some desirable qualities. His tone is patronizing towards the-now ousted by a popular revolution-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, when he enumerates benefits accrued to Egypt for friendship with Israel. However, Carter to his credit, highlights the plight of Palestinians and the greater human tragedy, which must rest heavy on his Christian conscience.
As can be seen from the book, Palestinians lack able leadership to garner international support, and negotiate a more acceptable solution. There is no Ho-Chi Minh in Palestine or the greater Arab world, who can negotiate with western powers to his advantage-involving other European powers.
I recommend this book as a good starting point for understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those who have a greater interest may explore the subject further through supplementary readings. The book however, suffices for a layperson like me.
This book in merely 182 pages demystified 60 years of complicated Holy Land history. Carter's writing prowess is commendable. I read the book twice in three days to get a grasp on things. In a nutshell Carter's book tells us "might makes right."
As a non-westerner and non-Christian, who is not burdened with the doubled guilt of Jewish persecution over the centuries culminating in the holocaust, I was intrigued by the basic premise of Israel. Ironically a "secular" post second world war world controlled by US and Europe, ordained a Jewish State, mainly inspired by Biblical tales. An inhabited land was claimed by a religious group claiming Divine Sanction.
The basic premise of Israel in the modern secular world, is hence a gigantic blind spot of Carter who finds it perfectly admissible, as a Christian. He of course is not alone in this thought, and hence the greater western world finds Israel to be a legitimate entity. The same argument applies to the creation of the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where native populations were displaced and decimated in the interest of colonization by the Christian West-also in the religious spirit of Christian evangelism termed the "white man's burden". Many "civilized" modern nation states become questionable entities if the basic premise is explored. However, Israel is different from the creation of Australia and the USA-where too the weaker indigenous population was not a consideration-because Jerusalem is holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It was promised to Abraham (pbuh) and his descendants, which include both Ishmael and Isaac. The religious premise itself, guarantees living rights to both the Muslims and Jews, and not just the Jews. Secondly, it was the conquest of Jerusalem by the world of Islam circa 638 AD, which allowed 44 Jewish families to settle there. During the next 1,200 years of Islamic rule, the Jews were treated the best they have ever been, including in Jerusalem. Israel has managed to turn the world of Islam against it, in one single stroke in 1948.
Carter's book does not define how the borders were defined for the State of Israel declared in 1948, because that would mean admitting invasion and occupation, which would instantly take Israel from victim to villain. There is mention of a war and Israel capturing more Arab territory. Here Carter is sympathetic to Israel calling it a tiny new nation attacked by neighboring Arab states-ignoring their own newly won freedom from brutal colonization- despite the fact that a foreign body was planted in the heart of hitherto undivided Arab land. However, when describing violence-especially relating to the first Intifaada- Carter is more even handed in his coverage of casualties on both sides.
The book takes us through Israel's continuous usurpation of Palestinian land, to the point that Palestinian demands have progressed from the agenda of annihilating Israel, to a more accommodating peaceful coexistence through a two-nation state, and finally to aspirations of becoming subjects of the Jewish State by gaining rights as Israeli Citizens.
The Arab States and Palestinians, growing weary of war and acknowledging their helplessness in the face of American support have offered a complete truce, conditional only upon Israel's containment. However, Israel has been on an expansionist mission-violating all United Nations Resolutions.
Throughout the book, one can see Carter and other American leaders pressurizing Arab States and Palestinians to bend over backwards-which they do-only to find Israel yet more emboldened. Carter's bias towards his "civilized" Israeli counterparts is obvious, given that he treats them on an equal footing. Carter does not describe the traits of any Arab leader. Nor does he show the slightest sense of loss over Egyptian President Sadaat's assassination, over the latter's exceeding concessions to Israel at Carter's behest. However, when referring to Israeli PM Begin-whom he initially defines as a "terrorist"-Carter has words of praise listing some desirable qualities. His tone is patronizing towards the-now ousted by a popular revolution-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, when he enumerates benefits accrued to Egypt for friendship with Israel. However, Carter to his credit, highlights the plight of Palestinians and the greater human tragedy, which must rest heavy on his Christian conscience.
As can be seen from the book, Palestinians lack able leadership to garner international support, and negotiate a more acceptable solution. There is no Ho-Chi Minh in Palestine or the greater Arab world, who can negotiate with western powers to his advantage-involving other European powers.
I recommend this book as a good starting point for understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those who have a greater interest may explore the subject further through supplementary readings. The book however, suffices for a layperson like me.
February 19, 2009
Cogent insider account of the many roadblocks (literally in Israel's case) to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. First hand account culled from President Carter's own diaries and conversations with all the major players over the years. While the histroy is great, I was struck by "the urgency of now" in the thoughtful and specific plan to address both sides' greivances presented in the final chapter-
a must read!
a must read!
