Jimmy Carter: America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace

The New York Times ^ | 04/21/2002 | JIMMY CARTER

[Pokey78]

ATLANTA — In January 1996, with full support from Israel and responding to the invitation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Carter Center helped to monitor a democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, which was well organized, open and fair. In that election, 88 members were elected to the Palestinian National Authority, with Yasir Arafat as president. Legally and practically, the Palestinian people were encouraged to form their own government, with the expectation that they would soon have full sovereignty as a state.

When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the leaders of Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their leader. I relayed a message offering them full participation in the process of developing a permanent constitutional framework for the new political entity, but they refused to accept this proposal. Despite this rejection, it was a time of peace and hope, and there was no threat of violence or even peaceful demonstrations. The legal status of the Palestinian people has not changed since then, but their plight has grown desperate.

Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has never equivocated in his public declarations nor deviated from his ultimate purpose. His rejection of all peace agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands, his invasion of Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction of villages and homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians and his open defiance of President George W. Bush's demand that he comply with international law have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence.

There is adequate blame on the other side. Even when he was free and enjoying the full trappings of political power, Yasir Arafat never exerted control over Hamas and other radical Palestinians who reject the concept of a peaceful Israeli existence and adopt any means to accomplish their goal. Mr. Arafat's all-too-rare denunciations of violence have been spasmodic, often expressed only in English and likely insincere. He may well see the suicide attacks as one of the few ways to retaliate against his tormentors, to dramatize the suffering of his people, or as a means for him, vicariously, to be a martyr.

Tragically, the policies of Mr. Sharon have greatly strengthened these criminal elements, enhanced their popular support, and encouraged misguided young men and women to sacrifice their own lives in attacking innocent Israeli citizens. The abhorrent suicide bombings are also counterproductive in that they discredit the Palestinian cause, help perpetuate the military occupation and destruction of villages, and obstruct efforts toward peace and justice.
 
The situation is not hopeless. There is an ultimate avenue to peace in the implementation of United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 242, expressed most recently in the highly publicized proposal of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah. The basic premises of these resolutions are withdrawal of Israelis from Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel and Israel's right to live in peace. This is a reasonable solution for many Israelis, having been accepted in 1978 by Prime Minister Menachem Begin and ratified by the Israeli Knesset. Egypt, offering the greatest threat to Israel, responded by establishing full diplomatic relations and honoring Israeli rights, including unimpeded use of the Suez canal. This set a pattern for what can and must be done by all other Arab nations. Through constructive negotiations, both sides can consider some modifications of the 1967 boundary lines.

East Jerusalem can be jointly administered with unimpeded access to holy places, and the right of return can be addressed by permitting a limited number of displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland with fair compensation to others. It will be a good investment for the international community to pay this cost.

With the ready and potentially unanimous backing of the international community, the United States government can bring about such a solution to the existing imbroglio. Demands on both sides should be so patently fair and balanced that at least a majority of citizens in the affected area will respond with approval, and an international force can monitor compliance with agreed peace terms, as was approved for the Sinai region in 1979 following Israel's withdrawal from Egyptian territory.

There are two existing factors that offer success to United States persuasion. One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel only for defensive purposes, a premise certainly being violated in the recent destruction of Jenin and other villages. Richard Nixon imposed this requirement to stop Ariel Sharon and Israel's military advance into Egypt in the 1973 war, and I used the same demand to deter Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979. (A full invasion was launched by Ariel Sharon after I left office). The other persuasive factor is approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel. President George Bush Sr. threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the building of Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel. They all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as recognized by international law.

The existing situation is tragic and likely to get worse. Normal diplomatic efforts have failed. It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized intermediary, to consider more forceful action for peace. The rest of the world will welcome this leadership.

Jimmy Carter, the former president, is chairman of the Carter Center, which works worldwide to advance peace and human health.

[dalebert]

Do you suffer from an illness. Carter help make Arafat. What kind of deal leaves out the main agitators. As I recall it took much of the Reagan years to dig us out of the mess Carter left us in.

[beckett]

You've got to be kidding. Jimmy "Malaise" Carter appointed Volker in 1979 after three years of disastrous policies by his own administration, exacerbated by the tax-and-spend practices of a Democratic Congress which had had a hammerlock on Washington for decades. Those policies and practices led to runaway inflation and mile long lines at gas pumps.

It was sheer dumb luck that Carter chose in Volker someone who had the guts to implement at the Fed the painful fiscal and monetary policies that brought inflation under control.

Jimmy Carter was a failed President --- no part of his record shows otherwise, including the Begin-Sadat agreements that he ostentatiously mentions twice in the column above.

[CWRWinger]

Jimmie Carter is named after a road just north of Atlanta, which crosses over I-85. The road is called "Jimmie Carter Blvd". Jimmie Carter's mother must have named him after the road.

[Kermit]

You're right, except Rosie O'Donnell DID go on the O'Reilly Factor. She gave up a lot of her beliefs, even on the gun issue. She said 9/11 made her change her views.

