Begin, Carter and Shiloh

"Prime Minister Begin: I want to discuss the question you raised about settlements. This is a very serious matter for us. I want to speak with candor. No settlements will be allowed to become obstacles to negotiations. Jews and Arabs live together in Jaffa, in Haifa. There are many towns named Hebron in the United States, and many named Bethel and Shiloh.

President: Just 20 miles from my home town there is a Bethel and a Shiloh, each of which has a Baptist Church!

Prime Minister Begin: Imagine the Governor of a state declaring that all American citizens except Jews could go to live in those towns. Can we be expected, as the government of Israel, to prevent a Jew from establishing his home in the original Bethel? In the original Shiloh? These will not be an obstacle to negotiation. The word “non-negotiable” is not in our vocabulary. But this is a great moral issue. We cannot tell Jews in their own land that they cannot settle in Shiloh. We cannot do that. This is a serious issue to us. One day I hope you will come to visit Shiloh.

President: I have already been to Bethel.

Prime Minister Begin: You will find it interesting to see Shiloh. There are many Biblical stories about it."

July 19, 1977

Shiloh and Jimmy Carter - 40 Years On

Shiloh, where I live with my wife and where my children were raised and grew up since September 1, 1981, is celebrating the 40th anniversary since its founding in 1978.  On the 1st of the Hebrew month of Shvat, January 9, 1978, the first 8 families and some Yeshiva students arrived and on the 15th, Tu B'shvat, the public ceremony was held.

At that time, Shmuel Katz ran against Haim Landau as a Minister in the new government, a Land of Israel Movement protest was being held outside the Prime Minister's office, Karnei Shomron's land was being prepared, Arik Sharon was planning expansion in the Rafiah Salient and the government was authorizing a limited settlement plan.  The Egyptians arrived in Jerusalem to continue the talks a few days before the founding ceremony with Buhtros Ghali, Ibrahim Kamal and also the American Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Alfred Atherton.

But there is a back story concerning the American administration that should be recalled in connection with the reestablishment of Jewish life in the Hills of Efraim, at the site of the Tabernacle.

Jimmy Carter and his aides were quite opposed to resettlement activity ion Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

On March 8, 1977, then Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin heard this from Carter:

However, with the Likud victory in the May elections two months later, Carter and Company were faced with a new challenge when Menachem Begin, a Land of Israel loyalist was elected.

They had a plan, though:

 On July 19, 1977, Begin came to the White House for a visit and spoke:

To return to Shiloh's founding.  Just at that time, Israel had a delegation in Cairo in a first round of talks following Anwar A-Sadat's Jerusalem visit in November. As Carter notes in his diary on January 30:

That idea of Begin breaking his word was cardinal to Carter and he demanded Shiloh be dismantled.

From William Quandt's book:

And as Jeremy Pressman has observed:

The United States was very concerned about Israeli settlements. When Carter met Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Ha’aretz reported, he told the Israeli prime minister “that the U.S. objects to any settlement in the occupied territories.”57 Carter, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis recalled, “viewed them as illegal and unjustified.”58 

In early May, Carter had U.S. officials privately protest the establishment of a new Israeli settlement at Mes’ha.59 In the summer of 1977, Vance privately told Israeli leaders the United States did not accept the “legitimacy” of settlements.60 In mid-1977, Begin promised Vance that Israel would limit itself to six to eight new settlements “on land within present military bases or on government-owned land.”61  After Israel approved three new settlements in August, Carter reminded Begin privately that settlements were illegal and that Carter might need to reaffirm publicly the 1967 border if Begin continued in this direction. The State Department also publicly condemned the Israeli move.62 

In a September 1977 meeting at the White House, Carter reminded Dayan that the “U.S. has always felt that Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal.” With Carter, Dayan promised settlers would only enter in six “military camps” – what Israel called Nahal units – and, more broadly, “no settlement would stand in the way of peace.” Carter reacted by saying he was “still quite concerned about settlements. We consider them to be in violation of the Geneva conference.”63 Dayan’s promise was “the second best and not the best.” The president also asked Dayan to minimize the publicity surrounding settlements or new settlers.64 

