Progressive Political News

If both are confirmed, Kies would work alongside Scott Bessent as Trump pushes an extension of regressive 2017 tax cuts.

The late President Jimmy Carter was not a particularly progressive President, but his exemplary service as a peacemaker and humanitarian since leaving office has resulted in an outpouring of heartfelt tributes following his death at the age of 100 on December 28. During his final years, however, the Nobel Peace Laureate was met with intense criticism for insisting that standards of peace, human rights, and international law should apply not just to countries hostile to U.S. interests, but to U.S. allies like Israel as well.

Particularly controversial was Carter’s 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which went on to be a New York Times bestseller, in which he argued against Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank, the Palestinian territory seized during the 1967 during a war that the international community had hoped would form the basis for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Carter was a liberal Christian Zionist who believed passionately in Israel’s right to exist as a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Like many left and liberal Jewish Zionists, however, he argued that the continued occupation and colonization of the West Bank would make a viable two-state solution impossible, and that Israel would be forced to choose between allowing for democratic governance in all the areas they controlled—meaning Jews would thereby be a minority, and Israel would no longer be a Jewish state—or imposing an apartheid system akin to the one instituted in South Africa prior to its democratic transition in 1994.

Carter was falsely accused of referring to Israel as an apartheid state, when he had explicitly stated otherwise. He was referring only to the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where the establishment of Jewish-only roads, Jewish-only settlements, and other strict segregation policies do resemble the old South African system.

In reality, the main objection of Carter’s critics was that he dared criticize the Israeli government, a recipient of tens of billions of dollars’ worth of unconditional taxpayer-funded military equipment from U.S. arms manufacturers. 

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid received overwhelmingly negative media coverage following its release. The Washington Post accused Carter of harboring a “hostility to Israel” in part for allegedly failing to note, according to reviewer Jeffrey Goldberg, that the Israeli government “dearly wants to give up the bulk of its West Bank settlements.” In reality, the illegal settlements have continued to expand since 2006, and the Israeli government has reiterated that they are there to stay.

An article in The New York Times about the reaction to the book included a number of quotes from pro-Israel organizations attacking it, while failing to quote a single Palestinian or Palestinian American source.

The Democratic Party leadership was also hostile to the book. In a rare rebuke by another former President of the same party, Bill Clinton, ignoring Carter’s frequent trips to and extensive knowledge of Israel and Palestine, wrote “I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) came from” and insisted “it’s not factually correct and it’s not fair.”

Howard Dean, then chair of the Democratic National Committee, also voiced his disagreement with Carter’s analysis. Representative Nancy Pelosi, who was about to become Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, declared, “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.” She added, “We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever.”

Former Presidents have almost always been granted an opportunity to speak at their party’s subsequent conventions, but in apparent reaction to the book, Carter’s appearance at the 2008 Democratic National Convention was limited to a video clip speaking in praise of nominee Barack Obama and interviewing survivors of Hurricane Katrina. Carter also only appeared in short video clips at the 2012 and 2016 conventions. 

In 2022, Joe Biden named Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt to be the U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism. Lipstadt had previously accused Carter of engaging in “traditional antisemitic canards” and compared him to the notorious antisemite and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. 

But while the Democratic Party has mostly maintained its pro-Israel stance since the publication of the book, Carter’s words now appear quite prescient and reflect a growing international consensus. In 2022, Amnesty International published a 281-page report making a compelling case that Israel practices a form of apartheid towards the Palestinians. Human Rights Watch published a similarly detailed study the previous year reaching the same conclusion. B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, also released an extensive report documenting the Israeli government’s imposition of apartheid. Similar conclusions have been reached by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories. This past July, the International Court of Justice, in an advisory opinion, also found that Israel’s ongoing and multiple violations of international humanitarian law constitutes apartheid. 

A number of Carter’s former critics, including a board member of the Carter Center who resigned in protest following the publication of the book, have since apologized and acknowledged that the former President was correct. No one in the Democratic Party leadership has yet done so.

Indeed, very few of Carter’s critics have been willing to demand an end to Israel’s settlements and segregation policies in the West Bank or acknowledge that these colonial outposts in the occupied territories constitute a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a series of unanimous U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Since Carter wrote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid eighteen years ago, the number of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories has more than doubled, most of them surrounding Palestinian cities and towns in a manner that would make the establishment of a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible.

As a result, many Palestinians and others who once supported a two-state solution have concluded it is too late and are now demanding a single democratic state with equal rights for both peoples between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Similarly, increasing numbers of Jewish people in the United States and elsewhere now believe that the Zionist movement has become hopelessly dominated by overt racists, and have renounced Zionism altogether. 

Carter warned that the choice before Israel was “peace or apartheid.” The Israeli government and its backers in Washington have chosen apartheid—but people across the world have not given up on the peace Carter envisioned.

Gaza is a territory spanning 25 miles at its longest point, where the displaced are sheltering in tents on the beach.

Israeli military authorities have said that they intend to block Palestinians from ever returning to north Gaza.

On December 16, in Madison, Wisconsin, fifteen-year-old Natalie Rupnow shot and killed two other people before taking her own life. Authorities quickly discovered that she had allegedly plotted the attack with Alexander Paffendorf, a twenty-year-old California man who admitted to having his own plan to arm himself with a gun and explosives and target a government building. 

What happened next illustrates how state laws can help—or hinder—efforts to prevent mass shootings.

Police, invoking California’s red-flag law, were able to immediately issue an emergency protective order requiring Paffendorf to surrender any firearms in his possession, potentially avoiding additional tragedy.

Red-flag laws are civil, not criminal, processes that authorize emergency orders to temporarily restrict a person’s access to firearms if there is significant concern that the person is a danger to themselves or others. While these laws vary, twenty-one states have some version in effect. Wisconsin, where the shooting took place, does not. 

Without a red-flag law, in many jurisdictions, police generally can’t separate someone from their guns until after a crime has been committed. While Paffendorf would have been arrested in any state once it was discovered that he was plotting an attack, if he lived in Wisconsin rather than California, the authorities would have had to build a criminal case against him before initially restricting his access to firearms. This could have taken more time, perhaps a few days, and there’s no telling how he might have used it.

In my work as an emergency department doctor, I care for teenagers and adults who are referred for psychiatric evaluations when they threaten to harm others or manifest other expressions of homicidal ideation, but they are not charged with a crime unless they took concrete steps to plan or implement an attack. 

Red-flag laws allow law enforcement—and in some jurisdictions, clinicians, family members, and other professionals—to petition for a protective civil action when we become aware of threats or concerning patterns of behavior that could pose a danger to others. Without laws like these, there is little we can do to prevent violence from occurring even when we know a person’s mental health is unstable or they have made a credible threat, unless their threat or actions already amount to a crime.

It’s not a crime to have a mental health crisis—nor should it be. But refusing to separate someone from their firearms until they spiral to the point of committing a crime is clearly poor planning. Unfortunately, red-flag laws have been the target of considerable political misinformation and alarmism. 

To be clear, under most red-flag laws, separation of a person at risk from their firearms is typically temporary; it requires due process of law and a hearing, and the restriction can be lifted once it becomes clear that a risk is no longer present or was not present in the first place. In most states, the gun owner retains control of the disposition of their firearms; guns typically can be stored with a licensed firearms dealer or the local police. In some states, they can even be sold for the gunowner’s profit or stored with a friend.

Due to the federal Dickey Amendment, which blocked most research about gun violence, data on red-flag laws are limited. Still, they do show significant promise in reducing firearm-related suicides. The recent launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center by the Department of Justice, which will highlight emerging practices to prevent risk, should help us better understand the impact of red-flag laws and develop best practices around them to ensure they precisely target people at high risk of violence while remaining equitable and just.  

As Madison, Wisconsin, processes yet another needless shooting, we should take stock of lessons learned. Red-flag laws are an emerging component of our response to gun violence and can help prevent a personal crisis from devolving into a public tragedy. They deserve the attention and support of anyone who cares about public safety and responsible gun ownership. 

