Trending Topics:

Jimmy Carter paid big political price in ’80 for standing up for Palestinian rights — Eizenstat

on 9 Comments

There’s a fine interview of Stuart Eizenstat, Jimmy Carter’s former top domestic policy adviser, by Sarah Breger at Moment Magazine. Eizenstat has a new book out on Carter; and in the interview he makes clear what a political price Jimmy Carter paid for supporting Palestinian human rights.

Sen. Ted Kennedy would have ended his political challenge to Carter in 1980 had not Carter said that Jerusalem was occupied territory in a UN Security Council resolution that passed unanimously in March. “We literally saw campaign workers running, falling out of our campaign office in objection,” Eizenstat says. Carter then lost the NY primary. The official Jewish community fell out with Carter after he spoke of a Palestinian “homeland.” Carter saw the Palestinians as as oppressed as African-Americans.

Kennedy’s challenge weakened Carter and of course Carter lost to Reagan in the fall.

Here are the key excerpts.

Breger: After such a success [at Camp David] why did he get the smallest percentage of Jewish votes of any Democratic president in modern history?

To achieve the peace between Egypt and Israel, there was a lot of glass broken. A lot of pressure was put on Israel. Carter also had very tense relations with Prime Minister Rabin, and then with Begin. While Rabin was in the U.S., Carter goes to Massachusetts for the first of 100 town hall meetings. He’s asked a question, unscripted, about the Palestinians. I’m sitting at the step of this open-air forum. I literally almost fell off my chair, because Carter says, “I favor a Palestinian homeland.” He didn’t say a state. He said homeland. That caused a huge uproar and hugely embarrassed the Labor Party in Israel and Rabin. They still blame it for their defeat in the next Israeli election. Then the relationship with Begin was very difficult.

Notwithstanding that, the Jewish vote had actually started to come back to Carter. In the Illinois primary in the spring of 1980, Carter against Kennedy gets 70 percent of the Jewish vote, including in Chicago. We’re 20 percent ahead of him in the polls in New York two weeks later but then the final straw broke: UN Resolution 465. At Camp David, Carter had pledged that he would not support any UN resolution on settlements in which Jerusalem was included. UN Resolution 465 had six references to Jerusalem as occupied territory, in which there shouldn’t be settlements. Carter did not read it carefully. It was a huge miscommunication. We literally saw campaign workers running, falling out of our campaign office in objection.

We lost the New York primary as a result. I interviewed Kennedy’s top aides for this book, and I learned Kennedy already had his withdrawal speech written. Instead, he went through to the convention and split the party.

There’s one other underlying reason. Carter saw the Palestinians as being the African Americans of the Middle East—oppressed by the Israeli military in the same way the white police oppressed African Americans. In fact, he said, it was even worse. I strongly disagreed with that. It failed to take into account Israel’s security issues, the failure of the Palestinians to be willing to make peace, but that was his view. Now, if you ask him, he would say, “This is not at Israel’s expense.” He believes the most important thing is a two-state solution, but it was expressed in a way that was very raw, in particular in the Apartheid book. If you want to get into that.

Breger: I think we have to get into the Apartheid book.

So I’m at Hofstra University, and I’m going to be on a panel with Alan Dershowitz, who was my Harvard Law School professor and friend. Before we go on, Dershowitz says to me, “Stu, I want to see you privately. I have a personal issue. The New York Times has asked me to review your former boss’s new book, called Peace or Apartheid?” I said, “What new book?” He said, “You don’t know about it?” As soon as I got back to Washington, I wrote a long memorandum to Carter and said, “This is politically, morally, historically and legally incorrect. Apartheid is a term that is used against South Africa, who had a minority white government that totally foreclosed the blacks from any participation.” I said: “You may say there’s discrimination of some kind against Israeli Arabs, but they have free education, they vote, they’re represented in the parliament, they get health care. If you talk about the Palestinians, that is territory which is, to this day, still contested. You can be against the settlement policies. I don’t like the settlement policies either, but it’s not apartheid.” Then I called him, and I said, ” I know the book is already written. Just change the title.” He said, “I wish I had heard you before. It’s too late, they’re already in the boxes.”

Wikipedia says that Carter tried to backtrack on Resolution 465, which was adopted on March 1, 1980.

On March 3, 1980 President Carter clarified the US’s position saying dismantling Israeli settlements is “neither proper nor practical” and that “Jerusalem should be undivided” with its status determined in peace negotiations. He further said the US approved the vote with the understanding that all references to Jerusalem were to be removed.

The only other one-term president in the last 30 years, George H.W. Bush, also lost in part because of his opposition to Israeli settlements. Bill Clinton ran to his right on this issue in 1992; and as Tom Friedman said, the Republicans took that to heart and decided they’d never be out-Israel’d again.

Eizenstat was back again as a key adviser to Hillary Clinton on Israel issues during her 2015-2016 campaign. He helped broker her statement against BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions), by meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu and conveying his advice to Clinton (as we know from Wikileaks of DNC emails); he also pushed for her commitment to meet with Netanyahu in the first month of her presumed presidency. Eizenstat is a committed Zionist and a powerful advocate for Israel in back rooms.

Eizenstat has long criticized Carter over the 2006 book. In this interview, he often takes a dim view of the president, saying he was a “good” president but not a “near-great” president, let alone Rushmore material.

In this piece for the Hill, Eizenstat says Carter was a “visionary” to speak of a Palestinian homeland, but it cost him in the Jewish community. Cue IfNotNow, blaming the Jewish establishment for the unending occupation.

One other thing. Some day I need to write about the fact that Condoleezza Rice spoke movingly about Palestinian conditions reminding her of blacks’ conditions in the Alabama of her childhood–and she should know. Her minder from the pro-Israel community inside the Bush administration, Elliott Abrams, repeatedly rebuked her for this in his book on Middle East policy under Bush, with great condescension. It never ends; and Israel lobbyists carry out this corrective role in both parties.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

9 Responses

  1. Citizen on November 9, 2018, 3:16 pm

    We can only imagine all the pressure Rice got from her Zionist handlers like Abrams.

  2. Patrick on November 10, 2018, 2:55 am

    Mr. Eizenstat misrepresents the use of the term ‘apartheid’ in Carter’s book. Contrary to Mr. Eizenstat’s claims, Carter explains carefully that he is not applying the term to describe the situation of the Palestinians inside Israel proper. He states that it applies exclusively to the Occupied Territories. Hence it is irrelevant for Mr. Eizenstat to argue that Israeli Arabs “have free education, they vote, they’re represented in the parliament, they get health care” since that only applies inside Israel, not the territories.

    • Misterioso on November 10, 2018, 9:42 am


      For the record:
      “Israel,” i.e., west of the green line, is and always has been an ethnocracy, a political structure in which the state apparatus is appropriated by a dominant ethnic group to further its interests, power and resources. In short, apartheid.

      To wit:
      Hendrik Verwoerd, then prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa’s apartheid policies, 1961: “Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.” (Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961)

      Jacobus Johannes Fouché, South African Minister of Defence during the apartheid era, compared the two states and said that Israel also practiced apartheid. (Gideon Shimoni (1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0195701798.

