Shame on the author. He knows nothing about Middle East and yet offers his BS opinion. It's a total disgrace.

President Jimmy Carter has come down to realize that Israel is the guilty party in the making of Palestine. Unfortunately this is too little and too late because Israel has provided a favorable arena to the Muslim extremists,who are a small minority.Israel has helped in grooming these Muslim extremists by constantly providing a reason to fight and take revenge.This blood bath of the 20th and 21st century is another form of biblical crusade.Again,USA is fighting a proxy war for Israel and I think most Americans including Jimmy Carter have come to realize the truth.

I highly recommend this book for people who are interested in Mid-East current events and try to understand the on-going human sufferings in that region. Sadly, you will have a hard time reading this kind of things in newspaper or newsmagaine.

Jay Chan

As a U.S. Marine having served in the region, and a student of history, I was pleased to finally read a historically accurate account of Israeli's atrocities committed. After reading many of these reviews, it is clear to see that there are certain Zionist fanatics who believe they have a biblical birthright to the disputed territory. It is sad to see the disregard for the Palestinians, and the cause for a Palestinian state. President Carter's book gives a good account, provokes insightful discourse, and lays out many important facts. Bravo, Mr. President. I just hope we can achieve peace in that area before the U.S. military is forced into more engagement due to Israeli arrogance and ignorance. As a soldier and citizen of the United States, I have taken a vow never to pick up my rifle for Israel. Note-I didn't say Jewish or Jew-I said Israel, so don't label me as an anti-Semite, as my mother is Jewish, and my sister-in-law, an Israeli born Jew, does not agree with Israeli incursions.

i love reading books by this guy - the first candidate i volunteered for. in palestine peace not apartheid, president carter discusses the developments in israel and palestine. as only carter can, he offers first hand accounts of meetings and numerous events. these, for there own sake, are well worth the purchase of this book. carter has the courage to call a spade a spade and provides anecdotes for the reader to absorb and evaluate. not all that we have been told in the last 40 years is quite as it seems. if i had one wish, it would be that carter's book contained greater documentation, more analysis, in sum, greater scholarship. frankly, that level of devotion is rarely found in works by such individuals. he accomplished his objective in 200 pages, although i surmise it could fill thousands of pages. with recognition of its strengths and limitations, i believe that this is an excellent read, especially those of us on the west side of the atlantic.

I'm really not sure what he is trying to say, but the idea is weak. After you read this book you ask yourself "so what?"

Inspiration thoughts from a great American hero. He put himself on the line for writing this and I hope American patriots will stand by his side.

God Bless You Jimmy Carter.

This is an informative book on the Palestinian situation. Just the historical chronology, the related maps on different dates, and the Appendices including the text of U.N. Resolutions provide excellent reference material.

Carter's "land for peace" premise is straightforward as expressed on page 17. He believes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be resolved when: 1) Palestinians and other Arab countries will fully recognize Israel; 2) Violence and terrorism against civilians in Israel will abate; and 3) Palestinians will live in peace and dignity in their own land. He repeats those conditions in the concluding Summary. Within it he also specifies that Israel has to explicitly recognize its borders before 1967 as it had agreed within U.N. Resolution 242. Carter also states that the chronic obstacle to those conditions for peace is the belief by many Israelis that "they have the right to confiscate ...Palestinian land and try to justify the ... persecution of ... hopeless... Palestinians." "Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs... and consider the killing of Israelis as victories." Carter also adds that a major obstacle to peace has been the U.S. passivity towards the issue and its unconditional supportive bias towards Israel no matter what its behavior. As he states: "because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned." There are many books on this subject, including The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and The Power of Israel in the United States.

Carter notes that "most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories." His purpose is to educate the American public to the plight of the Palestinians. He wants to trigger a domestic debate to foster understanding that should allow America to facilitate permanent peace in the region. America has to be perceived as a fair mediator by the Arab world. Carter hopes the info he imparts will get us to reach a fairer assessment.

Since his Presidency in 1977, Carter's life as a peace waging diplomat has been closely intertwined with the contemporary history of the Middle East and the Israel-Palestinian conflict in particular. Carter's first hand narrative of the Camp David Accords in 1978 that he brokered between Sadat (Egypt) and Begin (Israel) is fascinating as described in chapter 3. He has known the majority of the current and previous generation of Middle Eastern leaders on a first name basis. He shares such firsthand accounts within chapters 4 and 5 including these leaders' detailed perspective on the conflict. In the next few chapters, he analyzes all four succeeding White House Administrations handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike former Presidents, he remains engaged at every step by facilitating diplomatic meetings, attending political conferences, monitoring elections, implementing humanitarian projects through his Carter Center while maintaining his contacts with Middle Eastern leaders.

Carter having observed the treatment of Palestinians firsthand thinks it fits the definition of apartheid precisely (separation of people from their homeland). In chapter 16 "The Wall of Prison" he is alarmed at how the Israelis built this huge wall around the West Bank encroaching and seizing Palestinian lands (see map pg. 191) separating some Palestinians from their own families and agricultural lands. He feels that the Israelis have imprisoned Palestinians.

Currently, there are books by established political scientists suggesting that despair and poverty are not the root of terrorism such as What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism (Lionel Robbins Lectures). In some cases, I may be inclined to agree. But, not here. The Palestinians lack of any human rights, comfort, and peace of mind combined with chronic Israeli land grab and military provocations leave them with little recourse but to lash out violently. Carter repeatedly denounces terrorism. But, he recognizes what triggers it.

This book is controversial as Jewish scholars accused Carter of being wrong on many counts. They compiled their rebuttals in a book: Bearing False Witness: Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. But, the latter stronger assertion is that Carter misinterpreted the key U.N. resolution 242, where the authors believe Carter falsely claimed that Israel had been required to cede the lands acquired in 1967. But, U.N. resolution 242 written in 1967 states " (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict [1967 6-day-war]." Carter is right. Additionally, Carter practices full disclosure by publishing the literal text of key UN. Resolutions and peace accords. So, you can check the wording for yourself. I double checked the veracity of those texts that are accessible on line, and they all paned out.