In early January 1978, Israel announced new settlements in Sinai, angering Carter and sparking another U.S. missive. In a letter to Begin a few days later, Carter clearly spelled out the U.S. position: “On numerous occasions since [September 26, 1967], United States representatives have expressed the disapproval of, and opposition to, the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories” because they contravene the Geneva convention and “are prejudicial to the achievement of a Middle East peace settlement.” Carter noted Dayan’s words the previous September. Later in the letter Carter warned Begin that it “would be particularly regrettable if a serious setback to the 20 current peace process were to be perceived as a result of Israeli action on settlements.”65 

For the rest of 1978, the Israeli government did not establish any more settlements.66 

In April 1978, Brzezinski was again reviewing the settlement situation for the president. For Begin, Brzezinski wrote, the Dayan statements were “no longer valid.” A different, temporary Israeli freeze also had “now ended.” Begin declined to stop West Bank settlements but would have “due regard for political considerations,” apparently a faint nod to U.S. opposition. Brzezinski concluded: “On ideological and political grounds, Begin is simply not prepared to agree to a full moratorium on all settlement activity. If we hope to persuade Begin to show restraint on this issue, we will have to remind him frequently of our strong opposition to further settlement activity.”67 U.S. officials recognized the Begin government’s deep attachment to the settlement project but were committed to continuing to try to slow it to help advance the diplomatic process...

57 Quandt to Brzezinski, “Israeli and Arab Reactions and Comments,” March 17, 1977, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 34, folder: “Israel 1-3/1977,” JCL. See also Quandt, Camp David, p. 45; and Carter, White House Diary, pp. 123, 125, 162, 167, 173, 176, 180.
58 Lewis interview, August 9, 1998.
59 In addition to calling in Israeli ambassador Simcha Dinitz, Secretary Vance raised the issue with Israeli Foreign Minister Yigal Allon on May 11, 1977. Brzezinski to Carter, “Israeli Settlement at Mes’ha and Vance-Allon Meeting,” May 16, 1977, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 34, folder: “Israel 4-6/77,” JCL. These exchanges were consistent with what Brzezinski told Carter to tell the U.S. Amb. to Israel, Samuel Lewis, regarding settlements: “We will continue to make our opposition to these policies known.” Brzezinski to Carter, “Your meeting with Ambassador Samuel Lewis, Wednesday, May 4, 1977, 2:00 pm,” same folder.
60 Sick to Brzezinski, “Summary of Vance’s Middle East Trip,” August 12, 1977, NLC-SAFE 16 A-13-18- 1-2, p. 6. 61 Sick to Brzezinski, “Summary of Vance’s Middle East Trip,” August 12, 1977, NLC-SAFE 16 A-13-18- 1-2, p. 5. On settlements, see also Quandt, Camp David, pp. 81, 83, 111.
62 Quandt, Camp David, p. 100.
63 On this draft transcript of the meeting, most or all of the word conference is crossed out and something is written above it. The word might be convention.
64 Transcript, “Meeting of Foreign Minister Day[an] with President Carter, Monday, 19 September 1977, at White House, Washington, D.C.,” BDP, Geographic, box 14, folder: “Middle East - Negotiations [9/75- 9/77], JCL, pp. 1-2, 11, 14-15; and Quandt to Brzezinski, “Aide Memoire,” September 20, 1977, NSA, 45 Brzezinski, Country file, Box 35, folder: “Israel 8-9/77,” JCL. For a brief assessment of Dayan’s promise, see Quandt to Brzezinski, “Israeli Settlements since September 1977,” memo, February 1, 1978, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 35, folder: “Israel 1-3/78,” JCL. Quandt also sent “a chronology of our most important private exchanges with the Israelis on the question of settlements” and noted that Carter “has frankly spoken out in press conferences about the illegality of the settlements.” See Quandt to Brzezinski, “Chronology on Discussions Concerning Settlements,” February 1, 1978, same location. The chronology itself was not in the folder but again suggests the frequent attention Carter officials paid to the settlement question. See also Quandt, Camp David, p. 113; and Moshe Dayan, Breakthroughs: A Personal Account of the Egypt-Israel Peace Negotiations (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981), pp. 59-63.
65 “White House to American Embassy, Tel Aviv,” January 10, 1978, NLC-16-101-3-2-7. See also Brzezinski to Carter, “Previous US Votes on UN Resolutions Concerning Israeli settlements,” October 27, 1977, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 35, folder: “Israel 11-12/77,” JCL; and Quandt, Camp David, p. 179.
66 Gush Emunim, an extra-parliamentary settlers’ movement, established one in late January in Shiloh. Quandt, Camp David, pp. 161-162.
67 Brzezinski to Carter, “Israeli Settlements,” April 19, 1978, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 35, folder: “Israel 4/78,” JCL. 

