Wow, Jimmy Carter worked so hard both as president and afterwards to achieve peace in this region. So many agreements made and he clearly lays the lack of their implementation at the feet of Israel with complicity from the United States who has continued to support them without holding their feet to the fire. Sadly prophetic. Without efforts and voices like his which seems hard to find it will be a miracle if this conflict will ever end in peace and prosperity for the Palestinian people.

It's been 2-3 years since I read this so my review will of necessity be of the general impression that remains rather than specifics. I felt that Mr. Carter was brave for writing it at a time when mainstream media were clearly not telling both sides of the story. I felt that he was trying to get at and share the truth as best he saw it. I felt better informed about the full range of issues in this complicated conflict.

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter is a book I bought new ten years ago. Yes, it is that old. The middle east has more issues now but this book is about the Arab/Israeli situation then. The book starts out giving a history of the region going back thousands of years and how the region has changed leadership. President Carter then speaks personally about his trips to the middle east and what he sees, how he feels, what is said, who he talks with, etc. He is open and honest and shows the reader what he is up against politically and socially. It is a good lesson on both. Throughout the book, his love for peace and prosperity for both sides comes through. Not for one side over the other. I am not sure how the negative reviews found these things, I looked. I found none of this. Jimmy Carter presented himself as a President as someone that the USA could be proud of and he continues to do so. He is sweet and tenderhearted, working for the underdog, for peace, prosperity world wide, and has since he has left office. He didn't have to, he could just be sitting around and golfing but he is driven to do good for mankind and this book's pages express this. He is not the best writer but what he does write tells this. He let's his feels show honestly. He is a man that continues to this day, even with cancer, working for others. That is why I chose to read this book on his birthday, after all these years, because he may not be here much longer, and I wanted my review up to show that I did read it and I agree. Peace, not apartheid. Thank you Mr President for being a role model for all.

A really crappy view of the world. Makes the most asinine statement that it's OK for Palestinian suicide bombers to keep attacking Israel until Israel gives up some more of its land.

This book is notable for being written by Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States of America. A name with that type of cachet going against the grain by bringing attention to the plight of the Palestinians was a significantly positive development in a world where most American politicians uncritically parrot the Israeli point of view due to being bankrolled by wealthy Zionist donors such as Sheldon (and now his widow Miriam) Adelson, Haim Saban, Paul Singer, and so forth.

Carter's analysis, despite its good intentions, suffers from fundamentally incorrect premises resulting in flaws that will mislead the great mass of readers.

He regards the United Nations General Assembly adoption of UNSCOP's partition suggestion (Resolution 181) as the right in which Israel claims allowed its birth, cloaking it in a veneer of superficial legality. No such right exists. The UN had no more authority to divide Palestine against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants in 1947 any more than it has today to arbitrarily divide the territory of the United States.

UNSCOP's partition plan suggestion was of course wildly biased in favor of the Jews, setting out for them 55% of Palestine's territory despite Jews being only a third of the population - and a vast majority of these being recent immigrants in the last 30 years during the British Mandate period beginning in 1917, brought in over the repeated protests of the majority Arab residents. Also, despite decades of intense purchasing activity for Jewish colonization, the Jews only owned 6% of the private property. And even in the territory allotted to Jews by the plan, Arabs would have comprised somewhere between 40 to 50 percent of the population, and would have easily dwarfed the numbers of Jews soon due to higher birth rates, thus setting in motion the appallingly unjust "compulsory transfer" (the Zionist euphemism for ethnic cleansing).

In addition, the shady backchannel diplomatic pressure brought to bear by the world Jewish community on many nations in order to vote in favor of Resolution 181, (which narrowly passed) in the first place is well known. An example of this is "Banana King" Samuel Zemurray (born Schmuel Zmurri), head of United Fruit Company, the largest fruit conglomerate in the world, leveraging his vast influence on the governments of Central and South America.

Carter's thrust is that the remaining Palestinian territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War and occupied ever since is the chief obstacle in negotiating a "Two State Solution." Since ever increasing Jewish encroachment via illegal settlements in the West Bank is leading to a "One State" reality in which a huge number of Palestinians are officially second class citizens without the right to vote, this will lead to the apartheid in the book's title, causing a (further) collapse of Israel's international legitimacy and thus an end to the dream of a Jewish state in the Holy Land.

