What Carter Can Do for Peace

Jimmy Carter has a column in today’s Washington Post that continues his misrepresentation of the diplomatic record regarding Israel.  Carter writes that:

[Condoleezza Rice] has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace:  full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the "road map" for peace developed by the "quartet" (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

Contrary to Carter’s assertion, neither “official U.S. policy,” nor the 1978 and 1993 peace agreements, nor the road map call for a return by Israel to the 1967 “Auschwitz borders.”  U.S. policy — both in the past and today — contemplates that the parties will negotiate borders that respect Israel’s security requirements, and the U.S. has officially stated that any Palestinian expectation of a full return to the 1967 borders is “unrealistic” in light of, among other things, the major Israeli population centers currently on the West Bank.  Carter’s position is disingenuous at best; Scott Johnson’s characterization is less diplomatic but may be more accurate.

The “official U.S. policy” is set forth most recently in the April 14, 2004 letter from President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon  — which Carter never mentions in his book nor references in his article, nor ever discusses in any of his media appearances.  The assurances to Israel in that letter were the basis of the Gaza Disengagement Deal, and thus represent not only official U.S. “policy” but an official U.S. commitment to Israel.

Carter also never mentions that the 2002 Arab plan calls for full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the “remaining occupied Lebanese territories,” East Jerusalem, and for a “right of return” to Israel, all in exchange for a promise of peace.  Carter could perform a useful service for peace by disabusing the Palestinians and their allies of their unrealistic expectations, and by publishing an article endorsing what the U.S. formally stated on April 14, 2004:

It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.