I myself have written thrice to Mr. Carter to come and visit to see what has developed here at Shiloh.

^ 

Rabin and Total Withdrawal Not

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin conversing with US President Jimmy Carter, March 7, 1977

We are ready however, for territorial compromise, but we do not accept the principle of total withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines. The location of the lines can be negotiated. The bulk of Sinai can be given back. As for Golan, even in a peace agreement, we do not want to come down from the Golan Heights. The West Bank is the most delicate issue. We just had a Labor Party convention in which there was a long argument over this issue. We concluded that for peace, we would make territorial compromises on all fronts. But it is not so easy. General Dayan put forward a reservation concerning the West Bank and a close vote was held. Out of 1,200 participants, a majority of only 51 came out for our position on territorial compromise. So it is not an easy problem. Our policy is that we will not draw lines. Once this is done, it becomes the basis for later bargaining. There have been no Cabinet decisions on final borders. But this will be an issue in the campaign. The tendency in Israeli public opinion is not to give too much, to put it mildly. But if the public could see a concrete offer, if negotiations were underway, and if we were on the verge of peace, then we would have some room for maneuver. But not for total withdrawal. Ninety percent of the Israeli public would reject that, and we are a democracy.


In Sinai, Sharm al-Shaikh is one point. We do not require sovereignty, but we require a presence and control. Two wars began over navigation there, 1956 and 1967. Our people would ask, if we returned Sharm al-Shaikh, whether there would be more wars there. So we need control, not sovereignty, and a land connection, as well as some changes in the old international boundary between Egypt and the Palestine Mandate. Those lines, after all, were changed in 1906. The British pushed the Ottoman Empire to give up part of Sinai to Egypt. Before 1906, the international boundary between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt was different....

...I cannot say anything about the West Bank, but for peace, we would be prepared for a territorial compromise. But not for full withdrawal. There are sharp differences within Israel. 

^

Being Part of History

Shiloh, my home village, is mentioned several times in the latest volume of the FRUS*.

Like here:

That was from a meeting at the White House on July 19, 1977.

Here are two other references:

and

We're still at Shiloh.

I invited Mr. Carter several times to visit us.  He hasn't.

History is not only what you learn.

History is not only what you study.

History, at times, is what you do.

__________

*

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977-1980: Volume VIII: Arab-Israeli Dispute, January 1977-August 1978   

U.S. Dept. of State, Office of the Historian, October 2013 (1365 pages)    

The volume begins in January 1977, and documents the administration’s immediate efforts to find a comprehensive settlement between Israel and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, and to seek a resolution for Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. The first part of the volume documents the administration’s initiatives to reconvene the Geneva Conference, which was first established in December 1973 to find a comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute. After talks with the various parties stagnated and Sadat made his momentous visit to Jerusalem in November 1977, the administration came to view a bilateral negotiation between Egypt and Israel as the most realistic avenue to an eventual settlement. Accordingly, the portion of the volume covering the period from December 1977 to August 1978 documents the ways in which the administration worked to find a path to a bilateral peace agreement that would also include limited self-rule for Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. The volume concludes with the White House announcement of a summit to be held at Camp David, Maryland in September 1978, where U.S. officials would work in seclusion with Egyptian and Israeli officials in an attempt to produce an agreement.

^

Jimmy Carter's 1000 Year Peace Right of Israel

I found this in the minutes of the July 20, 1977 meeting between then US President Jummy Carter and then Israel Prime Minister Menachem Begin:

Where have I read that "1000 year" phrase before?

^

Here Comes Ruthie

Get ready.

Ruthie Blum (caveat: we are not related but know each other well and I extract from her Israel Hayom columns.) has a book coming out.

Here:

To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the "Arab Spring" [Paperback]
Ruthie Blum
RVP Press
Publication Date: August 2, 2012

To Hell in a Handbasket is a chilling account of how Jimmy Carter’s abandonment of a longtime U.S. ally in favor of a murderous mullah thirty years ago enabled the Islamization of Iran—and how Barack Obama’s current oblivion to and appeasement of the radical Muslim world are helping to Islamize the rest of the Middle East.

I await the book launch.

^

Assassinate Obama?

Oh, well, at least I'm not this, well, meshuganneh:-

Newspaper publisher apologises for saying Israel should consider assassinating Obama

The publisher of a Jewish newspaper who suggested that Israel assassinate Barack Obama in a weekly column, has apologised. Andrew Adler made the controversial statement in the Atlanta Jewish Times, a paper which serves the Jewish community in Atlanta, U.S. He claimed ordering an assassination of President Obama could be one of three ways to protect the people of Israel.

Mr Adler suggested that attacking Hezbollah and Hamas or ordering the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities were also a possibility.

In the original article, he said: 'Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence...Mr Adler has now issued a formal apology...'I very much regret it, I wish I hadn't made reference to it at all,' he said to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency...Mr Adler admitted that he had been an 'idiot' for writing it and said he had put his 'pen in my mouth', according to ABC.

The secret service has said that Adler's comments would be followed up but would not say if a formal investigation had been launched.

Is Atlanta close to where Jimmy Carter lives?

^

Ever Though About Suing Jimmy Carter?

You must read this legal document.

The story (k/t: TedB):-

FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER NAMED IN CLASS ACTION SUIT FILED IN NEW YORK COURT ALLEGING DECEPTIONS AND FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS IN BOOK ATTACKING ISRAEL

NEW YORK: An historic class action suit has been filed against former President Jimmy Carter and the Simon & Schuster publishing company alleging that Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, contained numerous false and knowingly misleading statements intended to promote the author’s agenda of anti-Israel propaganda and to deceive the reading public instead of presenting accurate information as advertised. The suit, captioned Unterberg et al. v. Jimmy Carter et.al (11 cv 0720), filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs, who hope to have the case certified as a class action, are members of the reading public who purchased Carter’s book expecting that they were buying an accurate and factual record of historic events concerning Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The lawsuit contends that Carter, who holds himself out as a Middle-East expert, and his publisher, intentionally presented untrue and inaccurate information and sought to capitalize on the author’s status as a former President to mislead unsuspecting members of the public. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ misrepresentations, all highly critical of Israel, violate New York consumer protection laws, specifically New York General Business Law § 349, which makes it unlawful to engage in deceptive acts in the course of conducting business. While acknowledging Carter’s right to publish his personal views, the plaintiffs assert that the defendants violated the law and, thus, harmed those who purchased the book.

The suit is the first time a former President and a publishing house have been sued for violating consumer protection laws by knowingly publishing inaccurate information while promoting a book as factual.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney David Schoen, Esq. of Montgomery, Alabama and attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Esq. of Tel-Aviv, Israel.

Well, well.

He Should Be In A Cage

In Damascus, Syria, Jimmy Carter said today that:

Palestinians are "living in a cage" in Gaza and that the militant group Hamas must be included in all major efforts for peace.

..."We believe that Hamas should be included in all the major efforts to peace ... It is part of the Palestinian people," Carter said. He added that "1.5 million Palestinians are held in a cage or prison while their human rights are taken away."

A padded cage.

And talking of asses, you saw this?

- - -

A Really Not Acceptable Apology

Jimmy Carter, contrite, has sent the JTA an apology for his words about Israel.

He wrote:

we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done s

May?

Hey, Jimmy, you lost an assistant, were demonstrated against and had public criticism of you, your writings and much more plastered all over the place.

You knew your words stigmatized Israel, presented a wrong image and degraded Jewish nationalism. Words like these.

Remember this caricature?

Even Chavez quoted you.

P.S.

For this though, you get a Chanukah latke:

Carter said that the settlement bloc would remain under Israeli control.

"This particular settlement area is not one that I can envision ever being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory. This is part of settlements close to the 1967 (border) line that I think will be here for ever," he said in the garden of Goldstein's house.

P.P.S.

I'd love to know which renegade Jew taught him that Al Chet bit.

So, Jimmy Carter Is A...

(Kippah tip: ML)

And don't forget this.

What Was That That Jimmy Said About Obama?

What was it that he said?

Ah, yes, here it is:

Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that Representative Joe Wilson’s outburst last week during President Barack Obama’s speech to Congress was an act “based on racism” and rooted in fears of a black president.

