Litlove has a thoughtful post about tantrums of thought particularly when it comes to writers:
They write from the maelstrom of their own unprocessed emotions, peppering their rhetoric with ugly beta elements that provoke and arouse. It’s a powerful form of discourse because it prevents the reader from inhabiting a neutral position; s/he must react in turn to the word bombardment. But it makes language, and intellectual argument, into a bully, something we have to go along with because our defences have been overwhelmed, not because we have been convinced or persuaded of its intrinsic rightness.
She goes on to suggest, “Any writer who claims to be a reflective writer, a writer who chooses to attempt the risible task of making sense of the world via philosophy or literature or journalism ought to be a conceptual diplomat; someone who will represent all points of view without prejudice and whose personal stance is explicit but not dominant.”
Since I finished reading Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Litlove’s post couldn’t have come at a better time. Carter writes about an issue that, especially in the United States, is so volatile that anyone who suggests Israel might be wrong about something can suddenly find themselves accused of anti-Semitism, a situation Carter is now all too familiar with. The cause, of course, is the deliberately provoking title of the book. But if you get past the title to actually read the book, Carter barely mentions apartheid.
What Carter does do is give us a general history of the Israel-Palestine conflict through his own personal involvement in it from the time he was governor of Georgia to the present. An essay in the New York Review of Books faults Carter for his memoir-like approach and his lack of follow up and argument on the topic of Palestine and apartheid. The essay does do a great job as sussing out the nuances of the meaning of apartheid, however, and makes it clear that Carter is not the first to use the word in relation to Israel and Palestine.
I admit, I was surprised Carter didn’t spend much time on the issues he raises with his choice of title. But I wouldn’t call the book a failure because of it. I liked the book quite a bit. I found his personal approach comfortable and enjoyable, it took the edge off a book that is filled with plenty to make anyone angry no matter what side you take. Carter manages to be, as Litlove puts it, a “conceptual diplomat.” Neither Israel, Palestine, their immediate neighbors, nor the United States, comes off looking good. But yet, I came away feeling sympathetic to everyone involved.
Perhaps if you are well-versed in the conflict you will probably not like this book very much. If you want depth and breadth, forest views and tree details, you will not like this book. But if you are like me and only know what you hear in the news and aren’t old enough to remember the six-day war in 1967, then Carter’s book might be a good place to start. It’s an overview, an outline, a summation of sorts.
There are no thought tantrums in this book. Carter does, at times, seem angry or frustrated, who can blame him? But you will find no polemic here. Maybe I am just imagining it, but it seemed I could hear his soft southern voice as I read, like we were having coffee together and he was telling me about what he knows of the Middle East and what he views as the issues that need to be solved. His title might be explosive, but he’s got people talking, which perhaps was his whole purpose in the first place.
Carter quotes Jonathan Kuttab, a Palestinian human rights lawyer, and I will leave with Kuttab’s words:
Everybody knows what it will take to achieve a permanent and lasting peace that addresses the basic interests of both sides: It’s a two-state solution. It’s withdrawal to 1967 borders. It’s dismantlement of the settlements. It’s some kind of shared status for a united Jerusalem, the capital of both parties. The West Bank and Gaza would have to be demilitarized to remove any security threats to Israel. Some kind of solution would have to be reached for the refugee problem, some qualified right of return, with compensation. Everyone knows the solution; the question is: Is there political will to implement it?
I don’t like hostile writing tones at all! “Conceptual diplomat” and “thought tantrums” are two wonderful ways to describe the ideal (and not so ideal)writer.
LikeLike
My understanding is that the publisher, not Carter, chose the title to get attention.
LikeLike
This really is the kind of book I should read. i am shockingly poor on my current affairs, and yet I do think I ought to have some understanding of the major conflicts in the world. Carter sounds like exactly the right man to explain this one to me.
LikeLike
I don’t think I would seek this book out, but I would probably read it if it came in my way. I recently read some historical fiction (blogged all about it–The Time of Green Ginger–about an earlier period in the history of Israel (WWII and post-war) which lays the groundwork for a lot of our current conflicts. The author’s voice was precisely as you describe–very even-handed, showing all points of view. It lacked however, any viable solution–merely explained why a solution is so very, very difficult to achieve.
LikeLike
My son’s halfway through the Carter and appears to be learning a lot. I’m looking forward to starting it.
Stefanie, did you see the article in the NYTimes earlier this week about the youth growing up in the West Bank? Very depressing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/world/middleeast/12intifada.html
(And does it bother you that there’s no colon in the title?)
LikeLike
I’m with Litlove — this is exactly the kind of book I should read. I’m grateful for books that offer the kind of introduction and overview you are talking about.
LikeLike
SS, those descriptive terms I owe all to Litlove. They work so well too.
Rod, I had not heard that. It makes sense though.
Litlove and Dorothy, Carter has been criticized for not delving into all the details, but I don’t think that was his goal anyway. As an introduction for readers who want to begin to understand what’s going on, I think Carter does a magnificient job. If I ever want to delve into it more I feel as though I have a base to start from.
Karen, The Time of Green Ginger sounds interesting. I will be checking out your review on it!
Susan, I did not see the NYTimes article. Thanks for the link! And yes, the missing colon in the title bugs me. I didn’t notice it was missing at first, just assumed it was there, but the NYRB essay mentions it and I’ve been bothered by it ever since.
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve also heard that it is publishers who come up with those incongruous, attention-getting titles.
Coincidentally I was reading about the 1967 war the other day and was surprised to learn that it was Israel that was attacked, and the land they took is all within the traditional confines of Israel. I don’t see how the Palestinians and the Arab states have the nerve to ask for that land back, considering that they were the *aggressors*. When did you ever hear about a nation that was attacked being the one to make war reparations? It would be like Germany demanding land from Poland in order to make peace after WWII. It’s absurd. No wonder the world isn’t buying it.
LikeLike
Anything to sell a book, eh Sylvia? I wonder how often the author’s title would be the better one?
Israel was on the defensive in the 1967 war, but it is my understanding that what is now considered the occupied territories–Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights–did not belong to Israel. UN Resolution 242 says as much and even Israel has agreed at various times to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, but they keep breaking their promise and the Palestinians get more violent, and nobody is willing to be the first to “give in.”
LikeLike
Oh yes, AFAIK the “occupied territories” didn’t belong to the modern state of Israel pre-1967, but they are obviously part of the traditional homeland of the Jews going back to biblical times. I don’t actually know how those areas got missed in the original creation of Israel. Back to the history books…
LikeLike
It is such a complex subject with a very long history it’s hard to keep track of it all. I will probably be reading more on it too.
LikeLike