SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"There is no better way to remember him," said Amy Carter.
Amid of flurry of reflections on former U.S. President Jimmy Carter following his death at age 100 on Sunday, his daughter Amy Carter thanked one writer for highlighting her father's historic support for Palestinian rights and criticism of Israeli apartheid.
Qasim Rashid, a human rights lawyer and former Democratic congressional candidate who has forcefully criticized the ongoing U.S.-backed Israeli assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over the past nearly 15 months, remembered Carter on Sunday by writing on Substack about the 39th president's stance on Israel and Palestine. Rashid included a clip from a 2007 interview with Democracy Now! about a book that Carter published the previous year, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
"In this book, President Carter cogently argues that the main obstacle to peace in Israel and Palestine is in fact the hundreds of thousands of illegal settlements that Israel continues to build, all with U.S. backing and support," Rashid wrote, also emphasizing Carter's point from the interview that it is politically risky for elected officials in Washington, D.C. to support Palestinian rights. "Contrast President Carter's clarity and courageous voice with the cowardice and complicit nature of every president since, including their appeasement of the Israeli government's settlement expansion, land annexation, and apartheid enforcement."
Later Sunday, Rashid posted on social media a screenshot of Substack subscriber Amy Carter's response to his article. The 57-year-old—who was arrested as a teenager for protesting apartheid in South Africa—said in part: "There is no better way to remember him and I appreciate that you and your readers are keeping this important part of his legacy alive. Thank you."
Floored to receive this beautiful comment from Amy Carter, daughter of President Jimmy Carter. She proudly elevates her father's legacy in promoting justice for Palestine & calls upon everyone to keep that legacy alive. Here's my article she is responding to: www.qasimrashid.com/p/president-...
[image or embed]
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. ( @qasimrashid.com) December 29, 2024 at 9:33 PM
While the former president has faced praise and scrutiny from across the political spectrum for various foreign policy decisions and positions, the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner's support for Palestinian rights does stand out from those who have held the Oval Office since his single term—which included the Camp David Accords, signed in September 1978 by him, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Rashid was not alone in focusing on Carter's controversial 2006 book and broader position on Palestine in the wake of his death—as Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for slaughtering over 45,500 Palestinians in Gaza and starving those who have managed to survive.
On Monday morning, Democracy Now! shared on social media a version of the 2007 clip Rashid noted, during which Carter stresses that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) "is not dedicated to peace," but rather is working and succeeding at convincing the American public, media, and political leaders to support the policies of the Israeli government.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan—who recently launchedZeteo after his MSNBC show was canceled following his criticism of Israel's assault on Gaza—on Sunday shared "eight critical Jimmy Carter quotes you won't see in most mainstream media obits."
In a Sunday obituary for Foreign Policy, Jonathan Alter—author of His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life—wrote:
The Camp David Accords turned out to be the most durable diplomatic achievement since the end of World War II. "What he has done with the Middle East is one of the most extraordinary things any president in history has ever accomplished," said Averell Harriman, a veteran U.S. diplomat who sometimes gave Carter advice.
Carter was the first president to back a Palestinian state, which along with his rhetoric afterward—including a 2006 book titled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid—made him the most pro-Palestinian U.S. president ever, a fact that angered American Jews for decades. Based on the Camp David Accords alone, however, he also turned out to be the best U.S. president for Israel's security since Harry Truman. That's because the only army with the capacity to destroy Israel—the Egyptian army—has been neutralized for more than four decades.
Mitchell Plitnick, a political analyst and writer, asserted at Mondoweiss on Sunday that Carter "is a man whose legacy will forever be inextricably linked to Israel and Palestine. Yet that legacy will be built as much on myth as on reality, as with so many other aspects of the history and politics of the 'Holy Land.'"
Calling for Carter's legacy to be "scrutinized carefully and honestly," Plitnick—like Alter—wrote of the Camp David Accords that "Carter understood, as any observer would, that if Israel made peace with Egypt, it would remove the single biggest military challenger in the region and the remaining Arab states would no longer be able to mount a credible threat against Israel."
He also argued that Carter's 2006 book "itself was far less remarkable than the title," given that its substance "made it clear that he was trying to steer Israel away from its own self-immolation on the altar of its occupation."
"The hateful comments that came his way for many years, mostly from the Jewish community but also from the Christian Zionists who share his evangelical beliefs but not his understanding of what those beliefs mean, were horribly misplaced," Plitnick added. "He cared deeply and tried to do what he could to create a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike. For that, he's been called an antisemite. Every person who ever uttered that slur against him owes him an apology. Now would be a good time to send it."
As The Guardian's Chris McGreal reported on Monday, at least one key person did apologize before Carter died:
Among those outraged by Carter's book in 2006 were members of the former president's own foundation, which has built an international reputation for its work on human rights and to alleviate suffering. Steve Berman led a mass resignation from the Carter Center's board of councilors at the time.
Earlier this year, Berman revealed that he later wrote to Carter to apologize and to say that the former president had been right.
"I had started to view Israel's occupation of the Palestinians as something that started in 1967 as an accident but was now becoming an enterprise with colonial intentions," Berman said in his letter to Carter.
Shortly before Carter's death, Peter Beinart, described as "the most influential liberal Zionist of his generation," said the time had come for the former president's critics to apologize for the "shameful way that the book was received by many significant people."
Leading Muslim groups in the United States have also released statements since Carter's death on Sunday.
"President Carter was a friend of the American Muslim community and a champion for many just causes, including Palestinian freedom," said Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) national executive director Nihad Awad. "Even when President Carter faced vitriolic attacks from anti-Palestinian groups for his prescient book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he stood firm. He was a humanitarian role model, and we pray that a new generation of political leaders will take inspiration from his legacy."
The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO)—an umbrella group that includes CAIR—said that it "joined American Muslims in commemorating former President Jimmy Carter as a principled humanitarian who dedicated his post-presidency to pursuing social and international justice, including courageously and forthrightly warning the American public about the harmful influence of pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC and the Israeli government's intent on entrenching a colonial apartheid state on Palestinian land."
In addition to praising Carter's 2006 book, USCMO said that "he candidly called the U.S. 'Road Map for Peace' a sham that intended failure. He went on record, nearly alone among U.S. politicians at the time, to debunk the so-called Israeli 'security wall' as an 'imprisonment wall' to intern West Bank Palestinians. Moreover, he stood alone among his political peers in the U.S. in unfailingly and publicly defending Islam and Muslims against a rising, politically motivated, systematic Islamophobia media campaign as a foil for promoting religious nationalism in American politics."
"We convey our sincere condolences to the family and loved ones of James Earl Carter Jr.," USCMO concluded, "and to the American people who have lost a rarity in our politics—a former president who stood for the best interests of this nation and its stated values of freedom, justice, and democracy, regardless of outside political pressure to sell out those American values."
This is the deeper meaning of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: our right to have access to our own creative spirit. To put it another way: our right to help create the collective, human future.
You may not have noticed this. The world “celebrated” International Human Rights Day the other day, even as wars across the planet continued, bombs fell, children died. What if “freedom from war” were a human right?
I don’t ask this to be cynical, but rather to expand the reach of what should be a global day of connection and collective inner reflection. International Human Rights Day is December 10. It’s an annual honoring of the day in 1948 when the newly formed United Nations, in the wake of World War II, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which publicly recognizes “the inherent dignity and... equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.”
All members of the human family! Every last one of us must be valued. This is not simply a hidden, personal wish, but a public—legal—document, posted globally in 577 languages (from Abhkaz to Zulu), declaring that all humans are equal at the cores of their being and deserve the chance to live full lives, free from... a whole slew of hellish possibilities, including: slavery, torture, arbitrary arrest, and much, much more. And we deserve, my God, freedom of thought. Hey, book banners! Did you know your cowardly insistence on limiting human awareness is against world law?
We’re all born helpless and needing love. We’re all vulnerable. And we all have the same spiritual connection to the universe itself.
This past Tuesday I was informed that it was International Human Rights Day in an email from Musicians Without Borders, an extraordinary nonprofit, publicly funded organization, formed in 1999 (during the war in Kosovo), that I’ve written about in the past. Indeed, the recognition of this day by Musicians Without Borders is what brought it to life for me, instantly pushing me beyond my own cynicism and impulse to ask “So what?”