[KC_for_Freedom]

I know, I have a lot of questions. I can't help myself. Somehow I suspect that Jimmy Carter can't answer one of them. The man is lame city. But then I already knew that. In fact I have known that for about 25 years

Well posted Torie, Carter is forgetting that agreements are not agreements until both sides agree. The admission that he totally failed to get Hamas to support the agreement means that there was no agreement. However much he wanted there to be one.

[crystalk]

No peace that Jimm-uh uh-Caw-tuh, would accept, would be anything that was just, nor would it be anything that would result in the continued existence of Israel beyond a five-to-ten year period of Death on the Installment Plan.

There is no room for another Arab sovereignty in the Middle East; there are too many already. If the Pallies require "protection," it is mainly against their own stupidity and murderous blood-lust and irrational hatred of Jews.

Such protection MIGHT just come from Jordan or Egypt, as long as the USA had a big gun pointed at the head of either, safety off, cocked locked and loaded. Otherwise those nations would just conspire with the Pallies to kill more Jews.

[tomkat]

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

the ex always said that was something i had a talent for identifying ...

[dalebert]

Bet it was Rosies shrinking payroll that changed her views.

[bayourod]

"he was the President that set the framework for economic change in this country. "

Agreed. If Carter hadn't been such a total failure, Reagan would probably not have been elected and not have been able to popularize supply-side economics.

[Torie]

Carter didn't really have any economic policies. He just printed money, and licked Iran's ass, because the thought of bloodshed disturbed his pacific soul. He did nothing to stop the rot of our defenses, or the demoralization of our country. He also had about as much social grace as his brother. Few liked him personally who dealt with him. The man was not a leader. He was a technician without vision who wasted his time on irrelevancies, like who should be playing on the white house tennis court.

[PsyOp]

even on the gun issue. She said 9/11 made her change her views.

But will she let K-mart put guns back on the shelves? Oh, that's right, she put them out of business already. Never mind.

[MJY1288]

I know she did, but she admitted she was afraid to go on his show. My question to liberals like her is.. WHY, if they believe in their heart that what they stand for is correct and good for this country, WHY are these liberals afraid to answer tough questions. Have you ever heard of someone like Rush Limbaugh refuse to be interviewed by a left wing liberal?

[tet68]

Maybe you had better go back to that pubic school and learn a little more about the reason the MARINE barracks were bombed. Seems a Democrat controlled congress had their dirty hands in that blood.

[ladyinred]

I find it hard to believe that anyone with a brain could write such outrageous untruths. The Palies knew in advance that Sharon was going to visit said Temple mount, which is btw in his country, and then of course, used it as propaganda against Israel, and an excuse for terrorism.
Israel under Clinton's lackey, Barak, (sp?) offered the company store to Arafat, but gee whiz, he didn't want it did he? Why? Because the Palies do not want peace with Israel. They want Israel driven into the sea.
Jimmy Carter, who I once supported and campaigned for as a democrat, knows full well this is the truth. He also knows that Arafat is and always has been a terrorist.
Shame on you Jimmy!

[habs4ever]

Carter had no idea what Volcker was up to, and neither did Volcker, for about 2 yrs.Check the record, pal.Try your revisionism against boobies at DU who know diddly about economics, otherwise you are too stupid to engage in sensible debate.

[Richard Axtell]

"Well, Carter may babble a lot, but he was the President that set the framework for economic change in this country. No one here mentions the liberal economic policicies of Nixon and Ford that Carter tried to undo with his appointment of Volcker. Reagan was just the dumbass recipient of his forsight."

You are joking right? Your post is totally off topic and patently ridiculous. Carter left the country with a 21% interest rate, 19% inflation rate, and a looming recession all due to his inflationary policies. Carter's self created energy crisis evaporated with the stroke of Reagan's pen, deregulating gasoline production. Reagan's tax cuts led to the longest economic recovery in the post war period, with two dips of recession caused by Democrat doctrinaire re-taxation by Bush #1 and Clinton's mismanagement and abuse of the DOJ against major industries in America. It continues today. So much for Carter the economist.

As for the peace maker, I give Anwar Sadat more credit in the Camp David Accords peace of 1979 than I give Carter. Carter's brokered agreement with North Korea is a joke, we have given more in aid to the terrorist totalitarian state of North Korea that we give to any other East Asian country. For this foolish appeasement, North Korea abides by none of the agreements provisions, continues to develop nuclear weapons, sells missile technology to other terrorist states, and regularly threatens war against the U.S. and all its neighbors. Carter oversaw an election with a predetermined outcome, all of Arafat's hand picked candidates easily won, and Arafat's own competitor for the position of President-PM-Chairman et al, was never a serious contender at all. Now Carter insists upon ignoring the obvious truth that more and more analysts are gradually accepting; Arafat never had any intention of concluding a negotiated peace with Israel, and is directly responsible for the terrorist suicide bombing offensive against Israel. When will this man wake up? Probably never.

[eleni121]

Fine call me a disruptor.

That and dumb enough to think that Carter was anything but a sad and dangerous setback for this nation. Stanfield Turner did what he could to decimate the CIA. We are still living(or should I say dying) of the effects of that.

[Torie]

Good post. It is better than mine all put together. I hate when that happens. :)

[Inyokern]

I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel. They all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as recognized by international law.

Can someone explain what this means? What is he talking about when he mentions the "lands of the Egyptians and the Lebanese?"