Jonathan Demme's documentary film on Jimmy Carter and his book on Palestine is powerful
Filmmaker Jonathan Demme just completed a documentary-film on former President Jimmy Carter that really gets into the emotions surrounding his book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.” Before the book even became a controversy last year, Demme arranged to follow Carter around as he did his book tour promoting the book and confronting the lies and distortions that were being spread about him by people like Alan Dershowitz and Dennis Ross, (the partisan intermediary who helped sabotage the Camp David Peace Accords back in 2000).
In the two hour movie, Carter addresses the charge head on that he was comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa or that he said that Israel is an apartheid state, as was alleged by his detractors. In fact, Carter says that Israel is NOT an apartheid state, but that because of extremist policies from some extremists in Israel and its government, apartheid-like policies are being implemented in the occupied West Bank.
Carter was instrumental in achieving the first-ever peace accord between Israel and an Arab nation, Egypt. He shared the Nobel Peace prize with Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin. Since leaving the White House, he has dedicated himself to pursuing a just and fair peace for Israelis and Palestinians, and he insists that telling the truth is more important, even when the truth hurts.
But in telling the truth, Carter has been slandered, lied about, attacked, and insulted.
Carter also addresses the issue of the mainstream American media and how they are embedded in one side of the conflict. He criticizes the bias in the media and their failure to address the Middle East fairly and accurately.
You can read my review of the film at www.ArabWritersGroup.com.
Ray Hanania
Join the Conversation
Jimmy Carter was one of the most inefficient and nonsensical Presidents ever. He was elected as a backlash to the Nixon era.
I believe him to be a good man in many respects but he was and is a loser.
His book ‘rewrites’ history and he changed events as they actually happened probably from a bit of senility or maybe just because it put him in a better light.
This is the man that sent the Ayatollah a Bible while the Iranians held US hostages.
Many Carter followers (those that worked closely with him) have left him and his camp because of his lack of clarity and truth.
Even if you like the story that is told a lie is still a lie.
I think yu are confusing your conservative politics with humanity, morality, principle and justice. Carter was among the best presidents ever int he US … he saved the lives of all the Iranian Hostages. Just because he criticized Israel’s policies in the West Bank, and he is a liberal who helps the poor people, doesn’t make him a bad guy
Thanks
Ray Hanania
Ray,
Many critisize the Israeli position but my problem with Jimmy is he changed the facts of what happened in this process. His primary aid to those meetings and staunch supporter for years quit his association with Carter over his reworking of the facts and what was said/done.
You’ll note that the Iranians released our people the day Pres. Reagan was inaugurated…not a coincidence.
I think Mr. Carter would do well to continue assisting our poor thru his properly well acclaimed home building program.
He has overstepped his bounds as a prior Pres. in a manner unheard of by any prior office holder.
What a silly thing to say…
Patb,
In light of Bush and the current administration’s outrageous actions that have crossed unimaginable lines, the more people that show them up, and ‘overstep the bounds’ the better. If we can even determine what these bounds may be.
Ray, words have consequences. I don’t think that President Carter is Anti-Semitic. And you’re right to remind us that he was instrumental in brokering the peace between Egypt and Israel. Anyone who could do that has to have a love of peace in his heart. But when you use the word “apartheid”, you evoke all sorts of negative connotations, mainly the virulent accusation of racism.
You can criticize Israel for a lot of things, but I don’t think it’s fair to accuse her of racism. As you know, 20% of the Israeli population is Arab. There may be some discrimination in that regard, which is not right, but for the most part, Israeli Arabs enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship, and enjoy as well a high standard of living. Many of them see Israel as their home, and do not wish to live elsewhere.
Is Israel racist in the West Bank? I don’t think that racism accurately describes the situation. To better understand Israel’s actions, I would point to the existential threat that Israelis percieve they are facing, in light of a historical legacy that confers legitimacy to such perceptions. Jews did suffer extreme persecution for 2000 years, culminating in the travesty of the Holocaust. In that light, Israel, as strong as she is militarily, does see her survival as an open question, and will do everything she can for the sake of security, even beyond what may be necessary in the minds of people around the world.
Is the situation hopeless? No. The answer is to create ideological and economic realities on the ground which speak louder than words. The answer is to let go of some of our history, and some of our beliefs. The answer is to condition people on both sides for peace, by giving everyone a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. The answer is to use Israel to help revitalize the some of the economies in the Middle East. But the answer is not in using words like “apartheid”, words which confirm to Israelies the precariousness of their situation.
