Location: Blogs Law Library LifePolitical Thoughts |
 | | Posted by: Brian Baker | 12/13/2006 8:56 PM | Former President Jimmy Carter has just released a book entitled "Palestine: Peace, Not Aprtheid." The title alone has stirred up a major controversy. The word "Apartheid" is a very loaded word and one, when applied to Israel brings swift rebuke. The Anti-Defamation League has taken out full page ads in newspapers attacking President Carter, saying, “Mr. Carter does not advance public debate. He diminishes it.”
The New York Times, in its "The Lede" blog authored by Tom Zeller, Jr. discusses the issues here. Be sure to read the intersting opinions in the comment section below the article.
My take?
Former President Carter is one of my heroes. He has proven his commitment of International Human Rights by traveling the world over helping people and countries in need. Sure there are some minor errors in dates in the book, but he is being attacked most for his interpretation of UN Security Counsel Resolution 242. This is a semantic arguement that has been going on since the Resolution was passed. Here is the complete text of the Resolution. Decide for your self if President Carter was correct in his use of the word "must.":
Text of ResolutionThe Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of
territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in
which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their
acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a
commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, - Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the
establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which
should include the application of both the following principles:
- Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
- Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for
and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence of every State in the area and their right to
live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats
or acts of force;
- Affirms further the necessity
- For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
- For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
- For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political
independence of every State in the area, through measures including the
establishment of demilitarized zones;
Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative
to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with
the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts
to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the
provisions and principles in this resolution; Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on
the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as
possible.
| | | Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (1) Add Comment
|
Re: Former President Jimmy Carter on Israel, Palestine and Apartheid | By Craig Tristao on 1/3/2007 10:26 AM | This is a continuation of what was cut off by my inadvertantly hitting a button that changed the page...
I beliieve I left off at comparing the excerpt to the resolution.
The excerpt Mr. Stein is in disagreement with is:
“Israel must withdraw from occupied territories”
The resolution itself states:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
I can see why this would infuriate Mr. Stein, as it goes beyond semantics. Taken alone, the difference is slight. However, that provision was written by Justice Goldberg and Lord Caradon. Its purpose was that Isreal pull armed forces from the territory acquired in exchange for peace with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Not that Isreal unilaterally remove itself as a stand alone reading could imply-and what the inclusion of the word must invokes.
This trade is made apparent in the second clause requiring that all the states involved recognize sovreignty of one another. Mainly, that Egyot, Syria, and Jordan recognize Isreal. This was a factor in the 7 day war, as those states still deny it as a sovereign-much less that a holocaust ever occurred.
So, from the UN resolution we can see that more is required by it than a mere withdraw-as the drafters knew that alone would not solve the conflic. That conclusion is made valid by subsequent land for peace transfers that have proved futile (I believe these were even titled land for peace).
What is President Carter saying? Well, despite the resolution as a whole, and subsequent hisotory, he re-writes the resolution as though Isreal must withdraw. One would hope that is not out of an unfounded belief (conflicting with the original resolution) that leaving land will bring peace. But, if the CNN interview quoted in the blog is correct: "Israel would have peace if it simply withdrew from the Palestinian territories," then Carter is somehow reaching that conclusion. In which case I can not fault for Mr. Stein for feeling compelled to leave.
In summary, Palistinians were most likely wrongfully removed from their homeland after WWII so that Jewish people could have a state free from the horror of another genocide attempt. This lead to contempt on the part of the natives, and their supporters in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, towards the Jewish people. (And the West who carried through the act) In response, they deny the reason the Jewish people were given a state (the holocaust), and thereby claim the state invalid (do not recognize it as a sovereign). That creates a foundation for a war, which occurred. Niether of those reasons entail acquiring a fair amount of land land for Palestinians, but rather eradicating the Jewish state.
From that point of view, the mere cessation of title to land to palistinians would solve nothing. It would be accepted, but not as an accord to the conflict. However, if Isreal were to be accepted as a soveriegn there is hope that disdain for the state would decline through the generations, provided that realization were made through peaceful means.
Just as giving up land alone will not end the conflict, it does not provide as a trade for sovereignty. Thus, Mr. Stein is right to be peeved with Carter. So, an alternative method must be discovered, which may or may not include the giving up of land. For Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Isreal, and well the rest of the worlds sake, I hope it is not in the same fashion that the whole situation began.
The semantic debate has to do with the French versus english presentations of the resolution as to what extent the withdrawel must be. Particularly whether or not Isreal would be required to give up the land the ceased, or can offer trades for land retention. It is hard to believe that this is what is meant by his inclusion of must. Especially given his CNN interview and the two other major errors Stein outlines, which appear go beyond dates. Stein appears to be right on the other two, which, in order for Carter to have a valid and consistent point, would have to misrepresented as so in the book.
This sounds like a good poker game topic. If interested, I am trying to plan a game during break, or during the first part of next semester. Please let me know if interested.
Take care,
-Craig
|
|
|
|
| | |