“I think it’s based on racism,” Mr. Carter said at a town-hall-style meeting at his presidential center in Atlanta. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

Well, I guess that leaves us with this:

I wonder if the Indians Native Americans have anything to say -

Carter Can't

Jimmy Carter displays, er, what's the opposite of wisdom and knowledge?

In his Washington Post op-ed, he writes about

...the two-state solution, which already has the firm commitment of the U.S. government and the other members of the "Quartet" (Russia and the United Nations). Solana [Javier Solana, secretary general of the Council of the European Union] proposes that the United Nations recognize the pre-1967 border between Israel and Palestine, and deal with the fate of Palestinian refugees and how Jerusalem would be shared...

A more likely alternative to the present debacle is one state, which is obviously the goal of Israeli leaders who insist on colonizing the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. By renouncing the dream of an independent Palestine, they would become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbors and then demand equal rights within a democracy. In this nonviolent civil rights struggle, their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

They are aware of demographic trends. Non-Jews are already a slight majority of total citizens in this area, and within a few years Arabs will constitute a clear majority.

A two-state solution is clearly preferable and has been embraced at the grass roots.

a) his demographics are off as well as his 'trends'. see here and also here and also here.

b) fate of refugees? no right of return, though. and they won't accept that.

c) pre-67 borders? will the Pals., as aggressors, accept a territorial compromise?

d) Israel doesn't colonize it's own homeland.

e) equal rights? no more than what Jews get in the Arabs states for a start.

f) non-violence? you gotta be kidding.

g) grass-roots grasped? not really. they go for the Islamic antisemitism of monkeys and dogs and pygmies.

Remember Carter in Gush Etzion?

I blogged about his visit here.

The photographic proof:



Shaul Goldstein, Gush Etzion
Jimmy Carter, Atlanta

On Jimmy Carter's Visit To Gush Etzion

An op-ed by my friend, Toby, a Gush Etzion resident, on Jimmy as a modern Bil'am*:

Jimmy Carter, an unwilling Bilaam

And I fully identify with this:

One man wrote, after the visit, "I've always said that we should reach out and provide hospitality to VIPs, diplomats and reporters."

*

Numbers 22-24

Shaul Goldstein Did It

AFP:-

Former US president Jimmy Carter on Sunday made a rare visit to a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank which he said "will be here for ever," despite Palestinian claims to the territory.

Carter, a staunch opponent of the settlements, travelled to Neve Daniel in Gush Etzion, a large settlement bloc south of Jerusalem which Israel hopes to keep in any future Middle East peace deal.

He said he came "to make sure they (the settlers) understand my own attitude towards Israel, the Jewish population across the world and the Jewish settlements."

Speaking at the end of a meeting with Shaul Goldstein, the head of the Gush Etzion regional council, Carter said that the settlement bloc would remain under Israeli control.

"This particular settlement area is not one that I can envision ever being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory. This is part of settlements close to the 1967 (border) line that I think will be here for ever," he said in the garden of Goldstein's house.

Media Line:-

“I have been very fortunate this afternoon in learning a perspective that I didn’t have,” said Carter.

And they downloaded an audio, if you don't believe the media.

More background here.

Goldstein Will Host Carter

Carter to hold rare meeting with settler leader

Former United States president Jimmy Carter is planning a rare meeting with a settler leader in the West Bank during his visit to Israel this weekend, the Carter Center announced Wenesday. Carter will meet with Shaul Goldstein, an official of the Yesha Council of Settlements, at his West Bank home on Sunday.

Aw, peanuts.

Oh, No, Carter Is Coming

The Carter Center said Tuesday that [Jimmy] Carter will arrive in Jerusalem from Damascus toward the end of this week. His first meeting in Israel will be with Noam Schalit, father of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit, who has been held by Hamas militants for three years.

Carter also will meet with representatives on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, take a listening tour of a West Bank settlement, appear before a Knesset committee and meet with President Shimon Peres.

Which community will he visit?

Maybe Shiloh which he tried to dismantle back in the beginning of 1978?

;->)

From A Carter Interview

Jimmy Carter interviewed by Akiba Eldar:

Do you believe it's also an American blunder that, in spite of U.S. policy and warnings and messages, the settlements kept growing and they keep growing actually as we speak?