I mean, the U.N. doesn’t have any global enforcement power—and, as is utterly and horribly obvious, millions or maybe billions of human beings remain trapped today in various forms of hell on Earth, from war to starvation to poverty to slavery. And the Universal Declaration itself, with its preamble and 30 articles of declared rights, is written in legal, bureaucratic language that obscures the deep truths it’s attempting to define and essentially turns them into abstractions. In a way, the declaration separates us from our own rights.
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” the declaration states. “They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
Yes, absolutely, but how does this impact the actual state of the world? To begin with, I would cry beyond the legalese of the declaration: Come on! What you’re saying is that we’re all the same! We’re all born helpless and needing love. We’re all vulnerable. And we all have the same spiritual connection to the universe itself. Please, oh world, let us live this truth. Let us organize ourselves around it.
But how, oh how, does a truth this deep manifest itself in the real world? It can’t be simplistically “enforced.” And here’s where Musicians Without Borders comes in. The spiritual depth of the Declaration of Human Rights comes to life when we construct reality around it—and that’s what this organization does. Its raison d’etre is to counter the effects of war around the world through music, and give those who are trapped in war and occupation and apartheid the power to be their deepest selves.
Laura Hassler, the organization’s director, puts it this way in a recent essay, in which she calls the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “a framework of guiding principles, a collective conscience for our organization and our programs around the world.”
“Why? Because music creates connection and empathy, builds community, brings people together.”
But be careful! “...just as any powerful human potential,” she adds, “music can also be used to unite one group against another, as it has been many times. So, it is crucial for social changemakers to have guidelines, and the declaration provides these.”
She also notes: “If human rights only apply when politically convenient to the most powerful, they are not really rights—they are arbitrarily applied privileges.”
Musicians Without Borders, which is headquartered in the Netherlands, works in conflict zones around the world: Jordan, El Salvador, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kosovo, Rwanda and, yes, Palestine.
Since 2021, it has run a program in Bethlehem that provides children, including those in refugee camps, with weekly music sessions, where they can sing together and learn traditional Arabic music—that is to say, enjoy life for a while despite the instability of their lives in the West Bank.
Laura put it to me thus: Their work in Palestine “is aimed at supporting marginalized Palestinian children who suffer the impacts of occupation and apartheid. It is about strengthening resilience, building community, giving children access to creativity and a feeling of safety in an extremely unsafe environment.”
Giving children access to their own creativity! As I read her words in an email she sent me, I felt a gush of spiritual joy and could only cry: Wow! This is the deeper meaning of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: our right to have access to our own creative spirit. To put it another way: our right to help create the collective, human future.
We’re not just listeners. We’re not just consumers. In the column I wrote about Musicians Without Borders five years ago, I quoted Laura thus: “Every person has music in them!”
For those of us engaged in solidarity with Palestinian struggles for liberation and return, or in any movement for peace and justice, we should take note that an all-powerful conservative president is not all that powerful after all.
The Biden administration’s insistence to continue arming Israel despite it carrying out what a growing consensus of scholars and human rights organizations are calling a genocide in Gaza has been one of the greatest moral failures in modern American history. While the Biden administration’s approach to the situation has been disastrous, there are legitimate fears that Donald Trump’s second term in office may prove even worse for Palestinian survival, much less liberation.
In the wake of these traumatizing times, it is worth looking back at the South African anti-apartheid movement during a similar moment in American history for some hope and guidance.
Ronald Reagan was elected to a second presidential term in 1984 by a landslide. With a platform focused on economic austerity, hawkish cold war politics, and repressive domestic policies important to the religious right, Reagan won every state but Minnesota and nearly 60% of the popular vote. Reagan’s position on South African apartheid was steeped in racism and an approach called “constructive engagement,” by which the American government worked with instead of against the apartheid regime to slowly reform its policies. As the president’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs throughout his two terms in office, Chester Crocker, put it, “all Reagan knows about Southern Africa is that he is on the side of the whites.” Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, who more often focused on the positive qualities of even his bitterest enemies, was blunter: “[Ronald Reagan] is a racist, pure and simple.”