June 12, 2011
This is another great introduction to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The first several chapters revisit the ground covered by Peace not Apartheid, but the sections dealing with the later years of the Bush Administration are particularly enlightening. I originally picked up both these books because of the uproar that was created when Obama mentioned the pre-1967 borders, which I now think is funny, because after reading both these books (and their supporting documents) it seems that has always been the starting point for negotiations, and something Israel has mostly agreed with.
I consider these books great intros to the subject, though Carter does have great sympathy for Palestinians, and considering the things he's seen, I don't blame him. The one image I take from these books is something similar to how Hawks in our government see things. Israel sees itself as right and Palestinians (especially Hamas) as wrong. In the past, and even today, we don't want other countries to have nuclear arms because we don't believe they are "responsible" enough for that power. So when we negotiate, "you can't have nuclear weapons" is always our starting point. It's non-negotiable for us. Other countries fear that we'll use them, so want to have the ability to defend themselves against us, so they want nuclear weapons and see that as non-negotiable. Several of the peace agreements have as part of them that there will be a disarmament and cease-fire only for the Palestinians, Israel wants to maintain it's right to use whatever force necessary in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinians don't want to give up the right to defend themselves, so don't want to be disarmed and thus refuse to sign these cease-fires. Same standoff.
Hamas (which has engaged in terrorist activities) won several seats in legitimate elections (primarily due to corruption in the Fatah govt.) and made matters more difficult. No one wants to legitimize them by talking with them. So what are you gonna do? According to Carter, Hamas has said it would recognize Israel's right to exist (within it's Pre-1967 borders, of course) so that argument could be put to rest, but no one wants to talk with Hamas.
It's a ridiculously complicated issue, made even more so by the history, ideology, and egos of all the parties involved. And the West doesn't help matters much since we will not stand up to Israel in any actual fashion (President Bush the first stood up to them and got them to temporarily stop building settlements, but once he left office, they went right back to doing it.)
Look forward to reading a lot more about this subject, and reading more works by Jimmy Carter.
I consider these books great intros to the subject, though Carter does have great sympathy for Palestinians, and considering the things he's seen, I don't blame him. The one image I take from these books is something similar to how Hawks in our government see things. Israel sees itself as right and Palestinians (especially Hamas) as wrong. In the past, and even today, we don't want other countries to have nuclear arms because we don't believe they are "responsible" enough for that power. So when we negotiate, "you can't have nuclear weapons" is always our starting point. It's non-negotiable for us. Other countries fear that we'll use them, so want to have the ability to defend themselves against us, so they want nuclear weapons and see that as non-negotiable. Several of the peace agreements have as part of them that there will be a disarmament and cease-fire only for the Palestinians, Israel wants to maintain it's right to use whatever force necessary in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinians don't want to give up the right to defend themselves, so don't want to be disarmed and thus refuse to sign these cease-fires. Same standoff.
Hamas (which has engaged in terrorist activities) won several seats in legitimate elections (primarily due to corruption in the Fatah govt.) and made matters more difficult. No one wants to legitimize them by talking with them. So what are you gonna do? According to Carter, Hamas has said it would recognize Israel's right to exist (within it's Pre-1967 borders, of course) so that argument could be put to rest, but no one wants to talk with Hamas.
It's a ridiculously complicated issue, made even more so by the history, ideology, and egos of all the parties involved. And the West doesn't help matters much since we will not stand up to Israel in any actual fashion (President Bush the first stood up to them and got them to temporarily stop building settlements, but once he left office, they went right back to doing it.)
Look forward to reading a lot more about this subject, and reading more works by Jimmy Carter.
August 6, 2011
An excellent effort about an extremely difficult topic, Carter's book goes a long way to presenting a thorough look about a conflict that receives little to no legitimate dialog in the American political discourse. Unfairly tarred in the past as an anti-semite for having the gall to present a balanced account of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Carter continues his efforts to examining the roadblocks to a comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. Reading his book leaves one pleased to have a better understanding of the complexities of this age-old clash of cultures, but, at least in my case, wholly frustrated that this sort of presentation is so rare, here in the United States, where, all too often, we're subjected to a grossly oversimplified narrative that attempts to reduce things to a struggle of "good guys" versus "bad guys."
Ultimately, "We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land" is a well written, quick reading reduction that would be well worth reading at any investment of time.
Ultimately, "We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land" is a well written, quick reading reduction that would be well worth reading at any investment of time.
February 15, 2009
A Fine addition to carter's previous book. The interestig thing about this book is that Carter spends a great deal of time laying out the specifics of his peace plan.
He remains optimistic about Peace in the holy land, which many people no longer do. I hope his optimisim is correct, but fear it may be a hope that is fading.
He remains optimistic about Peace in the holy land, which many people no longer do. I hope his optimisim is correct, but fear it may be a hope that is fading.