      “Former Foreign Ministry director-general invokes South Africa comparisons. ‘Joint Israel-West Bank’ reality is an apartheid state”
      EXCERPT: “Similarities between the ‘original apartheid’ as it was practiced in South Africa and the situation in ISRAEL [my emphasis] and the West Bank today ‘scream to the heavens,’ added [Alon] Liel, who was Israel’s ambassador in Pretoria from 1992 to 1994. There can be little doubt that the suffering of Palestinians is not less intense than that of blacks during apartheid-era South Africa, he asserted.” (Times of Israel, February 21, 2013)

      Ilan Pappe, then professor of political science at Haifa University: “[Israel’s] political system [is] exclusionary, a pro forma democracy – going through the motions of democratic rule but essentially being akin to apartheid or Herenvolk (‘master race’) democracy.” (“Jerusalem Report,” Feb. 14/2000)

      Ronnie Kasrils, a key player in the struggle against the former South African apartheid regime, minister for intelligence and a devout Jew: “The Palestinian minority in Israel has for decades been denied basic equality in health, education, housing and land possession, solely because it is not Jewish. The fact that this minority is allowed to vote hardly redresses the rampant injustice in all other basic human rights. They are excluded from the very definition of the ‘Jewish state’, and have virtually no influence on the laws, or political, social and economic policies. Hence, their similarity to the black South Africans [under apartheid].” (The Guardian, 25 May 2005)

      Shlomo Gazit, retired IDF Major General: “[Israel’s] legal system that enforces the law in a discriminatory way on the basis of national identity, is actually maintaining an apartheid regime.” (Haaretz, July 19, 2011)

      The effect of Israel’s blatantly racist “Citizenship Law” and more than fifty other restrictions Arab citizens have to endure is well expressed by writer and Knesset member, Ahmed Tibi, “…dutifully defining the state [of Israel] as ‘Jewish and democratic,’ ignores the fact that in practice ‘democratic’ refers to Jews, and the Arabs are nothing more than citizens without citizenship.” (Ma’ariv, 1.6.2005)

      • Patrick on November 10, 2018, 12:25 pm

        Thanks for all these quotes. However, my point wasn’t to establish whether or not apartheid prevails within Israel proper. Rather it was to point out that Carter said it didn’t, and so the arguments made by Eizenstat against Carter are irrelevant. They don’t address Carter’s contention that apartheid prevails in the Occupied Territories.

  3. Elizabeth Block on November 10, 2018, 8:33 am

    Well, I agree that Carter wasn’t a great president, for reasons having nothing to do with Palestine. But he is a great ex-president, maybe the greatest – the only competition would be John Quincy Adams – and that is partly due to his stand on Palestine.

  4. Misterioso on November 10, 2018, 9:54 am

    @Elizabeth Block

    It is well worth noting and paying heed to what former U.S. President Jimmy Carter had to say during a meeting of the World Council of Churches in Jerusalem on January 10/05:

    “More recently, we’ve seen an abandonment of the fair and objective and balanced role of the U.S. government in the negotiations between Israel and her neighbours and sometimes enemies. Lately in particular, our president [George W. Bush] has totally complied with the desires of the Israeli Prime Minister to the detriment of the Palestinians and the detriment of their hopes for the future.

    “I personally think that Yasser Arafat did the best he could for peace. Not many of my countrymen agree. I knew him quite well. He took a heroic action in the Oslo agreement for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. For the last 3 ½ years, as the elected President of
    the Palestinian people, he was kept in prison in disgrace and still expected to command the full authority of his people and he was held responsible for acts of violence.”

  5. CigarGod on November 10, 2018, 11:21 am

    Paraphrasing Bibi:
    We can do anything we want, anytime we want.

  6. James Canning on November 11, 2018, 12:45 pm

    Great piece, and a profile in courage.

  7. Antidote on November 15, 2018, 4:18 pm

    Carter is a decent and honest man, and his presidency was destroyed by his national security advisor Breszinski who would gladly set the ME on fire and throw the entire region into chaos —if only it led to the downfall of the hated Soviet Union and the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe from the Russian scourge, including his native and beloved Poland. Racist condescension and resentment disguised as American values such as democracy, and geopolitical musings about grand chessboards and other nonsense. It is a shame he is still held in such high esteem in the US, and often on this blog. Being a critic of Israel does not in itself make you a decent person. As bad as Cheney and Rumsfeld, if not worse.

Leave a Reply