This article by Alan Dershowitz on Jimmy Carter's legacy is four years old but still relevant. Carter was mentioned favourably in a couple of recent articles I've read on the 50th anniversary of the Arab-Israeli Six Day war. He should not be. As Dershowitz says his record is "dishonourable".
I'd read Carter's book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" which I found shockingly partisan. Unquestioningly pro-Palestinian; violently anti-Israel.
I wanted to check up on assessments of his so-called peacemaking activities, especially his role in advising Yasser Arafat to reject the peace proposal put forth by Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak in 2000.
Dershowitz recounts that story this article. Carter told Arafat that he (Arafat) would be killed if he accepted the very generous US/Israel offer. Which included, btw, handing over Jerusalem to be the capital of a new Palestinian state.
To which, the feared Arafat killing, I'd respond (1) Really? Wouldn't Arafat have been the one PLO leader with the credibility to accept the Clinton-Barak proposal? And (2) If the Palestinians really did not accept a deal that gave them over 95% of what they wanted, including Jerusalem (with the remaining 5% to be compensated with cash), then what did this say about the Palestinians accepting any deal that did not involve the destruction of Israel?
Dershowitz blames Carter "in part" for resulting deaths in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. Rightly, I believe.
Yet Carter remains lionised on the Left. And is yet being mentioned in the avalanche of 50-anniversary articles.
Sent from my iPhone