March 19, 2009
I love Jimmy Carter.. and I love his confidence that we can have peace in the Middle East. It's not that I don't believe HIM; it's that I doubt that the residents of the Holy Land will allow peace... This book is full of history and proposals, sometimes much too like a diary to see the possibilities of a new order in that area of the world. It's still worth reading.
July 10, 2012
"You cannot make Swiss cheese out of a country and expect peace"! I read this book 2 years ago during the Floatilla disaster and it is so informative and well written. I still remember the writing in detail. A great book for those seeking understanding of Israel and the Mid East politics. Carter is a great man and humanitarian.
March 21, 2009
Superb book, with a well thought out and workable plan for peace in countries in the middle east, primarily Israel and Palestine. My new favorite charity is the Carter Center for Peace in Atlanta. They are doing astonishing work around the world.
January 15, 2010
Easy read for a big-topic book. Not as strong willed or opinionated as previous book on the subject, for good or bad, not sure which way to go on that issue. His hopeful perspective is refreshing and one wonders if in the next few years we will see some of his suggestions acted upon.
Read
August 7, 2011Got this book from my son for my birthday. It is amazing that Jimmy Carter has been working on peace ever since before he was president and has come so close but hasn't been quite successful but never gives up. A truely good person.
August 26, 2014
An excellent analysis of why the 'peace process' has not succeeded for decades, and how they could be surmounted if one side did not have 100% of the power. I wonder if we will ever see a resolution to this age old conflict in my lifetime.
April 29, 2009
I just got this book signed tonight at Left Bank Books by President Jimmy Carter. It was amazing to meet him.
:)
:)
February 11, 2013
This is a difficult subject. I commend President Carter for writing this in such a way that is understandable in what is going on.
April 7, 2013
This Book Contain a very clear Ideas about the peace.
we can see alot of great Ideas and Suggestions show that the peace is possible .
we can see alot of great Ideas and Suggestions show that the peace is possible .
March 30, 2015
Dated at times but the passion of Carter to find a solution advantageous to booth sides of the conflict comes through loud and clear.
March 17, 2009
Having decided to make a habit of authoring books with misleading titles, the peripatetic former President Carter now offers readers his latest thin work, “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land.” I say misleading not because of any specifics of former President Carter’s plan – he like anybody else is entitled to his opinion – but because he does not begin to offer it until page 159, which given that the work comes in at a slender 182 pages of original text, might make the discerning reader wonder what he or she is getting in the initial 87% of the work. Perhaps you expect this to be a background to the conflict? That too would be mistaken.
Having reached the first days of his presidency around page 15, Carter spends more than 140 pages reviewing not so much the region in general, but rather his self imagined centrality to it and its narrative. In its way, this is an impressive trick, since other than his four year term, he has spent the next almost three decades as what could at best be charitably be described as a bit player. Undeterred by this reality, Carter does an extraordinary job of asserting himself in Zelig-like fashion into near every significant event in the Middle East that followed his1980 defeat.
One might, perhaps, therefore dispense with these first 159 pages and consider “his” plan, were it not for the disturbing picture painted by this self promoting narrative. In a curious turn, the former President seems to imagine history as a sort of Passion Play, casting himself as the man carrying the cross. Even the most charitable of readings leaves one scratching his head at the enormous chip Carter carries on his shoulder, and his tendency to twist to demonstrate his status as a blameless victim.
Thus, in his only consideration of his defeat by Reagan, Carter offers his shrunken share of the Jewish vote in 1980 as “…disturbing indications of significant opposition to the Camp David Accords and Israeli-Egyptian Peace Agreement…” Putting aside this statements implicit claim that Carter’s defeat resulted from the votes of perfidious, parochial, peace-hating American Jews, any quick examination of the 1980 election results reveals his analysis to be dangerously misguided. Carter’s 44-state landslide loss -- indeed, even his failure to win the Jewish vote – almost certainly had nothing to do with Arab-Israeli diplomacy. Did Texas flip from Carter’s win column in ’76 to Reagan’s because of the Jews? Did Kentucky?
Suffering punishing inflation at home and humiliation abroad, Carter lost every reliable white democratic demographic, including union members and Catholics, often by significantly higher percentages than he did Jews. There is no reason to believe that Jews were different from any of these other demographics in making a choice based on his ineffectual leadership. Yet clearly such obvious realities go beyond the former President’s limited capacity for self analysis.
A second disturbing defect of character can be found in former President Carter’s seemingly limitless appetite to embrace dictators, even as he expresses an almost seething contempt for the democratically elected leader’s of the Jewish state. Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s assassinated authoritarian President is raised by Carter to the level of sacred martyr. President Hosni Mubarak (“old friend” as Carter notes) likewise comes in for heaping praise, this despite his authoritarian leadership of a regime as infamous for torture as it is for corruption. That Mubarak, who is approaching the end of his third decade in leadership, and by most accounts currently engaged in a Pharanoic effort to install his son as his replacement, receives such admiration should lead one to seriously question Carter’s judgment.
