On Passover: Thank You, Jimmy Carter

Every day that Jimmy Carter continues his works of peace and humanitarian outreach justifies the day that I cast my first vote in a presidential election for him some... okay, a lot of years ago. His recent foray to establish another line of communication with Hamas is another act of courage -- where courage means ignoring the inevitable hail of criticism and invective thrown your way because you are guided by a strong, moral compass. And maybe this is bearing some fruit.

Here is what Reuters is reporting just a few minutes ago, via The New York Times website:

Hamas would accept a deal creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip if it was approved by Palestinians in a vote, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said on Monday after talks with Hamas leaders.

Carter said he had "no doubt that both the Arab world and the Palestinians, including Hamas, will accept Israel's right to live in peace" within pre-1967 war borders.

And...

In a speech, Carter said he heard from Hamas leaders they would "accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians." He was referring to the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and a referendum on a deal Washington hopes to clinch this year.

"It means that Hamas will not undermine (Palestinian President Mahmoud) Abbas's efforts to negotiate an agreement and Hamas will accept an agreement if the Palestinians support it in a free vote," he said.

Now, I have a few points to make on this. But, before that, I think it's worth giving a bit of bio background to give a feel for why I write this. My father was born in then-Palestine. He fought in the Hagannah (the Israeli underground) in the war of independence; my father's cousin, whose name I carry as a middle name, was killed in that war. I lived in Israel for seven years, during which I went through the 1973 war: a cousin of mine was killed in that war, leaving a young widow and two children, and his brother was wounded. My step-grandfather, an old man who was no threat to anyone, was killed by a Palestinian who took an axe to his head while he was sitting quietly on a park bench; it was a retaliation killing for the massacre of 30 Muslims who were murdered by an ultra-nationalist Jewish settler while they were kneeling in prayer. Half my family still lives in Israel. I have seen enough bloodshed, tears, and parents burying their children to last many lifetimes.

So, I write this from a deep, personal experience -- not one that comes from just ideological slogans lobbed from the comfy confines of the U.S., nor from the perspective of some ideologues who see one side or another in this conflict as evil incarnate or pure goodness.

President Carter is carrying on a simple idea put forth by none other than Moshe Dayan, the Israeli general/politician who is so revered in the U.S. (who, by the way, modern Israelis have a much more complicated and mixed assessment of his legacy--but that's another story). Dayan famously said: "If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies."

That is just a fact of life. I'm not going to spend a lot of time here defending or criticizing either Israel or Hamas. Both sides, led my democratically-elected governments, have a lot to account for, in the positive and negative. Trying to establish a set of scales upon which you value one set of misdeeds versus another is not a particularly useful exercise. The point is: how do you find a way to resolve the endless bloodletting?

The idea that you make progress towards peace by refusing to talk to your adversary, as belligerent and threatening as they might be, is childish, idiotic and just plain dumb. I've never quite understood the notion that you boycott talking to somehow until they agree to your conditions -- and maybe that would make me a bad diplomat. In my labor world, sometimes you do go out on strike but that comes after a long process of talking to people who do not have your interests in mind--and would like you go away. Now, it is true that most employers aren't likely these days -- at least, in this country -- to take out guns and begin firing at you. But, most adversaries, when you are actively engaged in real conversation, not posturing, will usually hold their fire, too.

I suspect that this post will be met with a lot of justifications for one side or another, or a recitation of the sins of one side or another. I may even agree with some of them.

But, for a moment, I wanted to just give thanks -- on Passover -- to President Carter who just wants to hear what people have to say. We should give space to people who explore conversations and seek to find common ground.

Comments

[cintrain69]

Fantastic article! I have a strong negative opinion of Israel, and our governments willingness to oblige this apartheid state and its refusal to speak out against it at the risk of losing an election. With that being said, you have your finger on the pulse of exactly what is needed. I agree with you and I agree with the former president, regardless of what people think of Hamas, they need to be spoken to. Great job!

[GoodwithWood]

Careful there Mr. Tasini. Some times it is dangerous to point out the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

[argeec]

The historical record is pretty clear: the zionists invaded and ethnically-cleansed what is now Israel. David Ben-Gurion himself admitted as much.
The outline of a virtually universally accepted settlement has been on the table for many years (proposed by the Arab League in 2002). But the right wing, religious zealot element in Israel, supported and often pushed to more extreme positions by AIPAC, ADL and other rightwingers in the US, do not want to give up the Golan Heights, ANY of Jeruselem or, in fact, ANY of "Greater Israel". They would prefer instead to wait out the Arabs, expanding settlements, uprooting more and more Palestinians and, they hope, eventually expanding Israel from the Jordan to the sea.
The right wing elements in the US have done a great job of intimidating politicians and media - to the point that Americans hear almost none of the truth about the region. Many politicians in Israel are beginning to see AIPAC's activities as a big negative for Israel and see the extremist dreams as unattainable. Prime Minister Olmert has said that Israel is moving toward an apartheid state.
A voice of reason is sorely needed and Carter may be Israel's best friend - even if many Jewish Americans don't recognize it yet.

[S1m0n]

The "don't talk to X" doctrine is and always has been a recipe for stacis from people who are quite comfortable with the status quo.

There is only one scenario under which talking makes things worse, and that's talking to thrill-killing terror organizations which are unconnected with any real popular cause, like the Baader Meinhoff gang or Patty Hearst's SLA, or individuals like the UNAbomber. These, it's counterproductive to talk to, because it just makes them feel more important.

Everyone else, the only reason you'd refuse to talk to is if you wanted everything to continue as it is.

[whatsreallygoingonhere]

Thank you for your excellent article Mr. Tasini. And thank you President Carter for your courage and endless efforts towards Peace on Earth. You're absolutely right, "We should give space to people who explore conversations and seek to find common ground." Thank you and God Bless you both!

[YuryGetsin]

I can't wait to see who is willing to criticize this article.

[Javani]

"I can't wait to see who is willing to criticize this article."

Me me me. I speak the local lingo.

What the writer does is find an article with President Carter's wishful spin on what was said. But Carter's words are not the words of Hamas. They only conceded a Hudna, that is, a religiously mandated term of cessation of hostilities for purposes of rearming in order to attack later. The later attack is not only a strategy, but a religious obligation, in the minds of the radicals. An religion is all that matters to them, they are not "rational" and if you accused them of being irrational they would take no offense at all.

Carter is right that the "Arabs", mostly, meaning state elites, want peace. Indeed Saudi Arabia and Egypt were pushing for this until the Mullahs of Qom decided for their peculiar purposes to incite Hamas to attack. Of course, it was the Persian money that had a lot to do with it, and it's a lot the Iranian people could use better, but the Mullahs miss the frisson of thinking they can lead an elimination of the Jews in Palestine, ahh the old days of the revo, and maybe most of all it is a black eye to the Wahhabi deviationists in Saudi who took the unpopular risk in accepting Israel's existence. The Middle East is a crazy place!

[YuryGetsin]

Yes yes yes, the things you say are both plausible and realistic. That part of the world does not react well to a foreign presence. Nevertheless, my main problem is the scorn and vitriol thrown at Carter for attempting peace. His mission may have been a failure, but he does not deserve such contempt.

Vote Obama

[EspressoAtNoon]

Excellent post, Jonathan!

In anything was learned from Northern Ireland and South Africa it is that the two sides MUST speak with each other if they are to achieve peace. Talking to ONLY doves on the Palestinian side won't give Israel the peace that they want. They need to know that the militant groups are on board as well.

If the British and the Protestants had refused to speak with Sinn Fein they NEVER would have achieved a real and lasting peace.

[RabidRightRebel]

Having read your statement I am humbled. For a long time I have suggested that peace was impossible without negotiation, but to have someone as directly involved as youself voice those views makes my comments mere wisps of air. Thank-you.

[CornellRedneck]

I think what Carter is doing is good. The fly in the buttermilk, though, is the pre-1967 borders-- which brings up the question to divide, or not divide , Jerusalem.