Carter Messing With Maps

A lot has already been said about Jimmy Carter’s controversial book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid” and seeing as I haven’t yet read the book there is not much I can add. You can access a roundup of commentary on Carter’s book at CAMERA.

I have always been a great fan of former US envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross. His criticism of Carter’s book for me is the most damning, given the prominent role he has played in the history of the region. Dennis Ross was involved in almost every negotiation that took place between Israelis and Arabs between 1988 and 2000. He was the architect of the Camp David and subsequent negotiations of 2000 that came so close to bringing peace to the region.

Dennis Ross is far from a right wing Zionist. He is a man who supports both the Israelis and the Palestinians and few have been more committed than he has towards achieving peace. He puts the blame for the failure of the 2000 talks squarely on the shoulders of Yasser Arafat. He also openly admits to having watched the 1999 Israeli elections with Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) and celebrated with him when the news of Bibi Netanyahu’s defeat came through. Dennis Ross is indeed a man who supports both sides and as far as the Middle East conflict is concerned, is as neutral as you can get.

A recent controversy arose when it was discovered that Carter had used maps from Dennis Ross’ book “The Missing Peace” without accrediting Ross as the source. In an op-ed piece in the NY Times Dennis Ross writes that he is more concerned with Carter’s swindling presentation of the maps than with the missing accreditation: Don't Play With Maps

In his book, Mr. Carter juxtaposes two maps labeled the “Palestinian Interpretation of Clinton’s Proposal 2000” and “Israeli Interpretation of Clinton’s Proposal 2000.” The problem is that the “Palestinian interpretation” is actually taken from an Israeli map presented during the Camp David summit meeting in July 2000, while the “Israeli interpretation” is an approximation of what President Clinton subsequently proposed in December of that year. Without knowing this, the reader is left to conclude that the Clinton proposals must have been so ambiguous and unfair that Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was justified in rejecting them. But that is simply untrue.

It never ceases to amaze me how confused people are over what took place in 2000. People tend to refer almost blankly to “the disputed Camp David proposals”. Both Zionists and non-Zionists seem equally confused.

In July of 2000 the Camp David summit took place. Various offers were put forward by the Israelis and the Americans but these offers were rejected by the Palestinians.

Later in the year, in December 2000, at the request of Israeli PM Ehud Barak, US President Bill Clinton proposed what became known as the Clinton parameters. These went further than any of the offers (in terms of what Israel would relinquish) at Camp David. Ehud Barak and the Knesset accepted these parameters. Arafat rejected them without making any counter offers.

Jimmy Carter has tried to deceive the public by portraying the Clinton parameters as the Israeli interpretation of the Camp David offer and by portraying the partial Israeli Camp David proposal (substantially less that what they accepted via the Clinton parameters) as the Palestinian interpretation of the Camp David offer.

In doing so Carter is creating the impression that the Camp David offers were so ambiguous that rejecting the offers was the only realistic option available to Arafat.

Whilst there were differing Israeli and Palestinians versions of what was actually offered at Camp David there can be no argument about what was proposed as part of the Clinton parameters because Clinton himself documented them! They are available in print for anyone to see (not the maps, although Dennis Ross created his versions of what the maps would resemble, but the text of the parameters is available in print).

Ross continues

When I decided to write the story of what had happened in the negotiations, I commissioned maps to illustrate what the proposals would have meant for a prospective Palestinian state. If the Clinton proposals in December 2000 had been Israeli or Palestinian ideas and I was interpreting them, others could certainly question my interpretation. But they were American ideas, created at the request of the Palestinians and the Israelis, and I was the principal author of them. I know what they were and so do the parties. It is certainly legitimate to debate whether President Clinton’s proposal could have settled the conflict. It is not legitimate, however, to rewrite history and misrepresent what the Clinton ideas were. Indeed, since the talks fell apart, there has emerged a mythology that seeks to defend Mr. Arafat’s rejection of the Clinton ideas by suggesting they weren’t real or they were too vague or that Palestinians would have received far less than what had been advertised. Mr. Arafat himself tried to defend his rejection of the Clinton proposals by later saying he was not offered even 90 percent of the West Bank or any of East Jerusalem. But that was myth, not reality. Why is it important to set the record straight? Nothing has done more to perpetuate the conflict between Arabs and Israelis than the mythologies on each side. The mythologies about who is responsible for the conflict (and about its core issues) have taken on a life of their own. They shape perception. They allow each side to blame the other while avoiding the need to face up to its own mistakes. So long as myths are perpetuated, no one will have to face reality.

Please be sure to take a look at the actual maps from Dennis Ross’ book at this previous IAS entry : The Rejected Maps. The maps show the Israeli vs. Palestinian interpretations of the final Camp David proposals as well as the map that reflects the Clinton parameters of December 2000 (repeated below).

No formal map was presented to the Israelis and Palestinians in December 2000 by President Clinton, but this map illustrates the Clinton ideas--a Palestinian state in 95% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza (bringing total territory relinquished by Israel to 97%). This map actually understates the Clinton ideas by not showing and additional 1 to 3% of territorial swaps to the Palestinian state from areas within Israel.