Nor does the former President’s general analysis do a better job building confidence in his assessments. Time and again he reads less like a thoughtful diplomat and more like a Public Relations man defending a client. His acts of omission and commission prove nothing short of shocking. Thus on page 7, Carter dispenses with any mention of the murderous Arab revolt of the 1930’s with its accompanying massacres of the ancient Jewish Communities of the West Bank, simply saying that the British acceded to Arab “demands” on limiting “…[the:] Zionist movement and land purchases.” Adding insult to injury, he follows this in the very next sentence with “violence erupted from Jewish militants,” as if the gun totting Jews were crashing a collegial tea party.
Perhaps even more disturbing, Carter extends particular efforts to whitewash Hamas and there terrorist actions. Carter spares no praise for his own success in getting Hamas to pledge “not to interfere with [Palestinian:] governing authority.” Then, without even breaking for a paragraph, he goes on to write that “Almost immediately Israeli voters returned Likud to power… which spelled the end of the Oslo process.” In his effort to moderate Hamas Carter chooses to leave unmentioned the spate of bus and mall bombings they orchestrated which gave Likud the victory. It would seem in Carter’s mind it was Israeli voters, not Arab terrorists, who murdered the Oslo process.
Similarly, on the Hamas Charter, he claims that its contents are similar to the founding documents of the secular PLO, ignoring its explicit and seething anti-Semitism, and claims that the world’s evils can be blamed on a shadowy conspiracy of international Jews.
Having eschewed footnotes or even a bibliography, one is often left wondering where Carter might source many of his claims. For example he claims that the “Saudi Peace Plan” allows for negotiations on its details, but never mentions that several Israeli Prime Ministers have offered to meet with the Arab League to discuss the proposal, only to have these overtures rejected. While Carter claims otherwise, the Arab League has always been quite clear that theirs is a take it or leave it proposal, despite its insistence that Israel commit national suicide, by forcing a “two-state solution” both of which would be majority Arab.
As for Carter’s peace plan there is likewise here nothing new or novel. Indeed, having been accused of plagiarism for his last work, one might imagine Carter would at least show the sense and good manners to credit the many others who have made similar proposals, crediting only the “Saudi Plan.” “His” plan? The creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, with a Palestinian right of return to this new state. Unfortunately, in the fewer thirty pages he offers to describe the plan, Carter offers at best thin proof that this proposal would be acceptable to the Palestinians. One gets the feeling that the “plan” was besides the point of this book, merely a hook so that he might pull readers into his self-aggrandizing narrative.
The whole of the Oslo process was characterized by the world’s failure to listen to the Palestinians as Israel, Europe, and America all agreed on what a “just” solution would look like and simply assuming that this would likewise be acceptable to the Palestinians. Save for Carter, most of the other participants have learned from this mistake. By contrast, the former President continues to pretend that the Palestinian statements don’t really matter.
To date no Palestinian in a position of leadership has shown any appetite to compromise on the imagined “right of return,” and limit it to a new Palestinian state. Likewise, I would have welcomed a footnote pointing to the Palestinian leader who was willing to embrace a state that was “demilitarized.” Hamas continue to claim loudly and proudly their goal to destroy the Jewish state and murder Jews world wide, as often as not they claim this as a religious obligation. Perhaps the former President should show them enough respect to take them at their word.
The most interesting and illuminating thing to be found in the whole of “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land” comes on page 2 and 3. There Carter offers a map of the path of Israel’s much decried – and highly successful in terrorist prevention – security barrier along with a chart of the territory it encompasses. While following his habit, the former President offers no source for these documents, let us take him at his word that they are accurate. By his own admission, the barrier leaves a staggering 88% of the West Bank to its east, a large contiguous territory which might be the basis of a new 23-Arab state. One wonders why Carter doesn’t even consider urging the Palestinians to accept this and Gaza as the basis of the new state. Yet it is quite clear that such compromise would not serve Carter’s ends.
Having cast himself as a victim, one should find nothing surprising that former President Carter embraces the Palestinians, a people who have made the role of hapless, helpless, blameless victim the core of their national identity. This identification can only be furthered by the fact that both Carter and the Palestinians seem to have selected the Jews to fill the role of their victimizer in their respective self-beatifying narratives. Such an identity does nothing to further the cause of peace, as an individual or group denuded of blame for the results of their actions is likewise absolved of the responsibility necessary to see that they hold to the terms of any agreement. No doubt this helps Carter and the Palestinians feel better at themselves, and that may be worth something, though likely not much.