This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.

After a deadly vehicle-ramming attack in New Orleans, Louisiana, during the New Year holiday, president-elect Donald Trump has falsely insinuated that the mass killing was carried out by an immigrant, despite the fact that the accused perpetrator was a U.S.-born citizen. Shamsud-Din Jabbar, who is also a U.S. Army veteran, drove his vehicle onto Bourbon…

The network said the move is an attempt to dissuade it from covering the rapidly escalating events taking place.

The population has declined by 160,000 people since October 2023, with at least 45,000 people killed by Israeli attacks.

This piece was originally published in the May 2008 issue of The Progressive magazine.

I recently got to observe Jimmy Carter in action. I attended a global conference on the public’s right to information at the Carter Center in Atlanta at the end of February 2008. I was there for the full three days, and saw Carter intimately participate in the conference. Looking much older than the President I remembered from my childhood, Carter still attended to the details, and was involved in a number of sessions. He even suggested a few amendments for the final declaration to emerge from the conference.

His work through the Carter Center has cemented his reputation for having perhaps the best post-presidency ever in U.S. history. From conflict resolution and election monitoring to fighting disease and defending human rights, the Carter Center has done substantial work on a number of fronts in its twenty-five years of existence. Carter’s latest book, Beyond the White House: Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Building Hope, is a chronicle of the various efforts that Carter has spearheaded since leaving office. And at the age of eighty-three, he still maintains a hectic schedule. Whether it’s traveling to the Middle East as part of a peace mission with Kofi Annan and Mary Robinson or heading to Nepal to monitor elections in that country, he stays involved. 

Such post-presidential endeavors helped Carter get the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, even as the Nobel Committee acknowledged his presidential accomplishments such as the Camp David Accords and the Panama Canal Treaty. 

Carter has refused to observe the self-imposed code of silence that has prevented other ex-Presidents from criticizing the policies of the incumbent. He has been particularly critical of the Iraq War, opposing it from before its start and calling it “a war based on lies.” 

But Carter hasn’t stopped there. On subjects ranging from North Korea and Cuba to Israel/Palestine and global warming, he has taken public positions that are very much at variance with Bush’s, describing the Bush Administration’s foreign policy as “the worst in history.”

Carter has faced the most intense criticism in recent years for his penultimate book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Fourteen members of the Carter Center’s advisory board resigned in protest. Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman said Carter “was engaging in anti-Semitism.” Democratic Party leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and John Conyers distanced themselves from the book.

But Carter’s reputation remains intact. It has been helped along by director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia), who shadowed Carter during his book tour to make Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains, released a few months ago and just out on DVD.

At the right to information conference, Carter was in fine form. The Bush Administration has classified more secrets than any other in U.S. history, Carter stated in his speech at the opening session, pointing out that even ex-Presidents are constrained by this regime of secrecy from declassifying papers pertaining to their own Presidencies. “I look forward to more freedom from January onward,” Carter said. At the closing session, Carter remarked that “under the present Administration, the [penchant for secrecy] has gone to extremes. They’re putting a secret stamp on almost every paper they can find.” Carter then went on to mock Dick Cheney for the Vice President’s assertion, in an attempt to keep his papers secret, that he belongs to both the legislative and the executive branch.

As soon as the conference ended, I was whisked into his office for an interview while the Secret Service waited outside. The office, tastefully stacked with knick-knacks and mementoes, overlooks a garden and a pond. Carter and I sat on adjacent sofas. He was pleasant and warm and exhibited flashes of his memorable smile during the interview. He answered questions precisely and genially in that famous soft Southern lilt of his. “I’ve heard good things about this periodical,” he said when I gave him copies of The Progressive as we bade farewell.

Q: How has the post-presidency been different from your presidential years?

Jimmy Carter: I don’t think they would be comparable. As the President for four years, I was Commander in Chief of a massive military. I had three million people working under me in different ways in the U.S. government structure. I had authority to help pass laws and to negotiate treaties. I don’t have any of these authorities now, and I don’t need them. My life since the White House has been much more all-encompassing, much more enjoyable. The main thing that I’ve acquired in the last twenty-seven years has been access to the poorest and most destitute, forgotten, and suffering people on Earth. It’s not possible for a President to actually know them. But we go into the remote areas of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and actually meet with people who are suffering and find out why. Then we try to work with them, giving them maximum responsibility for correcting their own problems. So that’s the element that’s been most beneficial to me.

Q: You’ve been known as an advocate of human rights. Have the policies of the current Administration made this more difficult?

Carter: I would say more necessary. What’s been done in the last seven years is embarrassing to an American. What we have done through our own government is to torture prisoners, to deprive them of their basic rights to legal counsel, even the right of prisoners to be acquainted with the charges against them. Those kinds of things have been cherished as basic principles of American law and American policy for more than 200 years. To have them subverted and abandoned and condemned is just a travesty of justice and a very serious embarrassment to those of us who—as Americans and non-Americans—are committed to human rights.

Q: As someone who brokered the Camp David Accords, what are your thoughts on the November Annapolis Middle East conference?

Carter: I had hopes that something would come of it. So far, nothing has happened. The situation in the Holy Land—in Palestine and Israel—has not been substantially improved. The Palestinian community has been deliberately divided, one part from another, with support from both the United States and Israel. I don’t see any substantive talks taking place with United States involvement. On occasion, I think every couple of weeks or something like that, the prime minister of Israel meets with the leader of the Palestinian community, Mahmoud Abbas. But, so far as I know, they are not making

any progress. I hope that will change.

Q: What should be done?

Carter: I don’t think there’s any way for them to make substantive progress without strong influence and support and attention from the United States of America. So far as I know, the United States has not participated in any of those discussions. The world community knows the basic principles of a solution. It’s all been written out. The Arab countries unanimously—all twenty-two of them—have publicly announced that they would recognize Israel diplomatically and economically, if Israel will withdraw from the [occupied] territories and implement the basic United Nations resolutions.

It will take a lot of influence—strong influence—from the United States to make both sides come to that point.

Q: You’ve worked a lot on preventable diseases and have advocated a substantial increase in U.S. foreign aid. What would it take to eradicate diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria?

Carter: That’s one area where the Bush Administration has done a good job. President Bush has certainly advocated a dramatic increase of development assistance, particularly dealing with AIDS and malaria and, maybe, tuberculosis, and I’m very proud of that. As you know, standards have been raised for every rich country in the world to give a certain portion of their gross national product to developmental assistance. We haven’t yet reached the point that Norway and Sweden and Denmark and other countries have reached, but I think we’ve made good progress in the last few years.

Q: You made a famous trip to Cuba in 2002. With the resignation of Fidel Castro, Cuba is at a turning point. What should U.S. policy toward Cuba be now?

Carter: I would like to see the next Administration in January 2009 take the same steps that I took when I became President. I immediately lifted all restraints on travel to and from Cuba. I began to ease off on the very punitive economic embargo against the Cuban people, and we established the first phase of full diplomatic relations with Cuba with an interest section in Havana and Washington. Those offices are still there. So I would hope that the next Administration would do this. As a matter of fact, a majority of the members of the House and Senate are in favor of lifting travel restraints and easing the terms of the embargo. But they haven’t seen the necessity of passing legislation because a Bush veto is certain. They don’t have enough votes to override a veto. I think that with the next President—whether it is Republican or Democratic—they’ll have a good chance to do that.

Q: Any comments on the [2008] Democratic primary?

Carter: I’ll be glad when we have our choice made. We have two outstanding candidates, and they are very close in the number of delegates they have and in the number of votes they’ve had. I am a superdelegate, and I’ve refrained from expressing a preference between the two. But I’ll be going to the convention in Denver, and I will be trying to make sure that the candidate we choose is not only the best person to be the President but will also be the kind of person who can hold our country together.