Carter is the only Western leader who had contacts with Hamas that now runs the Palestinian government. His narratives suggest they are more moderate than the Media conveys. For visiting Hamas, Carter has been ostracized for collaborating with terrorists. But, as a result of his undertaking dialogue with Hamas they seem more open to peace negotiations than the Israelis are.

In the conclusion, Carter derives hope for peace by observing that polls of both Israelis and Palestinians show a majority of the population favoring a two-State solution as a condition for peace. But, the chronic refusal of Israel's political leadership to honor the terms of U.N. Resolution 242 represents an obstacle to peace in the region.

Anyone who is emotionally detached from this issue will recognize this is a rare document of history. L. Carl Brown with Foreign Affairs gave this book an excellent review. Also, Jimmy Carter Man from Plains is an interesting documentary on his U.S. book tour.

Read this book. President Carter is the person we call when the world needs an honest, impartial, compassionate, trustworthy advisor.

The persecution of the people of Palestine by the Israelis is not Apartheid. It's a Holocaust.

God bless you President Carter for your honesty, your compassion, and your courage.

everyone tip-toes around criticizing israel for fear of being seen as an anti-semite...but her policies around the palestinians are about three steps shy of genocide...take a look with an unbiased eye, and form your opinion...

Do Not Waste Your Money Buying This Book!

I cannot believe that President Jimmy Carter is so BLIND in what he thinks to be true regarding Israel. If he had spent a few more years studying his bible and believing what it says instead of listening to his Arabs friends bent on the destruction of Israel, he would not be acting so foolishly.

The land, without a doubt, belongs to Israel. Do a deed search. You will wind up in the book of Genesis reading where the God Almighty gave it to Abraham and his descendants for all eternity. That's right, the original deed holder was the one and ONLY GOD ALMIGHTY Himself.

Along with that gift came a Promise of protection. God said, "I will bless those who bless Israel and I will curse those who curse Israel."

Those words are pretty plain. The God who said those words has wiped out more people from the face of the earth than any man, for those who have sinned against Him. I believe He means what He says.

By the way, God said that long before there were any Arabs. The word Palestine originally referred to Israel and the Jews. Not the Arabs who have spun the story to their benefit.

I don't know why I let this upset me because God has promised his protection to Israel. He doesn't need the USA to do it. But the USA would be blessed for trying instead of all the curses coming our way. God does control the planet. Noticed any violent unnatural weather or other disasters lately? 911, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc? There will be more to come unless we start aiding Israel. Aid and support. Not trying to give away their God given lands.

Insightful chronicle on a media taboo subject, President Carter bares the ugly face of an apartheid country for all to see. The US foreign policy has a double standard for Israel, and this book exposes it. Highly recommended, I always voted Republican too. Sadly, I was a lost sheep led blindly astray.

Anytime you misleadingly and degradingly compare Israel's right to self-defense against Pali terrorism with apartheid, you're bound to be devastated by a torrent of criticism from all sides (even including fellow Democrats Clinton and Pelosi), and rightly so!!!!

This is the story of Jimmy Carter, the one-term cataclysm who lost Iran to Islamist fundamentalists while overseeing an oil crisis. At the risk of redundancy, I'll recap the notoriety of this book--which is distastefully short at barely 200 pages of readable print (but, with Carter blaming Israel repeatedly throughout the book while excusing Palis all day long, 200 pages is far too enormous for what amounts to his racist opinions.) This book was subjected to scorching criticism almost from the nanosecond of its release, and Carter apologists should particularly note that the criticism is just as intense from the normal Carter friends: Democrats and Jewish groups within the US, who normally vote Democrat by a large margin over Republicans.

Even Speaker Pelosi--whose Do-Nothing, Dem Congress has so far passed only ONE OR TWO lousy pieces of legislation key to their agenda, in total conflict with their bragging about what they'd do if they took power--and Bill Clinton are two prominent Democrats who've derided Carter. Additionally, the most damning implication against Carter's book's "credibility" was the resignation (read: renunciation of Carter) of 15 members of his Carter Center, all because of the historical and ideological injustices contained in said tome.

With all this withering criticism from Carter's own side, the few Carter apologists left (probably mostly Arabs!!!!) should ask themselves why they continue to whitewash Carter's revisionism--especially since an examination of the book will totally destroy their support of Carter.

The worst affront is the flagrant accusation that Israel's self-defense measures against the Palis amount to South African-style apartheid. To mortify and ruin Carter apologists' arguments, we only need to define apartheid and compare South Africa with the Israeli-Pali conflict.

a-part-heid (a-pärt'hit') n. 1. policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites

With this definition, it's apparently obvious to all who practice intellectual honesty that Israeli, self-defense measures aren't meant to oppress or discriminate against Palis, only to protect Israelis against Arab terrorism!!!! When Israel builds their separation wall, or razes Pali neighborhoods, or assassinates Pali "leaders" (read: terrorists), these are praiseworthy acts of self-defense. Furthermore, on a purely technical level, while South African blacks were segregated politically, Palis can vote (though they fanatically and self-destructively choose Hamas) and Arab Israelis can hold office. By these indisputable truths alone, Carter's title is discreditable and only serves to be provocative.

Other factual predicaments plague Carter's book like a curse. For instance, Carter unrelentingly refuses to sentence or at the least acknowledge what Palis who kill Israeli civilians are: terrorists. Throughout his whitewash of Pali enormities disguised as a book, Carter refers to Arab terrorists as "militants!!!!" This feloniously tricks the ignorant into believing that Palis are fighting for a defensible cause instead of branding them what they really are.

Further antagonistic is Carter's refusal to condemn or at the least expose both Arafat's PLO and Hamas as Islamofascist, terror groups!!!! The closest Carter comes to admitting this is calling them a little "extreme." Yet, Carter perpetrates throughout his propaganda-book the prevarication that Arafat and his PLO were legitimate, instead of recognizing that the PLO was founded as a terror group to eradicate Israel; Arafat continued to support terror clandestinely despite claiming to the US/world that he wasn't; and Arafat rejected many licit, Israeli peace deals which actually granted Palis much of their demanded lands.

Another grievous poison of dishonesty in the book is Carter's insistence that UN Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the "border" line of 1949; in reality and fact, there is no such border as it only was an armistice line referred to in 242. Egregiously again, Carter's overwhelming favoritism of the invented territory of Palestine (renamed so by the Romans) comes into play, as he perpetuates the fra*d that Israel somehow has already recognized their own borders.

Falsehood pertaining to recent circumstances concerns the summer war of 06, where Israel was provoked into self-defense by the Hezbollah kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the shelling of civilian towns in northern Israel. In reference to this, Carter remorselessly downplays the atrocities of Hezbollah (using Arab civilians as human shields and firing directly into Israeli communities) while demonizing Israel's response as somehow being the catalyst of unrest.

The bottom line why Carter has deservedly earned the blistering criticism of his book from even his own side (Dems) and former staffers is poignantly clear. Despite his underperformance as a one-termer, he's still a former president so his wildly menacing statements of irresponsibility carry some weight on the international stage. Rhetoric denouncing Israel actually only emboldens the Arab terrorists to become even more unabashed in their terrorism, as they feel Carter's sentiments give them moral justification--or at least a plausible excuse. Since Israel IS incontrovertibly America's best friend in the Middle East--since Israelis don't target US civilians in terrorist acts and fight the common foe in Islamist extremists--it's perilous for Carter to ostracize them.

On a presentational level, Carter's book also arrives at the same, reprehensible level as the ideology and "arguments" contained within. The book is severely double-spaced, the indentations are more than an inch on all sides of each page, and the chapters are pitifully short.

Excellent information, Carter have the courage to say what 85% of politicians are scared to say or maybe paid not to say it.

Great book. Will never convince those who oppose his ideas, but needed to be said. Disrespect is not the way to voice opposition, however.

This bargain book is absolute drivel. Jimmy Carter demonstrates to the world that he is not an astute expert on the Middle East situation. Instead he appears to be an appeaser and a panderer.

This is a quotation from this man, who has a history of anti-Jew statements. "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the road map for peace are accepted by Israel."

Jimmy Carter is what happens when liberalism + religion combine, they create cancer of the mind, and destroy a country. Pray for everyone Jimmy, at least that does no harm, build a house if you want, but shut the f--k up on things you didn't understand when you lucked into the white house and don't now that you're the same loser just more addled.

Now Billy was a man I could talk to.

You would think the Jewish people who excaped from the Nazis and found their way to Isreal would have learned how not to treat other human beings. In reading President Carters book, it would seem Isreal learned well how to persecute other human beings instead. How easy it is to justify our own sins. How quickly we forget.

This book is absolute drivel. First, the writing is terrible. I assume Carter did not actually write the book himself, but he could have at least found a better writer to ghost write it for him. Second, in his zeal to defend the Palestinians and attack the Israelis, our former president seems to have dispensed with careful fact-checking. Where the facts support his conclusion, he states the facts. Where the facts do not support his conclusion, he either ignores the facts, changes the facts, or invents new facts. This is inexcusable. Finally, the book is so one-sided that it fails to contribute anything meaningful to the debate about a complex situation. Instead, it comes off as ranting. President Carter will go down in history as among our least effective presidents. His book is just about as good as his presidency.

Well written and researched by the man who did some amazing work for peace in the Middle East. Despite unsupported critcism from those who have an agenda, this is a brave and honest history of peace and betrayal in the Middle East.
Well worth reading if you want the truth about why the unrest continues.

Nothing can say more about this book than the company it keeps. Look at the books bought by people who bought this book and you see the strain of anti-Semitism throughout. Carter spreads the claptrap that the US is at fault for Palestinians strapping bombs on their children and the mentally infirm due to our support of Israel. He fails to make a connection between cause and effect -- ex: Israel building a fence causes suicide bombers, when it is clearly the bombers that created a requirement for the fence -- in an Orwellian explanation of past events that strip them of their true context to fit his world view. Don't waste your money on this book or the ones bought by its adherents.

Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" is a very refreshing statement when one realizes that virtually no comments of this nature have been uttered previously by an American political figure of this stature. He clearly supports a two state system as a solution for solving the decades old issue of conflict between Palestine and Isreal. His historical timeline is carefully, skillfully and accurately crafted even to the point of exposing the United States as a major factor in the continuation of this struggle, often in devious ways. His stature as a world statesman is significantly enhanced by his bold assertion of both the dangers in continuing present conflicts and the hope that still remains if facts are faced and the "people of the land" on both sides are heard with appropriate response. This is not a book to be treated casually. It is a marvelous product of an unselfish and giving proponent of peace. It is easy to see why so many persons who turn a blind eye to Israel's continued breaking of international law and the United States looking the other way would be enraged.

This anti-Semitic tirade is more proof that not only is carter is a moron and a hypocrite, he is outside the relm of the real world. While he idolizes terrorists like arafat, pol pot, castro, kadaffi, mao, kim il song, kim jong il, the ayatollah who destroyed iran and then began attacking the world he does not support Israel's tiny little democracy a state by the way that treats arabs better than they are treated in muslim countries..