Having reached the first days of his presidency around page 15, Carter spends more than 140 pages reviewing not so much the region in general, but rather his self imagined centrality to it and its narrative. In its way, this is an impressive trick, since other than his four year term, he has spent the next almost three decades as what could at best be charitably be described as a bit player. Undeterred by this reality, Carter does an extraordinary job of asserting himself in Zelig-like fashion into near every significant event in the Middle East that followed his1980 defeat.
One might, perhaps, therefore dispense with these first 159 pages and consider “his” plan, were it not for the disturbing picture painted by this self promoting narrative. In a curious turn, the former President seems to imagine history as a sort of Passion Play, casting himself as the man carrying the cross. Even the most charitable of readings leaves one scratching his head at the enormous chip Carter carries on his shoulder, and his tendency to twist to demonstrate his status as a blameless victim.
Thus, in his only consideration of his defeat by Reagan, Carter offers his shrunken share of the Jewish vote in 1980 as “…disturbing indications of significant opposition to the Camp David Accords and Israeli-Egyptian Peace Agreement…” Putting aside this statements implicit claim that Carter’s defeat resulted from the votes of perfidious, parochial, peace-hating American Jews, any quick examination of the 1980 election results reveals his analysis to be dangerously misguided. Carter’s 44-state landslide loss -- indeed, even his failure to win the Jewish vote – almost certainly had nothing to do with Arab-Israeli diplomacy. Did Texas flip from Carter’s win column in ’76 to Reagan’s because of the Jews? Did Kentucky?
Suffering punishing inflation at home and humiliation abroad, Carter lost every reliable white democratic demographic, including union members and Catholics, often by significantly higher percentages than he did Jews. There is no reason to believe that Jews were different from any of these other demographics in making a choice based on his ineffectual leadership. Yet clearly such obvious realities go beyond the former President’s limited capacity for self analysis.
A second disturbing defect of character can be found in former President Carter’s seemingly limitless appetite to embrace dictators, even as he expresses an almost seething contempt for the democratically elected leader’s of the Jewish state. Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s assassinated authoritarian President is raised by Carter to the level of sacred martyr. President Hosni Mubarak (“old friend” as Carter notes) likewise comes in for heaping praise, this despite his authoritarian leadership of a regime as infamous for torture as it is for corruption. That Mubarak, who is approaching the end of his third decade in leadership, and by most accounts currently engaged in a Pharanoic effort to install his son as his replacement, receives such admiration should lead one to seriously question Carter’s judgment.
Nor does the former President’s general analysis do a better job building confidence in his assessments. Time and again he reads less like a thoughtful diplomat and more like a Public Relations man defending a client. His acts of omission and commission prove nothing short of shocking. Thus on page 7, Carter dispenses with any mention of the murderous Arab revolt of the 1930’s with its accompanying massacres of the ancient Jewish Communities of the West Bank, simply saying that the British acceded to Arab “demands” on limiting “…[the:] Zionist movement and land purchases.” Adding insult to injury, he follows this in the very next sentence with “violence erupted from Jewish militants,” as if the gun totting Jews were crashing a collegial tea party.
Perhaps even more disturbing, Carter extends particular efforts to whitewash Hamas and there terrorist actions. Carter spares no praise for his own success in getting Hamas to pledge “not to interfere with [Palestinian:] governing authority.” Then, without even breaking for a paragraph, he goes on to write that “Almost immediately Israeli voters returned Likud to power… which spelled the end of the Oslo process.” In his effort to moderate Hamas Carter chooses to leave unmentioned the spate of bus and mall bombings they orchestrated which gave Likud the victory. It would seem in Carter’s mind it was Israeli voters, not Arab terrorists, who murdered the Oslo process.
Similarly, on the Hamas Charter, he claims that its contents are similar to the founding documents of the secular PLO, ignoring its explicit and seething anti-Semitism, and claims that the world’s evils can be blamed on a shadowy conspiracy of international Jews.
Having eschewed footnotes or even a bibliography, one is often left wondering where Carter might source many of his claims. For example he claims that the “Saudi Peace Plan” allows for negotiations on its details, but never mentions that several Israeli Prime Ministers have offered to meet with the Arab League to discuss the proposal, only to have these overtures rejected. While Carter claims otherwise, the Arab League has always been quite clear that theirs is a take it or leave it proposal, despite its insistence that Israel commit national suicide, by forcing a “two-state solution” both of which would be majority Arab.
As for Carter’s peace plan there is likewise here nothing new or novel. Indeed, having been accused of plagiarism for his last work, one might imagine Carter would at least show the sense and good manners to credit the many others who have made similar proposals, crediting only the “Saudi Plan.” “His” plan? The creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, with a Palestinian right of return to this new state. Unfortunately, in the fewer thirty pages he offers to describe the plan, Carter offers at best thin proof that this proposal would be acceptable to the Palestinians. One gets the feeling that the “plan” was besides the point of this book, merely a hook so that he might pull readers into his self-aggrandizing narrative.
