In Praise of Carter's Conclusions

"In Praise of Diplomacy"
BR8, Sunday 2/15/09,
By Gershom Gorenberg

There are deficiencies in Carter’s new book, writes Gorenberg. There’s a selective and made-up history, which has Carter to thank for Sadat’s historic trip to Jerusalem. Gorenberg correctly calls him on this.

Gorenberg writes that Carter “too briefly” describes Hamas’ terror campaign against Israel. From this, one must assume Carter delved little, or not at all, into Hamas’ inflexible anti-Israel and anti-Semitic ideology, as well as the glorification of armed struggle that pervades Palestinian society. Gorenberg, not to mention Carter, misses that it’s not simply these violent acts, but the ideology fueling them.

Carter “has an easier time talking about Israeli obstacles to peace than Palestinian ones,” says Gorenberg. “Carter’s counsel lacks a couple of critical elements,” continues Gorenberg, who fails to mention what these are.

”Nonetheless,” contends Gorenberg, “it has much to recommend it.” Perhaps in an attempt to inform the reader why he recommends such a flawed work, Gorenberg states that “the curious thing about Carter’s history is that he can be wrong on the details and right on the conclusions.”

But it’s not just Carter’s conclusions on historical events, but his conclusions on the path to peacemaking with which Gorenberg agrees.

Conveying Carter’s take on Hamas, Gorenberg writes that without Hamas, there will be no agreement, “and with no agreement in sight, even moderate Palestinians are beginning to consider the one-state alternative”.

This trite and empty analysis reveals ignorance on two counts. First, an agreement will not be brought more into view with the inclusion of Hamas. That Hamas is so popular is a clear indication of how far we are from a peace agreement. Gorenberg’s theme for this review is never letting “a crisis go to waste”. Yet instead of making something of this crisis (Gaza) and counseling Palestinian society to seize this moment to reform and truly build a path of peace with Israel (while the destructive alternative is so plainly visible), Carter advocates a stronger push by Obama for negotiations, only this time with Hamas! Gorenberg assents.

Second, so-called moderate Palestinians have never abandoned Israel’s demise in the form of a “one-state solution,” hence their non-starter positions within a two-state framework [i.e. right of return; withdrawal to Green Line; the casualness with which they speak of slipping from two-states to one].

Not only does Gorenberg expose his naivety, but a chip on his shoulder regarding American Jewry:

The agreement with Egypt arguably improved Israel’s security as much as any other single event in its history. Yet a portion of American Jewry has never forgiven Carter for his success.

Has this “portion” of American Jewry never forgiven Carter for peace with Egypt, or for his problematic statements and positions towards Israel and Jews over the years?

That Israeli gestures and actions can moderate Palestinian rejection is a major tenet of Carter’s book. As Gorenberg is an author noted for his book on Israeli settlements, “The Accidental Empire," he was a fitting choice by the Times to legitimize a book about dismantling settlements being the difference between perpetual war and a lasting peace.