I won't digress on how the apartheid accusation is charitable. For whatever crimes the white South African regime was supposedly guilty of, they never attacked the black Bantustans with anything remotely like the destructive power Israel flamboyantly visits on Gaza every so often.

But the Two State Solution concept is worth elaborating on, because the Jews never, for even a minute, wanted any such thing, dating back to the earliest conception of Zionism. Anyone can Google "1919 Zionist territorial claims" and see for themselves the alarming maps submitted at the Paris Peace Conference by the World Zionist Organization with borders of a proposed Jewish State extending south all the way to El Arish in Egypt, east of the Jordan River to Amman, and north to Sidon in Lebanon (Theodor Herzl himself seemed to suggest that the Jewish State's frontiers would extend from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia/Iraq). Mind you, this proposal was coming from the "respectable mainstream" Zionist leadership embodied by figures like Dr. Chaim Weizmann. The "Revisionist" branch of extremist Zionists led by Vladimir Jabotinsky considered the Jordan River merely marking the middle of the forthcoming Jewish State (Google: Irgun logo).

The Zionist program was to flood Palestine with a deluge of Jewish immigrants until they outnumbered the natives, after which a Jewish government would arise automatically. Any idea of "dividing" Eretz Yisrael (the biblical Land of Israel) was unthinkable, and it was only adopted much later as a pragmatic jumping off point in which the Zionists could plot in a position of safety and comfort until they considered the time ripe to conquer the rest of the region for Jews. In fact, a continued justification by Jewish territorial maximalists for holding on to the West Bank is that the entirety of the Holy Land is holy, and continuing to settle Jews there to the detriment of the non-Jews is not one whit any more immoral than the the ethnic cleansing that founded Israel proper. To them, if the latter is acceptable (and virtually 100% of the international Jewish community thinks it is, often basing this belief on hoary long-disproven canards about mighty Arab armies ganging up on the poor helpless Jews), why not the former? Because "international law" and "world opinion" won't accept it? Says who? They've been completely impotent at stopping Israel so far.

One interesting thing I learned from this book is that Menachem Begin ceding the Israeli-occupied Sinai back to Egypt in the 1978 Camp David Accords under Carter's presidency was apparently to get Egypt out of the way in a formal peace agreement so they would be one less thing to worry about when Israel decided to invade Lebanon in 1982. This separate peace drew swift hostility from the rest of the Arab nations, considering Egypt a traitor to their cause, and eventually resulted in Anwar Sadat's assassination by patriotic elements in his own army in 1981.

Also, Carter does his readers a great service by relaying the more strident anti-Israel comments and opinions by the leaders of the surrounding nations he met with, without interjecting any annoying disavowals or qualifications, thus letting the readers decide for themselves the validity of such statements. Particularly interesting is the indignant, uncompromising vituperation by Hafez al-Assad, father of Bashar.

RIP Jimmy Carter. A devout Christian, a humble farmer, a man of genuine sincerity.

The more I learn and read about the mess that is Palestine/Israel the worse Israel looks. Israel is the asshole little brother that has the bigger brother (US) defending its bad behavior and helping fight its wars. We enable Israel to continue its bad behavior and weak justification of the actions it continues to take. Israel is the problem. Palestine is taking action any reasonable person would take when placed in similar situation and circumstances.

Good overview and history of the issues with Israel and Palestine. Especially for people who don't know as much about it.

I read a book from the perspective of Israel, a book from the perspective of Palestine, and a book from the perspective of Jimmy Carter in the United States. I walked away from all three with different perspectives on the dynamics between Israel and Palestine. I couldn’t recommend one without the others. In general, I walked away so grieved for all of the injustices in this land, trauma breeding trauma.

My rating is based on the quality and depth of what I learned in the book, not based on my opinion of the author or of one side or the other.

Very good summary of US relations w Israel and Palestine over the last 60 years, but not up to date. Thank you Jimmy

Jimmy Carter offers insights into the role of the United States and various political figures. One notable aspect is Carter's exemption of the U.S. from its flawed policy and failure to resolve the conflict. He contends that the U.S. has earnestly attempted to address the issue, particularly under Democratic administrations. However, this perspective appears selective, as Carter critises Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush while portraying himself and Clinton more favorably.

A significant drawback is Carter's failure to sufficiently address the impact of Israeli settlements. While he touches on the issue, he tends to downplay the extent and consequences of Israeli aggression. Instead, he attempts to justify Israeli oppression by attributing it to a perceived threat to their survival from neighboring Arab nations.

Carter introduces some criticism of the Likud party and its policies, yet at times, the book seems to suggest that such policies are reactions to the actions of groups like Hamas or other Palestinian entities striving for freedom. Such nuanced portrayal raises questions about the author's stance on the complex dynamics of the conflict.

Carter, the fellow who backed monied interest bullies and poverty pimps in third world elections against “Liberation Theology” leaders and the poor wherever he was invited, and acted as postman to every terrorist who returned his call, again tries to play the game of honest broker.

What follows is not a geo-political discourse, though Carter brings it out in his book -- but calls into the question the credibilty of the author on the subject of human rights. One, I argue, the author of the book has little to espouse upon since he lacks experience in that area.

When he visited Haiti, he was met with graffiti calling him what he was: "Carter, a lawyer for soldiers and thugs." He is not a lawyer, but he pushed for the corrupt and trigger happy junta to be pardoned and not exiled while making the once Catholic "liberation theology" priest and former democratically elected president, Aristide, a pariah.

Carter knowingly and willfully armed Indonesia against Timor. He left hundreds of thousands dead there when he was president and knew that Indonesia was game hunting against Timor. His gun running for Indonesia occurred during the height of the Timor genocide. As his under-secretary of State, Holbrooke, said: "I want to stress I am not remotely interested in getting involved in an argument over the actual number of people killed. People were killed and that always is a tragedy but what is at issue is the actual situation in Timor today...what is the big fuss?"

He personally jump started Robert Mugabe's political career as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, supported the Sandinistas over the objections of the later assassinated "liberation theology" archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Romero. Carter also gave China full trading status rights despite its anti-human rights policy in promoting slavery and prison sweatshops.

He sucker-punched the Russians into invading Afghanistan while Carter funded and trained the Mujahadeen. Now we know who took over that role in that region. He financially punished the American farmer for his own deeds in Afghanistan, by blocking the farmer's from selling any more grain to Russia.

The Carter center? A rube's Valhalla for the wispy of mind, bought and paid for by such notables as the Saudi Bin-Ladin Group,Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, Agha Hasan Abedi, King Fahd and other Saudi terrorist tied financiers which makes the Carter Center a 'non-partisan' fun place to work.

Any condemnation from Carter on how his financial backers rule a country which is the pits for human rights and still stone women? Of course not. Carter knows that money does not talk, it silences.

Bush and Reagan friends who owned Iran-Contra’s financial laundering cash cow, BCCI, took his peanut farm out of near bankruptcy.

Poor kid, he wants to be ever-so-popular with the bad boys on the playground. He is a 'death-eater' like other warped power brokers, despite his smoke and mirror halo.

One could argue if he is either incredibly cynical or deluded, but the verdict is pretty well evident he is yet another hypocrite in a long line of Reagan-Bush toadies. They went for the money, he went for the tin plate prize.

He does build a good house, though.

Jimmy Carter was demonized for writing this mild, sober book with a strong title; go figure. That’s how nervous alleged “pro-Israel” propagandists are about his even-handed assessment of Israel’s colonizing practices. Prez Carter, do recall, brokered the Camp David peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, but that hasn’t stopped the bizarre claim that he is an anti-Israel Christian anti-Semite--whatever. Few “buts” about it, the book is an apt intro to the Is-Pal conflict, one speckled with less than satisfying accounts of Carter’s meetings with high-level leaders. Arafat, no surprise, comes off as evasive and weird and though Carter is too gentlemanly to expand on his disagreements with Begin and Bush, reading between the lines you can sense the tension. One telling image is Carter jogging around Jerusalem with some Israeli bodyguards who unnecessarily rough up two elderly Arab bystanders reading the newspaper. Carter apologizes to the Arabs and berates the Israelis for overreacting.