Jina,
Not my words alone but a partial quote from one of his former compatriots.
Tamara, President Bush was elected and reelected. When he leaves office the war (macro not micro) will continue and our presence there will remain for some time.
Nissim,
I acknowledge that what you describe is the way many Israeli’s feel, and I acknowledge the fear they are forced to face with suicide bombings.
But I must also add that there is also another side that suffers tragically, on a day to day basis. And unfortunately, some misled people feel the only real thing they can do to make a difference, is carry out such an act.
It is irrelevent what we choose to label these tragedies or these differences in ideas and perspectives, the fact is these things are happening, to innocent people among both peoples of this land. We need to try not to distinguish between the people of this land, but instead unite them to create a space where peace is viable and lasting. Enough of this ‘other’, enough of this ‘us vs. them’. Lets start thinking a little more productively.
Hi Nissim
I think firsta nd foremost is that the debate over the word “apartheid” should be focused accurately. It’s not. Dennis Ross, Alan Dershowitz Klein and the rest have fabricated charges against Carter and to me THAT is the issue.
They alleged Carter is calling Israel an “apartheid State” and that is NOT TRUE.
Carter says that Israel is using policies that are similar to Apartheid in the West Bank. Is Israel discriminating against people based on race and religion and segregating them on that basis?
Carter said that when you separate people in the occupied territories on the basis of their race and religion, and then impose harsh policies that many charge violate human rights, then you are imposing apartheid policies.
Taking someones land because they are ARAB is apartheid.
Byt the way, I do support compromise and oppose violence. But it doesn’t mean I am going to exaggerate something just to sound nice.
My cousins live in Nazareth and are “Israeli citizens.” You and I both know that Israeli Arabs have a blue number written into their identification cards that specifically ID them as being “non-Jewish.” To me and to them, that is offensive on its face. Inexcusable but justified in Israel, which describes itself as a “Jewish State.”
South Africa was a “White Nation.” That is how they described themselves. And they separated people ont he basis of their race. Israel doesn’t go that far in Israel, but it DOES in the West Bank.
Settlers are Jewish. They are given land in the West Bank and the non-Jews who live in the West Bank and denied access to those areas. You say it is because of security. I say the policy is what causes a concern for security. Take your land and I;ll bet you will fight for it, and fight hard? Right?
I am saying that if many Israelis are offended by the word “apartheid” but ARE NOT OFFENDED by the reality that the word describes, that to me is tragic and extremely sad. Your comments seems to focus on the concern about the word more than the concern for the reality of Israel’s policies in the West Bank that were in place long before terrorism began in the 1970s.
Just my thoughts and I do not mean them personally towards you, Nissim, as I respect your views and believe you try to be very fair.
Ray Hanania
I do believe, Ray, that there is a tragedy going on in the West Bank, and that there is a need to find a just solution. The reason I focus on the word “security” is that I think that is the defining aspect of Israeli action. Even though some policies may have the appearance of racism, they are not motivated by racism. They are motivated by a perceived need for security, in light of a historical legacy of insecurity.
What will Israel give in exchange for peace? A lot, Ray. As evidenced by the peace treaty with Egypt, and with Jordan, and with the offer made in the year 2000 by Barak and Clinton, namely: all of Gaza, about 96% of the West Bank, 2-3% of Israeli land to offset the land kept in the West Bank, East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, sovereignty of the holy sites, a dimatlement of most of the settlements, and 30 billion dollars as compensation to the refugees. Obviously, I was not privy to what exactly went on there, but I do think that the offer was made in good faith, and deserved a counter offer, instead of an Intifada.
I am for peace, and I believe that only peace will secure Israel, where my family has been for over 200 years. But both parties will have to let go of some of their deeply held beliefs, and if they do, you will find that a fair deal could be cut, and could be agreed to. Israelies will have to let go of their idea of a divine entitlment to Judea and Samaria. And Palestinians will have to let go of a right of return, unless that issue could be finessed with a giant student exchange program coupled with reunification on humanitarian grounds.
I have no doubt that eventually common sense will prevail, even in that war torn region. I would feel blessed to play a part in it. But we both have to let go of a part of ourselves to embrace something even greater than ourselves. That’s the rub, so to speak.