The Elders' View Of the Middle East

By Jimmy Carter
Sunday, September 6, 2009

During the past 16 months I have visited the Middle East four times and met with leaders in Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza. I was in Damascus when President Obama made his historic speech in Cairo, which raised high hopes among the more-optimistic Israelis and Palestinians, who recognize that his insistence on a total freeze of settlement expansion is the key to any acceptable peace agreement or any positive responses toward Israel from Arab nations.

Late last month I traveled to the region with a group of "Elders," including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and Mary Robinson of Ireland, former prime minister Gro Brundtland of Norway and women's activist Ela Bhatt of India. Three of us had previously visited Gaza, which is now a walled-in ghetto inhabited by 1.6 million Palestinians, 1.1 million of whom are refugees from Israel and the West Bank and receive basic humanitarian assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Israel prevents any cement, lumber, seeds, fertilizer and hundreds of other needed materials from entering through Gaza's gates. Some additional goods from Egypt reach Gaza through underground tunnels. Gazans cannot produce their own food nor repair schools, hospitals, business establishments or the 50,000 homes that were destroyed or heavily damaged by Israel's assault last January.

We found a growing sense of concern and despair among those who observe, as we did, that settlement expansion is continuing apace, rapidly encroaching into Palestinian villages, hilltops, grazing lands, farming areas and olive groves. There are more than 200 of these settlements in the West Bank.

An even more disturbing expansion is taking place in Palestinian East Jerusalem. Three months ago I visited a family who had lived for four generations in their small, recently condemned home. They were laboring to destroy it themselves to avoid much higher costs if Israeli contractors carried out the demolition order. On Aug. 27, we Elders took a gift of food to 18 members of the Hanoun family, recently evicted from their home of 65 years. The Hanouns, including six children, are living on the street, while Israeli settlers have moved into their confiscated dwelling.

read on...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402968_pf.html

these people must be the "Elders of Zion" one of our posters here keeps going on about:sarcasm:

Seriously though the work of people like Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, and Mary Robinson is to be admired their bravery in face of the cheap smear campaign against them is an example that I hope is followed by other leaders around the world

In the face of all that is going on, it is good to see President Carter continue to stress that the two-state solution is the preferred option and one that is embraced at the grass roots.

It is unclear from this article whether or not the Elders had the opportunity to speak to the leadership of Hamas during their trip.

In any case, I think it would be a great idea for President Carter to encourage the Palestinian leaders with whom he spoke who support a nonviolent civil rights struggle inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela to sit down with those Palestinian leaders who support a more violent approach and who draw inspiration from very different types of leaders.

Perhaps President Carter and the Elders can use their influence to convince those Palestinian leaders who are in the latter camp to abandon their violent rhetoric in favor of the values of those inspiring leaders he cited.

You only mention the Palestinians, which does make it sound one-sided. Do you think Mr Carter should use his influence to convince Israeli leaders to abandon violence and encourage them to take steps that will lead in the end to an end of the occupation?

In this article Carter seems to suggest that the Palestinian leaders he spoke to on his trip support a non-violent approach towards achieving their goals in this struggle.

It just seemed like he could go a long way towards spreading that message across the Palestinian spectrum, because I know that numerous Palestinian leaders have not embraced this non-violent approach.

The majority of Palestinians are not happy with the status quo - a word often heard is "resistance" - and I think it would behoove those Palestinian leaders who view "resistance" as something violent to talk to President Carter who could perhaps encourage them to embrace another path. A path that is apparently very popular among the Palestinian leaders that Carter interfaced with on this trip whom he said would take the Mandela/King/Gandhi approach.

The Israeli leadership isn't really engaged in the type of "resistance" struggle that Carter is describing in this article.

That said, Carter has made his feelings about Netanyahu and the policies of the Israeli government known in his recent speech in Israel this past June. He talked extensively about the obstacles to peace that the Netanyahu government has put up.

Don't ignore their violence bcause that's what makes it look onesided

He pointed out that the Palestinian leaders he spoke to were taking inspiration from Mandela, King, and Ghandi. I thought it would be good for him to encourage that kind of approach to the struggle to other Palestinian leaders who support resistance of a different kind.

He didn't talk about Israeli leaders who were taking inspiration from Mandela, King, and Ghandi. It would be kind of odd if he had. The context is non-violent vs. violent resistance. My comment was in keeping with that particular question.

OK...look, it would be great if they did that. Still, it's not something outsiders, especially anyone from the country that provides most of the weaponry the IDF uses to oppress, injure and yes, kill them, have the right to demand of them. We aren't morally entitled to do so.

And there was actually a person who was trying to do that. His name was Mubarak Awad. For his insistence on NOT hurting anyone, the Israeli government had him kicked out of the West Bank. You are a person of good will, but you need to remember things like that when speaking of nonviolence in this conflict.

And even with the example of King, that takes us to a somewhat icky place. There was always a patronizing(and sometimes secretly murderous)implication, during the Civil Rights era, that blacks were OBLIGATED to use nonviolence in order to prove themselves worthy of not being under the bootheel of Jim Crow, that they OWED it to white people to just take it while white political and law enforcement authority beat the living shit out of them. The message(from some quarters) was essentially this: "How dare those uppity n-----s defend themselves when we wanna lynch 'em? Where do they get off makin' it harder for us to kill 'em?" If you want to understand why a lot of African Americans still feel resentment of whites, even of white liberals, you have to look at things like that and learn the lesson. The lesson being this: if you have any connection to the oppressor, there is a limit to how much right you have to judge the tactics of the oppressed.

I do support any Palestinians who call for their leaders to embrace nonviolence. As I equally support any Israelis who ask the same of their leaders(since these days, most IDF violence is morally equal to most Hamas violence and thus equally wrong.)

and also that grassroots partnerships are vital in achieving this goal.


'Just south of Jerusalem, the Palestinian residents of Wadi Fukin and the nearby Israeli villagers of Tzur Hadassah are working together closely to protect their small shared valley from the ravages of rock spill, sewage and further loss of land from a huge settlement on the cliff above, where 26,000 Israelis are rapidly expanding their confiscated area. It was heartwarming to see the international harmony with which the villagers face common challenges and opportunities.

There are 25 similar cross-border partnerships between Israelis and their Palestinian neighbors. The best alternative for the future is a negotiated peace agreement, so that the example of Wadi Fukin and Tzur Hadassah can prevail along a peaceful border between two sovereign nations.'

Agree!

---

El Salvador

In early 1982, when reports of the El Mozote massacre of civilians by the military in El Salvador began appearing in U.S. media, Abrams told a Senate committee that the reports of hundreds of deaths at El Mozote "were not credible," and that "it appears to be an incident that is at least being significantly misused, at the very best, by the guerrillas."<9> The massacre had come at a time when the Reagan administration was attempting to bolster the human rights image of the Salvadoran military. Abrams implied that reports of a massacre were simply FMLN propaganda and denounced US investigative reports of the massacre as misleading. In March 1993, the Salvadoran Truth Commission reported that 5000 civilians were "deliberately and systematically" executed in El Mozote in December 1981 by forces affiliated with the Salvadoran state.<10> Also in 1993, documentation emerged suggesting that some Reagan administration officials could have known about El Mozote and other human rights violations from the beginning.<11> However, in July 1993, an investigation commissioned by Clinton Secretary of State Warren Christopher into the State department's "activities and conduct" with regard to human rights in El Salvador during the Reagan years found that, despite the department's mistakes handling El Mozote, its personnel "performed creditably and occasionally with personal bravery in advancing human rights in El Salvador".<12> Abrams himself claimed that Washington's policy in El Salvador was a "fabulous achievement."<13>

Nicaragua

When Congress shut down funding for the Contras' efforts to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government with the 1982 Boland Amendment, the Reagan administration began looking for other avenues for funding the group.<14> Congress opened a couple of such avenues when it modified the Boland Amendment for fiscal year 1986 by approving $27 million in direct aid to the Contras and allowing the administration to legally solicit funds for the Contras from foreign governments.<15> Neither the direct aid, nor any foreign contributions, could be used to purchase weapons.<16> Guided by the new provisions of the modified Boland Amendment, Abrams flew to London in August 1986 and met secretly with Bruneian defense minister General Ibnu to solicit a $10-million contribution from the Sultan of Brunei.<17><18> Ultimately, the Contras never received this money because a clerical error in Oliver North's office (a mistyped account number) sent the Bruneian money to the wrong Swiss bank account.<19>

Iran-Contra affair

During investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair, the special prosecutor handling the case prepared multiple felony counts against Abrams but never indicted him.<20> Instead, Abrams entered into a plea agreement that ultimately led to a conviction without imprisonment on two misdemeanors of withholding information from Congress.<21> He was fined $50, placed on probation for two years, and assigned 100 hours of community service. Abrams was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush as he was leaving office following his loss in the 1992 U.S. presidential election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams

given his role in Iran-Contra. This should at the very least put his judgement very much into question.

because...?

but Abrams is untrustworthy at every possible level.

Because he didn't lie to Congress about funding a bandit army in Nicaragua?

Because he isn't a militarist AND a draft-dodger?

Because, unlike Elliott Abrams, Jimmy Carter has actually tried to stop wars rather than start them?

Just a few thoughts.

You really prefer to take diplomatic advice from a guy with gallons of blood on his hands?

The unremitting litany of failure and decline we have experienced these last 40 years count for nothing, next time it will turn out that they have been correct all along.

It's one thing to be skeptical of him based on his prior record, but how is he wrong?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and apologize for ever posting here.

that Abrams' article demonstrates that the poster I mentioned above simply parrots the AIPAC line.

comparing her with Abrams is very much a bridge too far.

But did you not note the extreme similarity in pharasing between Abrams' article and about two-thirds of the things she ever posts here?

...that's just a slight exaggeration.

I notice that neither you or anyone else has even attempted to argue against any of Abrams' points.

You should try hard from now on to attack the substance and the merit (or lack thereof) of the viewpoint - ad hominems are so high school, Ken.

This is a man who could fairly be called the Butcher of Central America in the Eighties. You sure you want him on your team?
(I'm only responding to this because the high-traffic disabled the ignore feature. While it's off, I'll let you know that I ASKED the mods to remove the post, as I didn't mean to imply anything about personal appearance).

attack the substance of his argument - are you capable of doing so?

Shall I join in on your juvenile game of equating you and your views to those of Pat Buchanon or Bob Novak - because as you say "you're not exactly rebutting my point by agreeing with" those guys.

Carter is right that a total freeze of settlement expansion is vital for a peace settlement - or, to be precise, that continuing to expand the settlements is a way for the Israeli government to send a message to the world that they are not interested in such a settlement.

A halt to terrorism will come as part of a peace settlement. Building of Palestinian institutions will not be possible until afterwards - the Israeli government has explicitly stated it won't allow it beforehand. The rule of law in the West Bank, while far from perfect, is better than in much of the world, and certainly not an obstacle to a settlement. The reason that peace is impossible is because Israel refuses to make an offer the Palestinians could accept, and continuing to expand - not merely not removing, but continuing to expand - the illegal settlements on Palestinian land makes it clear that it has no interest in doing so.

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgpc4hc9_134gpkkfz63

Are peace activists the enemies of peace? The fascinating case of Jimmy Carter requires a special look. Carter recently visited Israel – one of many visits – this time in the framework of a special delegation of "Elders" – the world's tribal elders. There is no doubt that this group – one of whose founders is Nelson Mandela – has good intentions, and maybe ability. They have considerable gravitas. But the main question is – what are they doing with their moral weight?

Immediately upon his return to the US, Carter published an article in the prestigious Washington Post. An invective against the State of Israel. Invective cannot rest on foundations of truth. It needs lies. Carter tells a few, for example, about the Hanoun family, "recently evicted from their home of 65 years." Really? In fact, the entire compound belongs to Jews, who were expelled from Jerusalem in the framework of the War of Independence. There is no argument about the Jewish ownership, which dates back to 1875. A Star of David is still to be found on one of the old stone structures at the site. The Hanoun family, by contrast, did not reach the place 65 years ago. If Carter would have checked, he would discover that this is a family of refugees from Haifa (Haifa's Arabs, by the way, were not expelled. They left voluntarily). They were moved into the structure, along with another family, in 1956, by the Jordanian authorities. The owners of the property sought to exercise their proprietary rights. There is not a word about this in Carter's article.

And indeed, there are thousands of tenants, in Carter's state, in Atlanta, who were evicted from their homes because they could not make their mortgage payments. The rights of the Smith family, which was thrown onto the street in Atlanta, are much more established than the rights of the Hanoun family. But Carter is not looking for justice. He is looking for invective. And therefore, he presents his readers with a partial picture, replete with erroneous details, and conceals the fact that the eviction was carried out only after lengthy judicial proceedings, in which the proprietary rights were held up to detailed scrutiny. It is worthwhile to be precise. The Israeli court granted the families living in the compound the status of protected tenants. Moreover, some of the evicted families had the option of generous compensation even though they had no proprietary rights. But the families rejected every offered settlement and every legal defense, due to political pressure, and also received a political visit from Carter and his friends. Nobody offered compensation to the Smith family in Atlanta and Carter did not visit them.

The criticism of eviction of the Hanoun family could be justified. Even if the eviction was legally justified – there is room for political criticism. And on the condition that if Carter seeks to deny the Jews' proprietary rights – he should also make it clear that the Palestinians have no right to claim abandoned property. In practice, the property that was expropriated and confiscated from Jews in Arab countries, as a result of legislation, pressure, persecution, flight and expulsion – is worth more than the property that was expropriated and confiscated from the Palestinians as a result of flight and expulsion. But there is a difference. The Palestinians underwent the experience of flight and expulsion following the declaration of a war of annihilation against the Jewish State, which had barely arisen. The Jews in Arab countries underwent a similar experience – of flight, expulsion and property expropriation – even though they had not declared war on the Arab countries. If so, whose rights are greater?

Has Carter ever told the Palestinians this basic truth? The answer is well known. Like other "peace activists", he treat the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, like retarded children. They must not be told the truth. They must not be told that if there are rights – then both the Jews and the Arabs have them. And if not – then neither the Jews nor the Arabs have them. He does not tell them that during the 1940's, tens of millions of people underwent the harsh experience of population exchanges, and there is no reason why only the Palestinians should have "the right of return." He does not tell them that more Jews fled, and were expelled from, Arab countries than Palestinians who were expelled from or fled Israel.

It is possible and permissible to criticize Israel over the settlements. Occasionally, this criticism is justified. But Carter, like thousands of other "peace activists", does not advance peace. Their demonization of Israel strengthens those who reject peace. Abu Mazen's position appeared in the same newspaper, the Washington Post, on May 29. He insists on demands the sole significance of which is opposition to the existence of the State of Israel. He agrees, of course, officially, to a two-state solution but on the condition that one of them be a Palestinian state and that the second one also be a Palestinian state, following the implementation of the right of return. He admits that he received an amazing compromise offer from Olmert that included the evacuation of 97% of the territories but he rejected it outright because he insisted that masses of Palestinians flood the State of Israel.

Did Carter issue a condemnation of Abu Mazen? The answer is well known. Carter published an article condemning Israel, one of many. Instead of offering fair criticism, Carter has become part of the incitement enterprise against the State of Israel. Carter is capable of much more. He has succeeded in making achievements in other areas. For some reason, when he touches the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he loses his fairness and his balance. He does not contribute to the advancement of peace. On the contrary. This is Carter's contribution to strengthening Palestinian refusal and to pushing the chances of peace further away."


Ben-Dror Yemini
Skype: bdy222
Gmail talk: bdyemini
Tel: 00-972-52-3112227
Links to translated articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Dror_Yemini