The whole of the Oslo process was characterized by the world’s failure to listen to the Palestinians as Israel, Europe, and America all agreed on what a “just” solution would look like and simply assuming that this would likewise be acceptable to the Palestinians. Save for Carter, most of the other participants have learned from this mistake. By contrast, the former President continues to pretend that the Palestinian statements don’t really matter.
To date no Palestinian in a position of leadership has shown any appetite to compromise on the imagined “right of return,” and limit it to a new Palestinian state. Likewise, I would have welcomed a footnote pointing to the Palestinian leader who was willing to embrace a state that was “demilitarized.” Hamas continue to claim loudly and proudly their goal to destroy the Jewish state and murder Jews world wide, as often as not they claim this as a religious obligation. Perhaps the former President should show them enough respect to take them at their word.
The most interesting and illuminating thing to be found in the whole of “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land” comes on page 2 and 3. There Carter offers a map of the path of Israel’s much decried – and highly successful in terrorist prevention – security barrier along with a chart of the territory it encompasses. While following his habit, the former President offers no source for these documents, let us take him at his word that they are accurate. By his own admission, the barrier leaves a staggering 88% of the West Bank to its east, a large contiguous territory which might be the basis of a new 23-Arab state. One wonders why Carter doesn’t even consider urging the Palestinians to accept this and Gaza as the basis of the new state. Yet it is quite clear that such compromise would not serve Carter’s ends.
Having cast himself as a victim, one should find nothing surprising that former President Carter embraces the Palestinians, a people who have made the role of hapless, helpless, blameless victim the core of their national identity. This identification can only be furthered by the fact that both Carter and the Palestinians seem to have selected the Jews to fill the role of their victimizer in their respective self-beatifying narratives. Such an identity does nothing to further the cause of peace, as an individual or group denuded of blame for the results of their actions is likewise absolved of the responsibility necessary to see that they hold to the terms of any agreement. No doubt this helps Carter and the Palestinians feel better at themselves, and that may be worth something, though likely not much.
December 28, 2023
I’ve wanted to learn more about the history of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians for some time but just hadn’t found a place to begin. An email arrived from Kindle Unlimited listing books in the current “free by subscription” library that would be leaving soon. This book was listed and even though it was published in 2009, it felt like a good place to start reading from a text by a trustworthy, balanced, informed former President. President Carter has been interested in peace in the Middle East since his time as Governor of Georgia and decided to make Middle East Peace his number one Foreign Policy priority when he began his campaign for the Presidency. He spent years working on facilitating a peaceful settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. I remember well the Camp David Accords signed in 1978 by Carter, Sadat, and Begin. I also remember the assassination of Sadat. Continuing his work in the region within The Carter Center President Carter returned numerous times to negotiate further peace settlements. What I learned is that there was a road map to peace but politicians have gotten in the way (since 2003) of doing what about 65% of Israeli and Palestinian people wanted, which was a two state peace. I don’t know what’s happened in the last 20 years to get the region to the war in Gaza (I’m referring to the broader since of conflict; I’m fully aware of the Hamas attack on the Kibbutzim) we have today, and while I’m sure there are incidents on both sides, I can’t help but see the Israeli government continuing to build settlements illegally in the West Bank, not leaving occupied areas taken after 1967, and refusing to settle the issue of repatriation and financial settlements for expelled Palestinians. I need to study more about what’s happened in the last 20 years to see all faults and causes.
December 27, 2023
Jimmy Carter’s confidence in the peace process between Palestine and Israel was commendable; however, the very disturbing unfortunate events unfolding in the region as I write this review tell a very opposite story.
I think it a blessing that the 99 year old former US president who is in hospice care nearing the end of his life is not cognizant of the situation in the Holy Land. Because if he was he most likely would have felt a deep sense of hopelessness and despair that his efforts at peace talks and negotiations had been wasted.
I truly admire him for his commitment to bring peace to one of the most volatile regions in the world. Thank you Mr Carter. May peace be with you.
I think it a blessing that the 99 year old former US president who is in hospice care nearing the end of his life is not cognizant of the situation in the Holy Land. Because if he was he most likely would have felt a deep sense of hopelessness and despair that his efforts at peace talks and negotiations had been wasted.
I truly admire him for his commitment to bring peace to one of the most volatile regions in the world. Thank you Mr Carter. May peace be with you.
January 1, 2018
يسرد السيد كارتر كرونولوجيا الصراع العربي الاسرائيلي منذ بدايته مرورا بفترة ترأسه للولايات المتحدة الأمريكية على مدى عهدتين الى غاية الثلث الثاني من عام 2008 , مبديا رأيه و معطيا اقتراحاته لحل الأزمة .