And yet it was during Reagan’s second term in office that the anti-apartheid movement in America made its most significant gains. For more than three decades, a loose, multi-racial coalition of faith-based, labor, student, and peace organizations worked in solidarity with their South African brethren to try to help end the country’s legally sanctioned system of white supremacy. After the African National Congress in 1958 called upon the world to put economic pressure on the apartheid regime, many in this American coalition used boycotts, shareholder resolutions, direct action, divestment, and advocacy for sanctions to force US corporations to leave South Africa. By the early 1980s, the movement had successfully pushed a few religious institutions, labor unions, universities, and local and state governments to divest from some companies operating in South Africa. Kodak stopped doing business with the South African government after a years-long boycott campaign. And the United Nations had issued an arms embargo. But the United States was finding all sorts of ways around the arms embargo, and most major institutions in America were still thoroughly invested in banks and other companies that were directly or indirectly supporting the apartheid regime.
Despite Reagan’s renewed presidency, the anti-apartheid movement set its eyes during his second term on more divestment and the biggest prize of all: U.S. sanctions on South Africa. Congress passed a sanctions bill in 1985, but Reagan vetoed it. Feeling the pressure from the movement and from many in the Democratic-controlled Congress to do something, Reagan responded by issuing a set of limited sanctions by executive order. But as Tutu described them, they were “not even a flea bite” on the monstrous apartheid regime. The anti-apartheid movement pressed on, as clergy, labor leaders, students, and other activists engaged with each member of Congress, urging them to pass a more comprehensive sanctions bill. Meanwhile, thanks to equally dogged campaigns, many of the biggest institutional investors were beginning to divest. The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Harvard University, Columbia University, TIAA-CREF, and the New York City Pension fund, among other institutions, all divested, in 1985, from at least some companies involved in South Africa. Responding to the threat of divestment, fifty multinational corporations ended their business activity in South Africa that year, including PepsiCo, General Electric, American Express, Motorola, and Boeing. When Chase Manhattan Bank, long a target of the anti-apartheid campaign, suddenly froze the apartheid regime’s line of credit and demanded it repay its outstanding loans, the South African economy began to collapse.
By September 1985, the South African government announced that it was freezing its repayment of foreign debt until the following year as a means of slowing down foreign withdrawal from the country.
Momentum was building in 1986, ahead of midterm Congressional elections, for a more comprehensive sanctions bill. Congress, again, passed sweeping sanctions against South Africa, and Reagan, again, vetoed the bill. But this time, with deeper relationships between activists and Congresspeople, and elections looming in a matter of weeks, a bipartisan Senate and House garnered the necessary supermajority to override the president’s veto. The sanctions bill, while still a compromised version of what many opponents of apartheid were calling for, significantly curtailed US trade with South Africa. Other industrialized nations had their own sanctions in place. Beset by this foreign economic pressure and increasing agitation from Black South African freedom fighters within and just outside its borders, the apartheid government could see the writing on the wall.
A little over a year after Reagan left office, amidst the one and only term of his former vice president, George H.W. Bush, South African President F.W. de Klerk announced that all political prisoners, including Nelson Mandela, would be released, anti-apartheid political parties would be unbanned, and free democratic elections would soon take place.
Somehow, an international coalition of activists, working in solidarity with the African National Congress, managed to help end apartheid, despite the best efforts of one of its most powerful foreign enablers to stop them.
For those of us engaged in solidarity with Palestinian struggles for liberation and return, or in any movement for peace and justice, we should take note that an all-powerful conservative president is not all that powerful after all. We must press on, waging struggles with the power that we have, as workers, consumers, members of institutions with sizable investments, and as voting citizens, who can remove a person from office as quickly as we can put them in if they do not earn our votes.
Indeed, drawing explicitly upon the South African example, Palestinian civil society is still calling upon us to use this power to employ boycotts, divestment, and sanctions until Palestinians have a full slate of human rights. In the shadow of tens of thousands of dead Palestinians and millions struggling to live on, the urgency to force the American and Israeli governments, and the businesses that support them, to end this bloodshed couldn’t be greater. And while the context is different, and the struggle may be more difficult, one of the lessons that the South African anti-apartheid movement gives us is that we can do this, regardless of who might be in the White House.