"That's true. When I first visited the West Bank and the Golan Heights in 1973, I think there were only 1,500 Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. I think that [the expansion] happened particularly in the last 16 years. George Bush, Sr. was very strict in deterring, I think, then-prime minister [Yitzhak] Shamir from building settlements, and even withheld several hundred million dollars in U.S. aid from Israel because of a large settlement between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. And Shamir backed down because of that. But under president [Bill] Clinton and president George W. Bush, the settlements have not been deterred by influence from the United States, which is a mistake."

Carter is asked whether, after the traumatic evacuation of Gush Katif, it would be possible to remove approximately 120,000-130,000 settlers from the West Bank, and whether NATO countries will go along with his proposal to send forces there.

He says he definitely believes that, within the context of a peace agreement, Israel will evacuate settlements. He also does not discount the possibility that U.S. forces could "assure that during the transition period, there wouldn't be any threats to Israel from Palestinians or to Palestinians from Israel."

Happy Is He Who Believes.

But don't bet on it.

On Jimmy Carter's New Book

Jimmy Carter has published a new book, WE CAN HAVE PEACE IN THE HOLY LAND: A Plan That Will Work and the New York Times gave it to leftwinger Gershom Gorenberg to review.

Here's something I want to comment on:

A beginning student of the Middle East should not learn diplomatic history from this text. In Carter’s telling, the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat went to Jerusalem at his prodding. More objective accounts portray Sadat as making an end run around Carter’s stubborn intent to reconvene the Geneva peace conference.

...The agreement with Egypt arguably improved Israel’s security as much as any other single event in its history. Yet a portion of American Jewry has never forgiven Carter for his success. This hints at a key lacuna in Carter’s agenda: though he got into the peacemaking business as a politician, he gives too little attention to the need for building political support for a diplomatic initiative — among voters at home as much as among Israelis and ­Palestinians.

Indirectly, Carter’s title also hints at a second lacuna. Looking for a neutral name for the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, he chooses “Holy Land,” a phrase from Christian tradition. Carter’s perspective is explicitly religious. Though that can irritate secular observers, it has served him well. His faith helped him build personal connections both to Sadat and to the Israeli ­leader Menachem Begin, despite Begin’s intransigence. Yet when he finally presents his outline of a peace agreement here, he makes no new, creative proposal for the future of the holy place claimed by Jews as the Temple Mount and by Muslims as Haram al-Sharif. Given Carter’s sensitivity to religious issues, this is surprising and disappointing.

My comments:

a) "arguably". Well, that's an understatement. True, no war but there have been terror attacks and most of the Hamas arms are coming in through Egypt, stored there and transported to Rafah.

b) "a portion of American Jewry". That's a snide swipe at Jews who support the legitimate right of Jews to live in their homeland, who care for Israel's security and who campaign for US support for those policies as America, unlike Gorenberg it might seem, is democratic. The old "ost-juden"* complaint: it's them you should be angry at, not me who is grovelling to be accepted by liberal and progressive forces.

c) "'Holy Land', a phrase from Christian tradition". Of course, the Land of Israel is refered to in Jewish tradition as אדמת הקודש - the Holy Land but why should Gershom as a Jew know that? There is a verse that refers to Sinai where God's presence is immanent: "של נעליך מעל רגליך, כי המקום אשר אתה עומד עליו אדמת קודש הוא"
in Exodus 3:5: ...take your shoes off your feet, for the place upon which you stand is holy ground.' And since the land of Israel is where the Divine Presence is, then Eretz-Yisrael became the Holy Land. As the Prophet Zechariah 2:16 wrote ונחל יהוה את-יהודה חלקו, על אדמת הקודש; ובחר עוד, בירושלים and in English: And the LORD shall inherit Judah as His portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. And this verse in Isaiah 14:2, וְהִתְנַחֲלוּם בֵּית-יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל אַדְמַת יְה-ה - and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD. The exact term Eretz-Yisrael is in I Samuel 13:19. (Here's a 1913 book in Hebrew on The Holy Land although the Hebrew word for Land is adama rather than eretz).

Of course, if he had used "Judea and Samaria", Gorenberg would have gone ballistic.

d) and leave the Temple Mount to us.

-------------

*
"...the poor, despised Ostjuden, who [in the early 20th Century] were pouring into Western Europe in flight from the Russian pogroms.”