يذكر السيد كارتر بعض من حواراته لما كان رئيسا مع القياديين الاسرائليين كقولدا مايير , اسحاق رابين , مي��اخيم بيغن و نظرائهم العرب كالسادات , الملك حسين, الملك فهد و حافظ الأسد و مساعيه الكبيرة لايجاد حلول لاقرار السلام فالمنطقة بعد الحروب التي حدثت رغم الصعوبات ... و محادثات كامب دايفيد التي كان طرف وسيطا فيها .
وحتى بعد تركه للرئاسة , استمر كارتر باتصاله مع السياسيين في الشرق الأوسط خصوصا من الجانب الفلسطيني بشقيه فتح و حماس بالاضافة الى مساعيه لحل لمشكل اللاجئين الفلسطينيين و المستعمرات الغير قانونية للاسرائيليين و سياسة تهويد القدس و مشاكل الطلاب الفلسطينيين .
تكلم كارتر عن فرضية الدولة الواحدة الى انه نوه الى استحالة ذلك بسبب خطورة ذلك على ديمو��راطية الدولة الاسرائيلية , وقد طرح حلا بان يكون هناك قيام دولتين بحدود 67 و عاصمة مشتركة و دولة فلسطينية بحكومة موحدة و منزوعة السلاح معوضة بقوى دولية محايدة
.
عنوان الكتاب جد مبالغ به مقارنة بمضمونه الذي أغلبه سرد لوقائع بالاضافة الى التفائل الزائد عن حده الذي لن يكون فعالا الا في كون موازي لكوننا الحالي, ومما يجعل حلوله شبه مستحيلة هو تشبث الجانب الاسرائيلي بالاستمرار فالاستيطان و الزيادة في دعم اليمين المتطرف شعبيا و تشبث حماس في حقها في الجهاد المسلح ضد اسرائيل باستهدافها العسكريين و المدنيين و رفضها الاعتراف باسرائيل
July 26, 2011
I guess I expected more from this book than what I got. Mr. Carter's biggest success in the White House was the Camp David Accords with Begin and Sadat in 1978 and since his departure from the White House, Mr. Carter has been an advocate of peace efforts in the Middle East -- especially between Israel, the PLO and factions of the PLO.
What you get for a majority of the book is a history of his independent and Carter Center efforts in what seems to be a never-ending saga of conflict that has been going on for over 60 years. While I applaud Mr. Carter's peace efforts and I do appreciate some background as to the history of the long-running suffering, it took to long too really get to where the former president recommended his plan.
As a history lesson on the Middle East, this book provides a unique perspective from a man who has served his nation well as an elder statesman and champion of human rights. I just wish he would have focused and expanded on solutions more quickly.
What you get for a majority of the book is a history of his independent and Carter Center efforts in what seems to be a never-ending saga of conflict that has been going on for over 60 years. While I applaud Mr. Carter's peace efforts and I do appreciate some background as to the history of the long-running suffering, it took to long too really get to where the former president recommended his plan.
As a history lesson on the Middle East, this book provides a unique perspective from a man who has served his nation well as an elder statesman and champion of human rights. I just wish he would have focused and expanded on solutions more quickly.
Read
February 28, 2009Jimmy Carter is going to talk about peace in the Middle East until he dies. He is leaving books for us to use as a road map after he dies. But he'd rather we pay attention now because the situation for Palestinians is unbearable.
I am one who just didn't want to know about it. The conflict has gone on too long, and although on the face of it, it didn't seem fair that Palestinians had to move off land they'd lived on for generations, better minds than mine had made this solution. Or so I thought.
When I saw the television and newswire reporting showing Israeli retailiation for the the latest Palestinian "bombings," my fury was aroused. And I began to read. I realize now that I've always had a responsibility to be informed on this issue, and that better minds than mine had not been the only ones at work here, as usual.
I am one who just didn't want to know about it. The conflict has gone on too long, and although on the face of it, it didn't seem fair that Palestinians had to move off land they'd lived on for generations, better minds than mine had made this solution. Or so I thought.
When I saw the television and newswire reporting showing Israeli retailiation for the the latest Palestinian "bombings," my fury was aroused. And I began to read. I realize now that I've always had a responsibility to be informed on this issue, and that better minds than mine had not been the only ones at work here, as usual.
March 10, 2009
Nobel laureate and former president Jimmy Carter provides an inside look at the politics of the Israeli and Palestinian states. Carter takes a hard look at Israel's policy of settlement and encroachment into Palestinian land -- an approach for which he has been decried in US media, but one that is crucial to consider when looking at the faltering peace process.
Carter details his involvement in the peace process, starting when he was governor of Georgia and made his first visit to Israel. Carrying on through his presidency and beyond, Carter has been a major voice for the two-state solution (which has tremendous approval from both Israel and Palestine but was summarily ignored during the Bush administration).
