Responding to President Carter's Book
Sermon, January 26, 2007
Rabbi Bruce Kadden
As many of you are aware, last month I wrote an opinion column in the Tacoma
News Tribune in response to an article that former President Jimmy Carter had
written in defense of his controversial book, “Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid.”
I was somewhat surprised by Carter’s article; I was aware of the book and the
controversy that surrounded it, but considered his response defensive. Although
he alluded to unfavorable reviews, he did not directly address specific
critiques. Rather, he used the article to further argue his position highly
critical of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians.
My article was in response to his article, not to the book, which I have not
read and have an intention of reading. I am not averse to reading books or
articles that are critical of Israel, when they bring a fresh perspective to the
issue, but those who have read Carter’s book report that it is nothing new.
Furthermore, I do not really like debating this important issue on the
opinion page of the newspaper, because it is impossible to deal with complicated
issues in a relatively short space. It is often better to just let an article
go unchallenged, rather than continue to call attention to it with a response.
But in this case, I felt it was important to address some of the issues which
Carter raised in his article, as well as the provocative title of the book.
When a former President of the United States, who played a key role in
brokering peace between Israel and Egypt and who has done many admirable things
in his post-presidency including creating a center for peace and justice, weighs
in on this issue, we in the Jewish community cannot ignore it, but must
respond. This evening I want to respond to a few of the issues he raises.
Carter argued that while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is debated in
Israel and other countries, it is not debated in the United States. Yet, on
college campuses, in newspapers, on the Web and in many other venues this issue
is discussed and debated. Perhaps it does not receive the attention it once did
because so much focus is currently placed on Iraq.
It is true that within the Jewish community you do not find the diversity of
opinion you did 25 years ago, during the first war in Lebanon for example, but
that is the direct result of suicide bombings which racked Israel following the
collapse of the Camp David peace talks, the bombings of northern Israel by
Hezbollah and the election of a Palestinian parliament controlled by Hamas, an
organization that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and that continues
to espouse its goal of destroying Israel, not to mention the existential threat
of an Iran that is trying to create nuclear weapons.
In light of this reality, it does not make sense to Israel’s shortcomings,
and it has many. When former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed that Israel
unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, you did have a vociferous debate, both in
Israel and in this country concerning the merits of this proposal. And groups
such as Brit Tzedek v’Shalom: Jewish Alliance for Justice & Peace bring a
thoughtful, although sometimes controversial, voice to the discussion.
Carter seems to be particularly disturbed about the effectiveness of AIPAC,
the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee to lobby for measures that support
Israel. But AIPAC is doing what any registered lobby and private citizen can do
in our country: make the case for its position. While it can report on a
candidate’s voting record, it cannot, as a registered lobby, directly support
candidates for office.
Many of AIPAC’s supporters are involved with Political Action Committees
which do support candidates and such organizations have at times successfully
targeted members of Congress who have been particularly critical of Israel. But
this is no different than the many other PACs which support and oppose
candidates based on their positions on certain issues. These are the realities
of American politics in the 21st century.
While many politicians court Jewish votes by supporting AIPAC, they do not
accept uncritically all of its positions. AIPAC offers politicians clear,
concise analyses of the important issues facing Israel and the Middle East. Our
politicians listen to many voices; their support of Israel is based in large
measure upon their assessment of the best interests of the United States,
especially on the importance of having a reliable democratic ally committed to
fighting terrorism in the Middle East.
Carter describes the awful living conditions of the Palestinians in the
territories, a reality that as far as I am aware is undisputed. Carter seems to
believe that we cannot imagine how bad it is for them and that if we did, we
would change our position. If Israel were completely responsible for this
situation, then his point would be well taken.
But the reality –which Carter seems not to recognize—is that the
responsibility for the living conditions of the Palestinians is in many ways as
much or more their responsibility than Israel’s. Or to put it another way, the
Palestinians have consistently rejected opportunities to create a state, from
the United Nations partition plan of 1947-1948 to the Camp David negotiations of
2000. The responsibility for the failure of those talks is disputed, but there
is no doubt that had Yassar Arafat accepted the plan and the ensuing terrorism
had been averted, that live for the Palestinians would have improved
remarkably. One only has to look at the standard of living of the Arabs who are
Israeli citizens to see the potential for the Palestinians living peaceably with
Israel.
Finally, let me address Israel’s security fence, which Carter describes as
“an enormous imprisonment wall,” and which is the impetus for the use of the
word Apartheid in the title of his book. This barrier is in some places a wall
and in some places a fence. It was constructed in direct response to the
suicide bombings perpetrated by residents of the West Bank.
Rabbi David Forman, founder of Rabbis for Human Rights and an Israeli who has
often been quite critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, has
written, “The security fence did not come about in a vacuum. Would any country
in the world do differently if going out of the house meant that its citizens
played Russian roulette with their lives?...The barrier is a necessary evil,
which unfairly impinges on some of the elemental rights of the Palestinians.
But that is a far cry from endorsing apartheid.”
Apartheid is a loaded word, designed to recall South Africa’s policy which
separated blacks from whites. Some have suggested that like the word
“Holocaust,” the word Apartheid should be reserved for that particular
historical reality and that to use it in other contexts diminishes its impact
and insults those who suffered under South African apartheid.
That position is debatable, but let us assume that it is acceptable to use
the term; the question then becomes is it appropriate. The fence certainly
separates Israel from the Palestinians in the West Bank. However, on the other
side of the barrier are certain Israeli settlements which are on the West Bank.
These too are protected by fences. Israel does control the movement of
Palestinians from the West Bank to Israel, as well as within the West Bank using
a variety of checkpoints. It has at times curtailed virtually all movement, in
response to terror attacks, but at other times it has removed checkpoints and
eased travel restrictions. There is no downplaying the restrictiveness of
Israeli policies or the hardship they impose on Palestinians, many of whom would
just like to live their lives in peace.
But again, one has to consider the reason for the construction of the fence
and the implementation of these policies. They are a means of survival, based
on the Jewish value pikuach nefesh, the saving of life. When the fence
was first proposed and began to be constructed, there was significant
opposition, both within Israel and without. But as the terrorist attacks
continued, the opposition evaporated. There were still legal challenges to the
route of the fence; and in some cases Israel’s Supreme Court demanded the route
be altered. But it recognized the necessity of the fence to protect the lives
of Israelis, both Jews and Arabs.
Israel has consistently rejected calls from those on the far right to expel
Arabs from the West Bank and from Israel proper. It has one million Arab
citizens living in its borders with full rights. Some Israelis are racist, but
most are not. If Israel could be sure that the terrorism would stop, the fence
would come down immediately and full rights of travel would be restored. Given
the choice, Israel would rather spend its human and monetary resources
elsewhere; it simply has no choice. These facts clearly indicate that Israel’s
policies are far from Apartheid, but rather a necessary means for survival.
In response to Carter’s book, the CCAR cancelled a trip to the Carter Center
that was originally scheduled as part of its national convention. Many Jewish
members of the Center’s board, some long-time friends and supporters, resigned.
These are sad, but appropriate responses to Carter’s book, which does not
further the cause of peace, but rather unfairly blames and demonizes Israel
while ignoring the Palestinians’ responsibility for the current situation.
Peace remains our hope and our dream, but can only be achieved when both
parties are ready and willing to enter into a permanent agreement which assures
the safety of all people and creates a Palestinian state committed to justice
and peace and not terror.
[back to list of sermons]
[back to top] |