Heres some of the truth about gaza!After the 1948 Arab invasion of Israel failed, Egypt refused to allow a Palestinian state orr self-determination in Gaza. Egypt used Gaza as a base for fedayeen raids on Israel, while ruling with an iron fist, preventing Palestinians from entering egypt. Egypt's main goal was to use its population as cannon fodder against Israel.
Israel's conquest of the Sinai in the 1967 Six-Day War forced a change in tactics but not the goal. When Egypt took back the Sinai in 1982, it REFUSED TO TAKE BACK GAZA (as Israel requested). As with every issue during the Camp David negotiations Carter sided with Egypt.
Throughout the 1980's and 1990's Egypt allowed smuggling of weapons into Gaza, while continuing to clamp down on individual Palestinians. Its overriding goal remained to use Gaza as a means to delegitimize Israel, while talking publicly of "humanitarian"needs.
The smashing of the border wall with Egypt may finally force Egypt to take some responsibility for its policies. The smashing of the border wall with Egypt may finally force Egypt to take some responsibility for its policies. Surely Gaza can get its supplys from Egypt? Why should Israel have the responsibility of providing ALL services (which it still does) to a territory ruled by a group sworn to Israel's destruction, and from which it is attacked several times daily? (1 killed in Dimona) Egypt would be given leeway in dealing with Hamas that the Arab world will not allow to Israel.
Unfortunately there is little likelihood that Egypt will change and take forward-looking policies. Had Egypt welcomed and absorbed Arab refugees as Israel did with all the Jewish refugees from Arab countries, the situation in Gaza and elsewhere could have been far better.

President Carter dares to say what the media, politicians and others refuse to discuss. A must read for all who want unbiased, current information on a very important subject.

Jimmy Carter is, in my judgment, the ultimate American analyst of the middle east and his book gives both sides of the dispute with emphasis on the Palestinian side. Excellent work.

Before I get into my review, it's important that I state my position on Jimmy Carter. I believe that at this point in Mr. Carter's life, that his legacy is set. I don't feel that he needs to curry favor with one group or another, and that monetary gains are secondary to him. His humanitarian efforts over the past 20 years shows where his priorities are.

As I read "Palestine Peace not Apartheid" I felt sincerity coming from Mr. Carter as he discribed the various relationships that are playing out in the region. The book is not only about the Israel and Palestine, but also about Palestine and it's Arab brothers.

Carter paint a clear picture that Palestine is getting the short end of the stick at every turn. Amoung it's arab brothers (Jordan, Egypt, Syria)Palestine is used as a pawn in their negotiations with Israel. And the power struggle that takes place within the hierarchy of Palestine leadership, makes it difficult for the Palestine to achieve the most modest of goals. In addition, Carter outlines the relationship between israel and all the U.S. presidents and U.S. policy over the past 30 years.

Israel is of course the worst offender. They are almost always heavy handed in their dealings with the Palestine leadership, and the people of Palestine. Israel control the legal system, courts, judiciary as it relates to a citizen of Palestine bringing a grievance against Israel. Needless to say the court rules in favor of Israel in most, if not all instances. Isreal control the commerce & trade within the Palestine territory, thereby controling wealth & poverty levels within the territory. The water supply is disproportionately allocated to the minority Israeli population. These are the disparities that breed terrorism.

Carter suggest that the leadership of Israel is not fully in tune with the citizens of israel. Many of the citizens would like a return of some of the occupied lands. Many Israelies would like a more fluid relationship with Paslestine, they believe it's the continued occupation that breeds Palestine terrorist.

Carter tries to give a balanced look at the situation, and I believe he was successful. His depiction of Palestine as an apartheid state is 100% accurate.

Jimmy Carter is a fool--simply put his attitude toward the Jews and Israel is wrong--Jimmy Carter is Un-American! This book is anti Israel trash.

This is one of the most sensitive issues of our time, Israel and Palestine. Though many people love to condemn Jimmy Carter for writing this book, it is one of courage and sadly is the the truth. One only has to examine both sides of this conflict and the Zionist agenda. Not all Jews are Zionist but the government of Israel is.
Calling out the Israeli Government for their control over the Palestinians is not Anti-Semitic, it is the moral thing to do. Jimmy being a good Christian man sees this and morally knows better. Israel and America is not a black and white issue because there are so many gray areas in between.
Also, with the growing movment of Christian Zionism, and this cults undying support for the nation of Israel, has caused much bias and division in the Christian Church. After all, if your a Christian that opposses any of Israel's actions, you are a nonimal Christian. Christian Zionism is also politically involved with the liazon between America, AIPC and Israel. The focus has become one of Biblical Prophecy than Jesus Christ Himself. Sadly, I don't think Jesus would be proud of Christian support for heinous actions in Israel toward the Palestinians. Israel is not to be worshipped, only God Himself. Jesus was not invloved in politics and nor should Christians be.
Point blank, the Palestinians are an oppressed people with terrorism used as an excuse to round them up like cattle. Sadly, to critique Israel as a nation, one is reduced to being Anti-Semitic. But wait!!! Arabs being descended from Abraham through Ishmael are a Semitic people as well.
Israel became a nation in 1948, they will be held responsible as any other nation. I do not see anywhere in the Torah that people are to treat other people in this way, this they will be held accountable. I believe the Jewish government is, Godless.
Jimmy Carter is a good man, and woe unto them that call good evil and evil good.

The former President Carter describes the history of the major players in the Middle East in relation to israel and offers his solutions to bringing about peace. He is obviously a smart man and this book is concise in its approach to offering solutions with the different players involved. What I enjoyed are some of the small incidents that he experienced on his trips, that I wont reveal here, but offer some interesting humor to this book.

I gave this two stars because if you're going to build an anti-Israel rant, this is a good one to read because (a) I could see how he twists the facts, by emphasizing the facts that make Israel look bad and downplaying the reality of Arab terrorism and (b) it is short and a fast read.

Having said that... other reviewers have taken apart Carter's factual claims so I'll just make a few observations here and there:

*Carter's actual remedy is fairly noncontroversial, and probably no different from what most supporters of Israel would endorse (a two-state solution with the Arabs getting most of what they lost in 1967). But the problem is: how do you enforce it? Israel is a centralized state and thus might actually comply with a peace treaty. But the Arabs have so many small militias (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc.) that even in the incredibly unlikely event that every single one of them signs on to a peace treaty, part of that group will probably splinter off into its own little jihad cell, engaging in terrorist attacks in Israel and thus depriving Israel of the benefits of any treaty. If the war in Iraq has taught us anything, it is that a few well-armed malcontents can make a nation ungovernable.

*Carter writes as if Israel has been steadily gobbling up territory, based on the movement of Jews into the occupied territories. But in fact, Israel has been gradually giving up territory, with lousy results. First they gave Sinai to the Egyptians (which hasn't worked out so badly). Then, in the 1990s, they gave a chunk of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority; the Palestinian Authority responded with the 2000 war. (Carter's description of these events is bizarre; he states that Israel got "much more" than Arafat, even though Israel was the nation giving away land for promises).

Then they basically gave Gaza to Hamas; Hamas responded with the current mini-war. When Israel has given up land, it has generally not gotten peace, or even the approval of Carter (who treats each award of land to the Arabs as a provocation because of its inadequacy). So why should Israel fall for the same trap again?

*Carter admits that Arabs had "no real commitment to establish a separate and independent nation" in the 19th century. Instead, "Strong ideas of nationhood began to take shape among the Arabs only when they saw increasing numbers of Zionists immigrate to Palestine." In other words, the so-called "Palestinian people" only exists because of anti-Semitism. If that is the case, why should their so-called nationalism be accommodated?

*Carter complains that Israel has withheld taxes "collected on behalf of the Palestinians." If Israel is so malevolent, why is Israel giving money to Arabs who are trying to kill them?

*Carter treats the 2000 war against Israel mostly by ignoring it. He writes that in 2006, the Arab leader Abbas informed him "that there had been no opportunity for a Palestinian leader to participate in peace talks for the past five years..." Carter simply does not mention that the absence of peace talks might have something to do with the fact that the Arabs were busy conducting suicide bombings inside Israel.

*Carter is obsessed with U.N. resolutions requiring Israel to give up the "occupied territories." Given the U.N.'s repeated singling out for Israel for attack (including the "Zionism = racism" resolution in the 1970s) isn't the U.N. essentially a kangaroo court? Most of its members are either dependent on Arab oil or have good reason to fear Arab terrorism (especially after the spread of al-Qaeda).

*Carter mentions that Hebron has 450 Jews and 150,000 Arabs. If Israel has been engaged in ethnic cleansing, obviously it hasn't been very successful.

I gave this two stars because if you're going to build an anti-Israel rant, this is a good one to read because (a) I could see how he twists the facts, by emphasizing the facts that make Israel look bad and downplaying the reality of Arab terrorism and (b) it is short and a fast read.

Having said that... other reviewers have taken apart Carter's factual claims so I'll just make a few observations here and there:

*Carter's actual remedy is fairly noncontroversial, and probably no different from what most supporters of Israel would endorse (a two-state solution with the Arabs getting most of what they lost in 1967). But the problem is: how do you enforce it? Israel is a centralized state and thus might actually comply with a peace treaty. But the Arabs have so many small militias (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc.) that even in the incredibly unlikely event that every single one of them signs on to a peace treaty, part of that group will probably splinter off into its own little jihad cell, engaging in terrorist attacks in Israel and thus depriving Israel of the benefits of any treaty. If the war in Iraq has taught us anything, it is that a few well-armed malcontents can make a nation ungovernable.

*Carter writes as if Israel has been steadily gobbling up territory, based on the movement of Jews into the occupied territories. But in fact, Israel has been gradually giving up territory, with lousy results. First they gave Sinai to the Egyptians (which hasn't worked out so badly). Then, in the 1990s, they gave a chunk of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority; the Palestinian Authority responded with the 2000 war. (Carter's description of these events is bizarre; he states that Israel got "much more" than Arafat, even though Israel was the nation giving away land for promises).

Then they basically gave Gaza to Hamas; Hamas responded with the current mini-war. When Israel has given up land, it has generally not gotten peace, or even the approval of Carter (who treats each award of land to the Arabs as a provocation because of its inadequacy). So why should Israel fall for the same trap again?

*Carter admits that Arabs had "no real commitment to establish a separate and independent nation" in the 19th century. Instead, "Strong ideas of nationhood began to take shape among the Arabs only when they saw increasing numbers of Zionists immigrate to Palestine." In other words, the so-called "Palestinian people" only exists because of anti-Semitism. If that is the case, why should their so-called nationalism be accommodated?

*Carter complains that Israel has withheld taxes "collected on behalf of the Palestinians." If Israel is so malevolent, why is Israel giving money to Arabs who are trying to kill them?

*Carter treats the 2000 war against Israel mostly by ignoring it. He writes that in 2006, the Arab leader Abbas informed him "that there had been no opportunity for a Palestinian leader to participate in peace talks for the past five years..." Carter simply does not mention that the absence of peace talks might have something to do with the fact that the Arabs were busy conducting suicide bombings inside Israel.

*Carter is obsessed with U.N. resolutions requiring Israel to give up the "occupied territories." Given the U.N.'s repeated singling out for Israel for attack (including the "Zionism = racism" resolution in the 1970s) isn't the U.N. essentially a kangaroo court? Most of its members are either dependent on Arab oil or have good reason to fear Arab terrorism (especially after the spread of al-Qaeda).

*Carter mentions that Hebron has 450 Jews and 150,000 Arabs. If Israel has been engaged in ethnic cleansing, obviously it hasn't been very successful.

It is interesting - in fact revealing and more than a bit sad - that this useful little book was so controversial at the time of its release. That controversy reflects our society's stubborn reluctance and inability to consider objectively, discuss openly, and address pragmatically and morally the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Carter's book makes a fine contribution to a discussion that is still waiting to happen. With characteristic humility and sympathy, he asks our political leaders, the Jewish community, and, yes, also the Palestinians and Arab world to deal more honestly and realistically with resolving how these two peoples can live peacefully in this tiny space. He provides the reader a good background on how the situation has developed up to today and rightfully implores that the Palestinians be treated with justice and decency. The book is an easy read that is nevertheless richly enlightening.

This was a required reading for my class in International Relations. I never knew the depth of President Carter's efforts toward peace between Palestine and Israel. It is amazing how close to a settlement things seemed on so many occasions.

One major fact that Carter left out of his biblical timeline at the beginning of the book is the birth of Ishmael. This is a major key to understanding why and how this conflict began in the first place.

A must read for history, political science majors or anyone interested in a lasting peace between these two rivals. We had to write a paper on what OUR solution to this situation would be.

This is an easy read. Carter reviews his 30 years of history with Israel and Palestine. He provides his ample credentials for having an opinion of this 40 year old conflict. At the end of the book, the relevant documents are reprinted. I was surprised to learn or relearn that the Camp David accords of 1978 committed Israel to abiding by U.N. Resolution 242 which requires Israel to withdraw behind the armistice line which existed prior to the 1967 war. Instead, Israel has settled 225,000 Israelis in Palestinian land. Carter says that Israel has so chopped up the West Bank for their own uses that it would be impossible to make a viable Palestinian state and no Palestinian leader could agree to such a state. He also documents instances of harassment and humiliation of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying forces. This is a quick read of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict by a long time observer who seems quite impartial.

I read this book thinking that President Carter would favor the Israelis because of his deep Christian faith, so I was taken aback at first for his more unbiased view of the situation. Although he admits that of all the players in the Camp David Peace Accords of 1978, Anwar Sadat was his favorite politician (and Hafez al-Asad perhaps his least favorite Arab politician although he didn't come out directly to write this), he also had much praise for several Israeli politicians in his lifetime.

Carter blames players from all sides for dragging out the peace process, from Arafat and Begin to Saudi and Jordanian kings. He covers all the arguments from all sides: Israeli's insistence on acceptance of a Jewish state in an Arab world, to Arab's insistence that Palestianians be giving their own homeland and more humane rights in Israel and that the UN Resolution 242 actually be enforced. All these arguments are quite valid, as we have seen throughout Levantine history over the centuries and especially since the end of World War I.

Carter also mentions,however, that both sides have committed blatant violations against their neighbors: from Israel's violations of UN Resolution 242 to Palestinian (and Israeli) sabotage or attacks of each other's towns and camps. He suggests that land taken in 1967 be returned to the Palestinians whereas Israelis insist they need that land for settlements; the more people who settle Israel, the stronger its defense forces can be.

Both sides must learn to give and take, reasons Carter, but the current conflict in Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) will continue to foment hostilities in the Middle East. The Arabs will always consider the US--rightfully so--supporters of the Israeli state, and Israelis will continue to expect US support. As long as US troops are in Iraq, the Sinai, Qatar and Bahrain, we will be a sore topic for both sides.

I can see this book being a thorn in most Jewish people's eyes but I found Carter's arguments quite sound and doable. He thinks Saudi Arabia is badly underestimated as a peace negotiator in the Midde East. The question I have is that both sides have a strong need to seek revenge and retaliation (I truly believe that the #1 reason Arab and Jew hate each other is because they are so much like).

I also want to note that the Arabs will always use the Palestinian problem as a reason to attack Israel, yet countries with Palestinian refugees treat the Palestinian as second-class citizens and in most cases don't grant them citizenship. There is much in-fighting among Arab countries so the concept of a "Muslim Brotherhood" is more talk than action; the current Sunni-Shi'a conflict in Iraq is one example, as is the conflict in Lebanon between pro-Syrian politicians and pro-Lebanese politicians. A lasting peace in the Middle East is doable, reasons Carter, but all sides must be willing to sacrifice something (land/water, resources) and no side is currently willing to sacrifice enough for peace. The presence of US troops in Iraq isn't helping any, either.

I don't understand how some readers say this book is biased in favor of the Paletinians. The only thing I can come up with is because Carter is critical of some of the Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza: harrassment by Jewish troops of Palestinians, blantant destructions of Palestinians' homes and orchards, excessive abuse of Palestinians near border checks and favoring Israeli products for sale in Palestinian neighborhoods. This is the reason he mentions "apartheid" in his title, as he compares the Israeli treatment of Arabs and Palestinians in Israel as apartheid. The 60-year treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli government has given life to the Intifada of the late 1980s and the more recent attacks since the Iraq War. However, Carter also mentions the attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas are also to blame for the Israeli's insistance on strict enforcement of security and safety for its citizens. It's a vicious cycle.

I read this book thinking that President Carter would favor the Israelis because of his deep Christian faith, so I was taken aback at first for his more unbiased view of the situation. Although he admits that of all the players in the Camp David Peace Accords of 1978, Anwar Sadat was his favorite politician (and Hafez al-Asad perhaps his least favorite Arab politician although he didn't come out directly to write this), he also had much praise for several Israeli politicians in his lifetime.

Carter blames players from all side for dragging out the peace process, from Arafat and Begin to Saudi and Jordanian kings. He covers all the arguments from all sides: Israeli's insistence on acceptance of a Jewish state in an Arab world, to Arab's insistence that Palestianians be giving their own homeland and more humane rights in Israel. All these arguments are quite valid, as we have seen throughout Levantine history over the centuries and especially since the end of World War I.

Carter also mentions,however, that both sides have committed blatant violations against their neighbors: from Israel's violations of UN Resolution 242 to Palestinian (and Israeli) sabotage or attacks of each other's towns and camps. He suggests that land taken in 1967 be returned to the Palestinians whereas Israelis insist they need that land for settlements; the more people who settle Israel, the stronger its defense forces can be.

Both sides must learn to give and take, reasons Carter, but the current conflict in Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) will continue to foment hostilities in the Middle East. The Arabs will always consider the US--rightfully so--supporters of the Israeli state, and Israelis will continue to expect US support. As long as US troops are in Iraq, the Sinai, Qatar and Bahrain, we will be a sore topic for both sides.

I can see this book being a thorn in most Jewish people's eyes but I found Carter's arguments quite sound and doable. The question I have is that both sides have a strong need to seek revenge and retaliation (I truly believe that the #1 reason Arab and Jew hate each other is because they are so much like; they are both Seminic tribes).

I also want to note that the Arabs will always use the Palestinian problem as a reason to attack Israel, yet countries with Palestinian refugees treat the Palestinian as second-class citizens and in most cases don't grant them citizenship. There is much in0fighting among Arab countries so the concept of a "Muslim Brotherhood" is more talk than action; the current Sunni-Shi'a conflict in Iraq is one example, as is the conflict in Lebanon between pro-Syrian politicians and pro-Lebanese politicians. A lasting peace in the Middle East is doable, reasons Carter, but all sides must be willing to sacrifice something (land/water, resources) and no side is currently willing to sacrifice enough for peace.

I believe every American should read this book because we are not told what's really going in Israel. The Jews weren't happy with getting 55% of someone elses land so they have continued taking more. The Palestinians are not guiltless by any definition of the word. The Arabs have done some terrible things, but so have the Israelis. Going by what President Carter has written even the Israeli people believe their government has not been fair. I've read some of the poor ratings of this book and wonder if those people really read it or are merely thinking they know what's been written. Read the book and then try to understand what's happening there, but forget about hearing the truth from our news media.

This is one of rare books written by one of most prominent US statesmen of present time. Although the book still uses the terminology of US politics, but to great extent, shows the unbalanced treatments between Israel and other Middle Eastern countries by the US government. This Book shows how the Israelis' government uses the situation to its benefits and how she manipulates the US for her own interests and how badly treats the Palestinian and the residents of the occupied territories against all International norms and Security Council resolutions. It is an eye opening book.

Americans too often get an uncritically sympathetic view of Israel; Im glad that someone with authority and knowledge offers a fuller picture. The book could have been more comprehensive, but Im sure the attention span of your average reader on such a complex topic was taken into consideration.

Former one term President Jimmy Carter's latest book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," has given rise to an eponymous word that encapsulates the idiocy infecting many who refuse to see the problem in the Middle East, and in particular Israel, for what it is. "Carterism," as explained by one writer, is the smugly pious and self-righteous view that condemns one people acting, imperfectly but with good intentions, to end problems with a neighboring people, while simultaneoulsy ignoring the deplorable and murderous behavior of that neighboring people. In a greater historical context, it is the equivalent of denouncing those meddlesome Poles who surely provoked well-meaning Germans into a war that caused such unnecessary suffering.

One day, perhaps a generation or two from now, people will reflect upon the "Carterite" view as expressed in Jimmy's latest book and wonder, as we now puzzle over Chamberlain's trust of Hitler and 1930s American intellectuals' whitewashing of Stalin, how someone can be so wrong when the facts are so abundantly clear. Were Carter's beliefs not so intellectually impoverished and pathetic, they would be laughable.

Comparing the Arabs to the Israelis, which people, Mr. Carter, currently practice apartheid? Right now, in the 21st Century, Saudi Arabia will not even allow a Jew to enter the country. The Palestinian leadership has recently stated, that if granted a state, Jews and Christians will have to accept "dhimmi," or protected, status in the new Palestinian state. If you are not familiar with the Muslim concept of dhimmi, think African Americans under Jim Crow in the South during the early 20th Century.

Yes, Israel has erected a fence to protect itself from suicidal Palestinian bombers, and that fence has proven to be very successful, but does this amount to apartheid? Israel has a sizeable Arabic population of at least 30%, and Arabs are elected to the Jewish legislature, the Knesset. I wonder if Mr. Carter knows exactly how many Jews are living in Palestinian controlled areas, or how many reside in the neighboring Arabic nations of Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Your answer, Jimmy, is thus: zero Jews in the Palestinan controlled areas surrounding Israel, and less than 1/10th of 1% of the population of the aforementioned Israeli neighbors are Jewish. Now who, again, discriminates and practices apartheid?

How does Israel compare to its Muslim state neighbors? What nation has the only free democratic government in the Middle East and North Africa? What nation in the Middle East allows freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press? Which extends equal rights to women and minorities among its citizenry? From Morocco to Bangladesh, what treatment is visitied upon you by governing authorities if you openly preach Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism; if you convert from Islam to another religion or announce you are homosexual? What becomes of you in these modern Muslim nations if you simply pronounce publicly that you do not believe Muhammed to be God's prophet and indeed, you don't believe in any god called "Allah?" I'll tell you what happens in each and every one of these scenarios--you are killed.

What may be said of a culture that elects to power, for the first time in world history, a political party--Hamas--that espouses terrorism in its own charter? Of all the evil utopian ideologies now resting on the dunghill of history, communism and fascism being the most recent, find one that was or is as morally bankrupt as the Islamist ideology presently practiced by the Palestinians. Not even the most prolifically evil political ideology in history, the German Nazis, used their own German teenage boys and girls as human bombs--and then rejoiced at their deaths! You'll have to return to the worshippers of Baal to find such delight, by religious authorities, as that shown by Palestinian and Islamist Imams and Sheiks when announcing the horrific mutilation deaths of innocent children.

When a population exists, indoctrinated from the cradle to believe that Jews are inherently evil, that they are sons of pigs and monkeys, that they are hated by God, and that God blesses those who murder little Jewish infants and helpless children, one must realize there is absolutely no hope of peace with people such as this. This hatred is what Palestinians believe; this hatred is what they are taught all their lives. Do you suppose, back in 1930, that the Ukrainian kulaks could have reasoned with the Stalinists who wanted them dead or starved into submission? The Palestinians will never truly reason with Jews. No Islamist fascist ever will, and that is the ideology that controls the Palestinian people.

Time and again the Palestinians have proven themselves to be duplicitous and uninterested in real peace. Arafat rejected a real chance at peace with the 2000 Camp David agreements. Years earlier, the Arabs could have established a West Bank and Gaza Palestinian state anytime between 1948 and 1967 when Jordanian and Egyptian Arabs controlled those territories, but they chose not to. We all know why: first, because they have no interest in peace with Israel and are rather interested only in Israel's destruction; and second, because then there was no such creature as a "Palestinian"--they were Jordanians and Egyptians at that time (Jordan, most people are surprised to discover, is more than two-thirds "Palestinian," though that nation's former king killed over 20,000 of Arafat's followers in expelling them from his nation in 1970).

Has any nation ever returned land, contiguous to its own borders, that nation obtained defending itself against a war of aggression brought by its neighbors? No, and that's exactly how Israel obtained the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 after being attacked by its Arab neighbors. Yet alone in human history, the nation of Israel offered to return this conquered land in exchange for peace, and instead, they receive bombs and missiles.

Yes, one day Americans will marvel at how certain other men, other Americans who were so benighted, could have supported a people in the grasp of a death cult--a people wedded to hatred and terror--against a people who share America's own democratic ideals and Western values. One day, this book of Carter's, and the other books of the apologists for Hamas and Arafat, will be placed on the shelves of libraries next to Walter Duranty's and those others championing Stalin and the prodigiously murderous "worker's paradise" that was the Soviet Union of the 1930s. If you are in your twenties, or perhaps your thirties, you'll live to see that day. If, however, you are older, don't hold your breath waiting. After all, the New York Times still proudly claims the Pulitzer Prize Duranty won in 1932 while he was busily denouncing writers who were working bravely to reveal Stalin's systematic starvation of over 10,000,000 Ukrainians. But then, perhaps we should not be so hard on Duranty, or on Carter for that matter. Even Hitler had his admirers, so in the current politically correct spirit of cultural and moral relativism, who are we to judge?

And one parting thought: do you suppose Carter's moral equivalency between Israeli soldiers targeting terrorists in Hamas, and the Palestinians who enthusiastically strap bombs on their own teenage children to detonate and kill other innocent children, might have something to do with the millions and millions of dollars his Carter Center has received from Wahhabists and other radical Islamists in Saudi Arabia? I wonder. Alas, we can only idly long for that day when Carter might practice his moral relativism by moving to the West Bank...or Saudi Arabia...or Iran; that way, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, he might enjoy despotism in its pure form, rather than having to abide its debasement with what his fevered imagination perceives to be the crude alloy of Jewish hypocrisy. Such a terrific burden the truly pious--be they the Christian Jimmy Carter or the Islamic Ruhollah Khomeini--must carry through life.

A complete historical review of the Palestine/Israel problem.
Invaluable for all who wish to understand what exactly is
preventing a solution to what appears to be an intractable problem
which could easily threaten world peace.The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

This is a concise history of Israel, leading up to its inception in 1948 and on to the present. Americans are used to hearing only that Israel is being victimized by the Arab states. The reality of the past 60 years is much more complex. Israel's present government's treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank is horrific and steadily getting worse - a tragic irony.

This book was so biased and full of deception and lies. Do not buy it.

Who on earth gave this book more than one star, considering...

FOURTEEN members of Carter's staff immediately RESIGNED in the wake of the publication of this book full of, as the Carter Center's Director wrote, "factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments."

Carter, as they note further, is "condoning terror as a means of obtaining the objective of a Palestinian state."

These long-time friends of Carter said that they could "no longer in good conscience continue to serve." Telling, no?

Now a brief history lesson for Jimmy and others who choose to support hate over progress and liberal democracy (Israel)---thus showing they're hypocritical and disingenuous to the core:

"Palestinian" leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during Carter's own presidency when they snubbed his paltry efforts, as key figures shook hands for photos (ala the Clinton era), then rogue "Palestinian" leaders went back away from the cameras and encouraged more violence in Arabic. To deny this is akin to a belief in sorcery. It's documented.

When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel, and Israelis, left alone, would leave in peace, Carter's lies are insidious.

As David Horowitz points out:

"It is a lie that Palestinians "had their own land." This is like saying that Texans had their own land occupied by Hispanics, ignoring the fact that Hispanics were there first. The very word Palestine is a Roman appellation for the people called Philistines, who were not Arabs but red-haired sailors from the Aegean. The Jews were there as well. In short, first of all the Jews were in the land before the Arabs."

As a historian, I'd add that the 1920-1948 "Palestine Mandate" was not created on land taken from the Syrians or the Arabs; it was taken from the Turks.

It was not taken from the Turks by the Jews. It was taken by the British and the French. They took it fairly because Turkey sided with Germany in the First World War and lost.

As Horowitz also notes in an article condemning Carter, teaching the history that modern profs do not:

"The Turkish empire had ruled the entire region including Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan for four hundred years before Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan were artificially created by the English and the French. Jordan - a state whose majority is Palestinian - occupies 80% of the Palestine Mandate."

Therefore, all this and thousands of years considered, it is a ridiculous lie to say that the Palestinians had their own land and that it was occupied by the Jews.

This dangerous man who is America's worst ex-president has been more horrific the past decade under the hypocritical auspice of the left-wing version of "peace" which means suicide bomb the Israelis out of pure jealousy and envy.

Surely this is backed by all of the above info and the fact that he and his ilk are on the side of the enemy in the Global War on Terror.

This book offers a fairly brisk history of the Mid-East conflict thru the former president's experience. Nevertheless, I still feel like I do not
understand the hearts and minds of each side: I read the book still thinking like an American and NOT someone buried in conflict my whole life.

Mr. Carter generously offers first-hand quotes from each side, cleverly tempers judgments and could not be more even-handed if he tried. (Charges of anti-semitism or bigotry are opinions I do NOT share...and yes, I am Jewish.)

Mr. Carter does use the term apartheid to refer to land acquisition and Israeli domninance in Palestinian sectors that restricts travel access.

However, these seem more like spoils of war (clearly not bound in racism) and goes back to the extremist viewpoints from each side that will clearly need to be assuaged if there is ever to be any peace.

But, what are these extremists NOT saying? If they are forever sworn to demand more and more from UN resolutions it could be forever a tragedy. Mr. Carter could have taken us a little deeper into their hearts and minds since he is clearly the man to do so instead of merely using quotes that summarize events and theories.

NOTE: the outrag