An interesting read for those interested in geopolitical matters specific to the Middle East.
Carter details his involvement in the peace process, starting when he was governor of Georgia and made his first visit to Israel. Carrying on through his presidency and beyond, Carter has been a major voice for the two-state solution (which has tremendous approval from both Israel and Palestine but was summarily ignored during the Bush administration).
An interesting read for those interested in geopolitical matters specific to the Middle East.
October 15, 2009
If the peacemakers are blest, then President Carter is a truly blessed man. He has spent more than thirty years cultivating relationships in the Holy Land with key members of all of the political and religious groups. Over time, he has developed a plan for bringing peace to one of the most embattled areas on the planet.
Carter wrote this book to urge President Obama to push for peace in the middle east. The former president's voice is both authoritative and persuasive. When so much of the news from the Middle East seems to be discouraging, Carter adds a persistently optimistic voice into the mix.
Highly recommended, both as a historic overview of the situation in the Holy Land, and as a plan for the future.
Carter wrote this book to urge President Obama to push for peace in the middle east. The former president's voice is both authoritative and persuasive. When so much of the news from the Middle East seems to be discouraging, Carter adds a persistently optimistic voice into the mix.
Highly recommended, both as a historic overview of the situation in the Holy Land, and as a plan for the future.
September 19, 2011
I finally finhised the book. I struggle listening to this audio book. This one is book that the printed copy would have been better to read. The audio book reference many appendices and maps that were supposed to be on the audio disk but were not there.
I relisten to several tracks to comprehend to what the author was saying. The author does make a couple suggestions towards the end, which might work but will be difficult to achieve because both sides are not willing to compromised in my opinion. Both side want the same land and be recognize as the soveriegn states in the region.
The only way this can be resolve is through strong leadership by both sides to compromise and through prayer.
I relisten to several tracks to comprehend to what the author was saying. The author does make a couple suggestions towards the end, which might work but will be difficult to achieve because both sides are not willing to compromised in my opinion. Both side want the same land and be recognize as the soveriegn states in the region.
The only way this can be resolve is through strong leadership by both sides to compromise and through prayer.
February 4, 2011
This is a great overview of the recent history of the Palestine conflict. President Carter describes major initiatives, the hopes and the disappointments, and opportunities to resolve one of the longest running international problems. He ends with concrete ideas for bring peace to this region.
An interesting footnote: Appendices include several documents of great interest: UN Resolution 242, the Camp David Accords, the 2002 Arab Peace Proposal, key points of the Roadmap for Peace (2003), and Israel's response to the Roadmap for Peace.
This is particularly interesting to read in the context of the current demonstrations in Egypt.
An interesting footnote: Appendices include several documents of great interest: UN Resolution 242, the Camp David Accords, the 2002 Arab Peace Proposal, key points of the Roadmap for Peace (2003), and Israel's response to the Roadmap for Peace.
This is particularly interesting to read in the context of the current demonstrations in Egypt.
Read
December 26, 2016 A good primer on the historical evolution of the peace ? mission in the Mid East. Book repeats a bit from previous book on subject by Carter Palestine: peace not apartheid. It is very very hard to be sympathetic to the Jewish cause after reading of the life of the Palestinians and Lebanese under their occupation. It inspires one to read a book supporting the Israel cause. Nonetheless, their history of not complying with UN resolutions and most peace efforts since 1967 is hard to justify. I takeaway a huge appreciation for Jimmy Carter's perseverance in the peace effort and a life that has been humanely lived. What a role model for all of us!
July 28, 2009
I read this book maybe a year after I read Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and I was somewhat disappointed with this newest book. While it was informative and provided a good perspective on the Isreal-Palestine conflict, I felt like Carter was definitely toning it down after upsetting people with his perspective in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It seemed like he was definitely less critical of Israel and trying to appeal to a larger base of people, which may be smart but perhaps is less honest. Still, a good read if you want to learn more about the conflict.
June 6, 2009
Clear statement of history of the region and its peoples, simplified enough to be comprehended by the interested citizen of any country. Lays out the one-state solution as inevitable if Israeli settlements in the West Bank continue and are not dismantled, and the two-state solution as the preferred alternative which will require hard choices by Israelis. No solution is not an option. Carter is clear and hopeful that the parties are close to a meaningful agreement/peace solution.
March 26, 2009
Not breaking a lot of new ground here; by that I mean it is roughly the same book as 'Palestine Peace not Apartheid' with the exception of revisiting the last few years since that book and including more about his talks with various Middle East countries during his presidency and a few other random tangents.
May 30, 2011
It feels as if the first half or 3/4s involve President Carter giving his own personal account of the going-ons in Israel and the West Bank/Gaza. He gets around to his ideas at the very end, but I feel this is written to the casual American who might be clueless about the situation between the Palestinians and Israelis.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews