Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

"[Carter's interpretation of the maps in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is] just simply wrong.--Dennis Ross"

"[T]his [Israel's response to the American proposals at Camp David during the 2000 Summit]: is a matter of record. This is not a matter of interpretation.--Dennis Ross"

"President Carter made a major contribution to peace in the Middle East. That's the reality. . . . I would like him to meet the same standard that he applied then to what he's doing now.--Dennis Ross"

"[The book is] riddled with errors and bias.--Alan Dershowitz"

"Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by 'representatives of Jewish organizations' as Carter has claimed.--Alan Dershowitz"

"[Carter's claim that "Israel launche[d] preemptive attacks on Egypt, Syria, Iraq and then Jordan" (5)]...[is inaccurate]; [in the 1967 Six-Day War] Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city.--Alan Dershowitz"

"[Carter's] use of the loaded word "apartheid," suggesting an analogy to the hated policies of South Africa, is especially outrageous, considering his acknowledgment buried near the end of his shallow and superficial book that what is going on in Israel today "is unlike that in South Africa — not racism, but the acquisition of land."--Alan Dershowitz"

"President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analysis; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.--Kenneth W. Stein"

"Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book.... Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade.--Kenneth W. Stein"

"[I]f Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term [apartheid] has, [then] he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.... Sadly, Israelis and Palestinians do not enjoy the kind of harmony the Israeli Declaration of Independence envisioned. Carter and his comrades use "Apartheid" as shorthand to condemn some of the security measures improvised recently.... Israel built a security fence to protect its citizens and separate Palestinian enclaves from Israeli cities. Ironically, that barrier marks Israel’s most dramatic recognition of Palestinian aspirations to independence since Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993.... Applying the Apartheid label tries to ostracize Israel by misrepresenting some of the difficult decisions Israel has felt forced to make in fighting Palestinian terror.--Gil Troy"

"[Carter] distorts the truth...is too rigid and inflexible...[,]no longer capable of dialogue...[and is] an apologist for terrorists....--Melvin Konner"

"If you want The Carter Center to survive and thrive independently in the future, you must take prompt and decisive steps to separate the Center from President Carter's now irrevocably tarnished legacy. You must make it clear on your web site and in appropriately circulated press releases that President Carter does not speak for The Carter Center on the subject of the Middle East conflict or the political role of the American Jewish community. If you do not do this, then President Carter's damage to his own effectiveness as a mediator, not to mention to his reputation and legacy will extend, far more tragically in my view, to The Carter Center and all its activities.--Melvin Konner"

"Carter has repeatedly fallen back -- possibly unconsciously -- on traditional anti-Semitic canards.... Perhaps unused to being criticized, Carter reflexively fell back on this kind of innuendo about Jewish control of the media and government. Even if unconscious, such stereotyping from a man of his stature is noteworthy. When David Duke spouts it, I yawn. When Jimmy Carter does, I shudder.... Others can enumerate the many factual errors in this book. A man who has done much good and who wants to bring peace has not only failed to move the process forward but has given refuge to scoundrels.--Deborah Lipstadt"

"When a former president of the United States [Carter] writes a book on the Israeli-Palestian crisis and writes a chronology at the beginning of the book in order to help them understand the emergence of the situation and in that chronology lists nothing of importance between 1939 and 1947, that is soft-core denial [of the Holocaust].--Deborah Lipstadt"

"Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent." .... Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.--Jimmy Carter"

"We have gotten thousands of letters from people either praising 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid' or denouncing some aspects of it....The Carter Center has no official position on the book itself, which President Carter said during his book tour was a personal project and not that of The Carter Center....--Deanna Congileo (Carter's spokeswoman, speaking on behalf of both President Carter and the Carter Center)"

"Amazon.com: Your use of the term "apartheid" has been a lightning rod in the response to your book. Could you explain your choice? Were you surprised by the reaction?"

"Jimmy Carter: The book is about Palestine, the occupied territories, and not about Israel. Forced segregation in the West Bank and terrible oppression of the Palestinians create a situation accurately described by the word. I made it plain in the text that this abuse is not based on racism, but on the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land. This violates the basic humanitarian premises on which the nation of Israel was founded. My surprise is that most critics of the book have ignored the facts about Palestinian persecution and its proposals for future peace and resorted to personal attacks on the author. No one could visit the occupied territories and deny that the book is accurate.--"An Interview with President Jimmy Carter""

"...when I proposed this title, by the way the title doesn’t have any punctuation in it. We intended it to be Palestinian Peace Not Apartheid [sic], but erroneously people have put a colon there. But anyhow, I can see then and now that it could precipitate some hard feelings or some obstacles that might prevent the negotiation of a peace agreement and equity or fairness of treatment for the Palestinians. And the Palestinians are horribly treated, and their treatment is not known at all or minimally in this country. So I chose that title knowing that it would be provocative. But I think in the long run, it has precipitated at least discussion. There has been a lot of positive discussion, and I believe that it has brought the issue of a lack of progress on peace for Israel and a lack of progress on the end of Palestinian suffering to the forefront of the American consciousness much more than it was had the book not been written. I am deeply concerned about the tensions that might have arisen. That was not my intention at all. And I’ve been hurt and so has my family by some of the reaction. I’ve been through political campaigns for state senate and for governor and for president, and I’ve been stigmatized and condemned by my political opponents and their stories. But this is the first time that I’ve ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist. This has hurt me. I can take it. But I think that that group of people who have made those statements—sometimes in full-page ads in the New York Times—I think they are an extreme minority. I’m not complaining. I’m willing to face the accusations. I think that, for instance, this weekend I was with Justice Steven Breyer [sic], who spent a weekend with me, my wife, and others. I was with Stu Eizenstadt, one of the directors of Brandeis. I was with Rick Hertzberg, who was my speechwriter in the White House, and others. I don’t think that any of them would agree with any of those personal epithets, and the fact that the debate has deteriorated into add hominem attacks on my character, I think has probably been a greater obstacle to progress than the fact that I chose a particular word in the title. --Jimmy Carter, Brandeis University, January 23, 2007"