The Carter trap

"If you ever have any questions or advice for me, just put Jimmy Carter, Plains, Georgia on the envelope," the then-presidential candidate told audiences in the 1970s. "I open every letter myself, and read them all." That claim, of course, was completely false, as the cover story of The Atlantic Monthly, which dealt with lies told by presidents, pointed out this week.

It is impossible to know whether Carter personally opened the letter he received last Thursday. The Carter Center sent a measured, noncommittal response to its contents, but the authors gained the attention they had sought. The press quoted from the letter and television networks discussed it. Its 14 signatories, members of the Carter Center's Board of Councilors, informed Carter that they had decided to resign - publicly and with great fanfare, albeit "with sadness" - due to publication of his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

This book has featured for weeks on the bestseller lists, and has also provoked a huge outcry. It is no small matter when a former American president accuses Israel of an "apartheid" policy in the territories, and also holds it largely responsible for the ongoing bloodshed. "Your book," wrote the resigning board members, "has confused opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity."

At almost the same time, a group of Reform rabbis announced that they had decided to cancel a planned visit to the Carter Center in March. In their announcement, they urged Carter to resume working to promote "peace, not prejudice."

Accusations have been leveled at Carter's book since the day it was published. Those well-versed in the details of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as the Clinton administration's peace envoy, Dennis Ross, have found in it a plethora of falsehoods, fabrications and half-truths. "Mr. Carter's presentation badly misrepresents the Middle East proposals advanced by President Bill Clinton in 2000," Ross wrote.

The resigning board members' letter cites several other lies Carter is trying to disseminate. For instance, his assertion in the book that UN Security Council Resolution 242 states that "Israel must withdraw from territories" - to which the letter responded: "But you know the word 'must' in fact is not in the resolution." Kenneth W. Stein, who was the Carter Center's first executive director, and resigned from his position as a fellow several weeks ago because of the book, told Haaretz that it contains "intentional falsehoods" and accused Carter of "irresponsible remarks."

These "irresponsible remarks," to use Stein's term, were the straws that broke the backs of many people who had admired Carter, even if they did not always agree with him. Two of the most prominent such remarks were Carter's claim, in the book, that "Palestinian groups" had promised to stop suicide bombings the moment Israel accepted the principles of "international law" and the "ultimate goals of the road map for peace;" and various statements that appear to allege a Jewish conspiracy aimed at silencing critics of Israel, such as a sentence that appeared in an article he wrote for the Los Angeles Times: "Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations." The 14 resigning board members said in their letter that they view the former statement as "condoning violence against Israelis." The latter statement elicited a harsh letter from Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who told Carter that such statements are "dangerous stuff." Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of the weekly The New Republic, wrote that the former president "will go down in history as a Jew hater."

It seems that the well-publicized resignation by the Carter Center board members and the Reform rabbis' letter, both developments of the past few days, have tipped the scales against Carter and his book. After all, neither the resigners nor the boycotters can be suspected of being enemies of the peace process. They are lily-white, proven doves for whom Carter simply went too far. A clear line has been drawn here, with Carter's help: a consensus that defines the boundaries of what cannot be said about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even in the eyes of fierce critics of Israeli policy.

Nevertheless, one problem remains: The critics, as Carter justly claims, are almost all Jews. That is the only card left in his hand, but it is a strong one, which embodies a trap from which there is no escape.

On one hand, this problem, too, could be solved: All it needs is one well-known, well-respected, non-Jewish critic to come out publicly against Carter. If such a person does emerge, it will be possible to completely undermine the legitimacy of this miserable book. But on the other hand, what lies behind the assumption that such a critic is needed? Is this not a disturbing admission that even in America, when it comes to Israel, the word of Jews is still not, and may never be, completely sufficient?

More about Carter on Rosner's Domain:

Is Carter an anti-Semite?