At a recent lecture I attended at Tel Aviv University, Professor Kenneth W. Stein gave an overflow audience the inside scoop on ex-President Jimmy Carter’s latest book. Stein was a guest of The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies and was formerly a close associate of Carter at the Carter Center at Emory University of Atlanta, Georgia. Carter, of course, is the former nuclear submarine commander, peanut farmer, governor of Georgia, president of the United States, and current anti-Israel do-gooder). The purpose behind Professor Stein’s lecture tour is his mission to discredit Carter’s book so that it doesn’t become required reading for Middle Eastern Studies courses.
The book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, is the latest anti-Israel weapon brandished by Jimmy Carter. How did Professor Stein, the distinguished Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science and Israeli Studies at highly-regarded Emory University, become associated with Carter? The story of Stein’s involvement and his eventual disillusionment with Carter was the very entertaining topic of the lecture.
Stein met President Carter in 1982 at a reception at Emory, four years after the Camp David peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, and after Carter lost his chance at a second term to Ronald Reagan. Carter was familiar with the then assistant-professor’s political commentaries from a prominent Atlanta newspaper and asked Stein to join the new Carter Center.
At first, the university was reluctant to host the center but it eventually realized the fantastic benefit that accrues to cataloging an ex-president’s papers. Likewise, Stein knew a good opportunity when he saw one and enthusiastically joined up. Stein remembers Carter as being very action-oriented, a “doer”. In the years 1983, 1987, and 1990 Stein accompanied Carter on visits to Middle East leaders. Carter was full of love for the Middle East but frustrated about it. He always had an appetite to learn more about the region and its leaders, which led to a jointly-written book by Carter and Stein published in 1985: Blood of Abraham. The book summarized Carter’s experiences negotiating the Camp David Accords, his visits to the Middle East, and sketches of the Arab and Israeli leaders.
Over the last decade Stein gained prominence in his field and lessened his involvement in the Carter Center. From his close association with Carter, Stein knew that the former president was an excellent wordsmith with a phenomenal memory. Therefore, when Stein got his first look at Carter’s new book, he concluded that Carter’s many blatant errors were intentional. Stein lost no time in publicly criticizing the book and formally resigning from the Carter Center.
Stein quickly enlightened us to the book’s shortcomings: its maps were lifted from Dennis Ross’ book on the Middle East, with erroneous descriptions (!); events were described that didn’t come close to matching Stein’s diary entries; official documents are broadly misinterpreted; and Carter’s agenda for the book was “blame Israel”. Not only did Stein feel the need to formally disassociate himself from the Carter Center, but he had to make sure that his reputation wasn’t besmirched by what he considered to be crude propaganda by Jimmy Carter.
Professor Stein described how the former president claims unique authority as the one who enabled Soviet Jews to emigrate, established the Holocaust Museum, and “wrote the book” on negotiating. Stein asserted that Carter wants to stir up discussion about his book to promote its sales, assert his domain over the issues in the Middle East, bring attention to the “Palestinian plight”, revise history by omission and revision, and accuse Israel and the AIPAC lobby of not being interested in peace. All of Carter’s “history” is in service to his mission to enhance the Palestinian narrative while diminishing Israel’s diplomatic history.
In particular, Stein charges that Carter invents his own “truths” in confirmation of his views, avoids putting events in historical context, and constantly contradicts himself. Most important is Carter’s arrogant inability to consider that he could be wrong about anything. Stein then pointed out to us Carter’s inaccurate comments about UN resolutions 242 and 338, his denial of the facts of Israel’s diplomatic history, his omission of the terroristic role of Hamas, and the lack of any discussion about mistakes, errors, and choices of the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, I can’t recount all of the fascinating anecdotes about Carter’s ability to put words in other people’s mouths, but it became crystal-clear that Carter didn’t worry about what other political leaders actually said, because he counted on the fact that they wouldn’t dare to contradict what Carter said they said.
Stein then described some of the mantras which punctuate Carter’s book: Jews control Congress and the media, the “Jewish lobby” exists to intimidate America’s leaders and Jews who support Israel must be held up to criticism. Among the worst aspects of the book is Carter’s use of the word apartheid to describe Israel. Stein accuses Carter of giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and excusing terrorism against Israelis, until the time that Israel gives in to all the world’s demands. In addition, Carter’s criticism of terrorism towards Israelis is only that it’s bad for Palestinian public relations.
In conclusion, Professor Stein quoted from his letter of resignation, in which he denied that the former president had a unique privilege to invent history or to revise it to conform to his own viewpoint. Stein hypothesized that Carter’s latest book may be his payback to American Jews for “abandoning” him and helping to make him a one-term president. Stein knew from the inside that Carter himself never felt the typical warm Jewish embrace that was accorded to all the other Democratic presidential personalities.
The audience, which included many Israeli diplomats and Middle Eastern experts, loved Professor Stein’s intimate look at President Carter, who is regarded by many Israelis as the one primarily responsible for allowing Iran’s Islamist regime to gain its foothold on power. In the question and answer period, former Prime Minister Begin’s press spokesman, Dan Patir, had some astute comments on the Camp David negotiations. He was generous in his praise for Stein’s public unmasking of the former president, but he wondered why Stein hadn’t felt it necessary to part from Carter earlier. In his own defense, Stein said, “I tried to influence Carter from the inside.”
