An awful, ahistorical book by a treasonous ex-President.

Carter re-invents history to minimize the Jewish historical footprint on the Near East, with the aim of delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish state.

Being fairly well informed on the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and having read a recent book by Jimmy Carter, there were no big surprises for me regarding his policy views. This book was very informative, however, on the exact geographical nature of the situation there. When I hear of the West Bank or Gaza Strip in the news now, my imagery of the area is much more precise, thanks to this book. I learned of it from an interview with Carter on KUOW's Weekday, and my interest was furthered by its presence on the New York Times best seller list for almost four months in early 2007.

This is not an unbiased book. The historical chronology at the beginning leaves out some data that would be favorable to the Jews. In his first visit to Israel he recounts that "It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities - the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier." This biblical reference strongly suggests anti-Semitism on the part of the former president. And what exactly was the complaint that Jesus received about holy sites and culture? He quotes Arafat as telling him that the PLO has never advocated for the annihilation of Israel. And he seems to take him at his word, in spite of the fact that the PLO founding charter contains numerous demands for the elimination of Israel. Arafat has been quoted in February 1980 saying that "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, war which will last for generations." On page 189, the author states that the "driving purpose for the forced separation of the two peoples is unlike that in South Africa" --- then why the title of this book.

I do not mean to state that the Israelis have been always right in their actions with the Palestinians: I do think that for peacemakers to be effective they must deal with these two traumatized groups with fairness.

it’s a funny book because he’s like, here’s all i personally did for the peace in isntreal and the middle east, some of my closest life-long friends are isntreali officials, and here’s a cute anecdote abt the time i held a daughter of an arab official. the most radical thing he said was that isntreal must adhere to international law, which was right after he said - for the hundredth time - that most importantly all arab nations must respect isntreal as a reality.

when you read about palestine, you learn that carter was basically the friendliest to palestine among the us presidents. and then you read this book which, yes, lists a very few among isntreali war crimes & crimes against humanity, but they’re always preceded by the words “palestinians claim that”. be fucking for real.

Carter writes simply, like he was explaining the geo-historical situation to his Sunday school class. He has listened to all parties, and he conveys their views or concerns respectfully. It's a far more gracious approach to diplomacy that we normally see in our political figures. He clearly admires Israel, but he also respects ordinary Palestinians. And speaking as an American who values equal rights for all, he must note the accumulation of land seizures, evictions, ethnic cleansings, settlements on conquered lands, economic blockades, enclosures of communities within walls, and collective punishments. Naturally, he fears the emergence of a society based on force-backed inequality between ethnic groups. His hope for Israel and Palestine is akin to Nelson Mandela's hope for South Africa.

This would appear on first glance to be a strong statement from a US President, particularly given the use of apartheid in the title, but nuance is critical and with the Palestine/Israel situation nuance is everything.

Carter portrays himself to be at the forefront of senior US leadership when it comes to recognizing the issues at hand yet at the very beginning in the timeline of events, he completely glosses over any reference to the word or specific event of the "Nakba" (Catastrophe in English) - the word Palestinians use for their ethnic cleansing upon the formation of the State of Israel in 1948. He mentions they fled as is the standard Zionist line but we have no real context as to why the Palestinians need to be occupied other than security and terrorism - never mind their right to resist the occupation and theft of their land - this is not specifically the focus. There's a critical difference between "terrorist" and "resistance fighter". Also the idea of "state terrorism" seems to not be relevant in the context of the continuous terrorism of occupation.

In fact, there's not much mention of the occupation directly until the end of the book. Confronting the roots of the colonial project, or further even definining it properly are the keys to solving it. The roots are ugly, there was backing by patron states from the start and the power disparity has never approached equality - even before 1948. He never addresses issues in the ideology of Zionism itself which insists upon the whole land belonging to an elevated ethnic group. Admitting this would change the entire outlook on the intentions of the Zionists which has played out exactly as an ethno-state might since this book's publication in 2006. Further settlements in the West Bank, a siege on Gaza, new Knesset laws establishing the primacy of Jews and ever greater violence, in fact the worst period of violence (especially when adding in the present war) that the land has seen in the past 100 years has shown that nothing of substance has ever been addressed.

Actions more than words and a clear understanding of the Palestinian grievances is critical to understanding history and to move forward towards peace if it's even possible in the near future. All Camp David did was neutralize Egypt as a potential support to the Palestinian issue. All Oslo did was allow Israel to kick the can down the road while they continued in their settlement rush. All the Jordan peace arrangement provided was neutralization on Palestine's east border. All that has been accomplished are the conditions for further Israeli expansion and genocide. Actions since have shown all this to be true.

With all of this in consideration, books like this are potentially dangerous as a sly cover to the truth. Palestinians are presented as hopeless negotiating partners when they refuse peace deals that any sane person would never accept - deals for peace at the cost of permanent occupation and a rejection of autonomy in selecting leaders and policies. On the other hand the true intentions of the Israelis - by continuing expansion of settlements and occupation of Palestinians to allow it to happen - is never looked at directly despite the facts of history. There is no reason for this to stop. Zionist ideology believes the entire land to be theirs and until that fact is faced we are going to see the continuation of what is happening in front of us - the erasue of Palestinians from the land by whatever means necessary, genocide, domicide, cultural genocide, and the continued re-writing and denial of Palestinian history.

I want to believe Carter had good intentions and perhaps he did. The cynic in me says that he knew exactly what was happening, that the agreements would provide the Palestinians nothing of substance and that Carter's actions were to show that the US was putting forth a serious effort at establishing peace. It was political theater and nothing more. If I'm wrong I'd like to be shown how any of the actions described in the book - or the book itself - have changed things for the better. Maybe it's inspired someone to read further, then great. But I would never recommend this book as a starting point for clear understanding.

Definitely worth reading. While I agree with Carter's assessment of the situation in Palestine, his willingness in this book to seemingly look the other way regarding oppression in other places in the Middle East is truly troubling. I liked the part where he told Golda Meir that Israel would be better off if the Jews strengthened their relationship with God or some such and she rightly laughed at him.

On President Carter's funeral I listened to him read about Palestine. Pretty depressing overall considering all his work and warnings seem to have been thrown out the window in modern history - i need some fiction next!

While not a book written to entertain, the book offers a multitude of information as Carter reflects on his time in the Middle East before, during, and, most importantly, after his presidency. He takes opportunities to propose his idea towards solutions to conflict in the area while also criticizing the acts of all involved parties, most notably the condoning of violent Israeli actions by “a submissive White House and U.S. Congress.”

At points, it is hard to tell that this was written over twenty years ago.

I expected more from Mr. Carter. This read like a one-sided propaganda piece. I don't necessarily disagree with his arguments, but by totally ignoring the other side, he reduced the effectiveness and accuracy of his statements.

More like 3.5. Read a bit like a textbook. I appreciated his passion and nuanced views, and thought it was particularly insightful that he expanded on his own Arab-Israeli foreign policy initiatives as president. I found it to be rather fair, but didn’t think it was as revolutionary or eye-opening as I had expected, given the controversy sparked by the book. He didn’t offer many new ideas, as most of his points have already been widely accepted among moderates on both sides.

A not very balanced approach to the conflict but I admire Carter’s fortitude in trying to find a way forward.