The book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006) by former president Jimmy Carter has been highly controversial and attracted a wide range of commentary. The reception of the book has itself raised further controversy, occasioning Carter's own subsequent responses to such criticism.
Critical response to Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid around the time of release in 2006 was mixed. Some journalists and academics have praised what they regard as Carter's courage for speaking honestly about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a media environment which is hostile to opponents of Israel's policies. Others, however, have been more negative. According to Julie Bosman, criticism of the book "has escalated to a full-scale furor", much of which has focused on Carter's use of the word apartheid in the subtitle. Some of the book's critics, including several leaders of the Democratic Party and of American Jewish organizations, have interpreted the subtitle as an allegation of Israeli apartheid, which they believe to be inflammatory and unsubstantiated.
Notable positive reactions
Journalists and other media commentators
In his review published on October 15, 2006, Brad Hooper, editor at Booklist, concludes: "The former president's ideas are expressed with perfect clarity; his book, of course, represents a personal point of view, but one that is certainly grounded in both knowledge and wisdom. His outlook on the problem not only contributes to the literature of debate surrounding it but also, just as importantly, delivers a worthy game plan for clearing up the dilemma." Israeli historian and author Tom Segev believes his principal argument is "well-founded".
Raja Shehadeh, a lawyer and author, including of Occupier's Law: Israel and the West Bank, regards Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid as a "fresh debate" on Israel's policies in the West Bank. Shehadeh believes that "With his well documented book and its provocative title, Carter is working to achieve 'one of the major goals of [his] life' as he makes clear at the outset of his book: 'to help ensure a lasting peace for Israelis and others in the Middle East.
Robert Fisk declares that the book is "a good, strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood", adding: "Needless to say, the American press and television largely ignored the appearance of this eminently sensible book – until the usual Israeli lobbyists began to scream abuse at poor old Jimmy Carter, albeit that he was the architect of the longest lasting peace treaty between Israel and an Arab neighbour – Egypt – secured with the famous 1978 Camp David accords."
Carl L. Brown in Foreign Affairs writes: "This book offers a historical overview in the form of a personal memoir, tracing developments since the 1970s as Carter experienced and understood them. He may thus be said to be both a source for the historian and himself a historian of the Israeli–Palestinian confrontation. This little book merits a reading on both counts. Carter concludes that 'Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.' That statement, so out of line with the way mainstream American political figures (even those retired from public office) frame the issue, ensures that the book will be attacked by many. Perhaps it will be read as well."
Ian Black, Middle East editor at The Guardian, writes "Controversy about the book flows largely from the word "apartheid" in the title: it is wrong if applied to Israel within its pre-1967 borders, where there is discrimination but not institutionalised racism. In the West Bank, with its confiscated land, unequal allocation of water resources, fortress-like settlements, security fence and segregated roads, it is fitting enough. No one who has seen subjugated Palestinians struggling with everyday life alongside armed Jewish settlers can quarrel with it".
In his blog, Tony Karon, a senior editor at Time and a former anti-apartheid activist for the ANC, states "The point being that Jimmy Carter had to write this book precisely because Palestinian life and history is not accorded equal value in American discourse, far from it. And his use of the word apartheid is not only morally valid; it is essential, because it shakes the moral stupor that allows many liberals to rationalize away the daily, grinding horror being inflicted on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza".