http://www.mycen.com.my/malaysia/blog.html
http://e-directory.com.my/
http://www.phpnuke.com.my
http://www.myopendirectory.org/
http://www.webportal.com.my
January 3, 2007
Rust-based solar panels could make hydrogen cheap and efficient
Researchers in Switzerland have demonstrated more-efficient water-splitting solar cells based on a cheap, abundant, and long-lasting material: rust. The advance could lead to a cheap and energy-efficient way to generate hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles using solar energy.
Water-splitting solar panels would have important advantages over existing technologies in terms of hydrogen production. Right now, the primary way to make hydrogen is to separate it from natural gas, a process that generates carbon dioxide and undercuts the main motivation for moving to hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles: ending dependence on fossil fuels. The current alternative is electrolysis, which uses electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, with the two gases forming at opposite electrodes. Although electrolysis is costly, it can be cleaner if the source of the electricity is wind, sun, or some other carbon-free source.
But if the source of the electricity is the sun, it would be much more efficient to use solar energy to produce hydrogen by a photochemical process inside the cell itself. By improving the efficiency of such solar panels, Michael Grätzel, chemistry professor at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, in Switzerland, and his colleagues have taken an important step toward this goal.
The researchers have shown that by including small amounts of silicon and cobalt, they can grow nanostructured thin films of iron oxide that convert sunlight into the electrons needed to form hydrogen from water. And the iron oxide films do this more efficiently than ever before with this material.
Iron oxide has long been an appealing material for such solar panels, in part because it holds up well in contact with water. But although it can absorb sunlight, the resulting charge carriers could not easily escape the material, so they recombined, canceling each other out before they could split any water. By doping the rust with silicon, the researchers coaxed the material to form cauliflower-like structures with extremely high surface area, ensuring that a large part of the atoms in the material were in contact with the water, or very close to it. That way, holes could easily escape into the water, where they prompt the generation of oxygen gas. The silicon also improves electron conductivity in the material, which is important for generating hydrogen gas at an opposite electrode. The researchers further improved the process by adding cobalt, which acts as a catalyst for the reactions.
Grätzel’s new iron-oxide films can convert an impressive and, according to the researchers, “unprecedented” 42 percent of ultraviolet photons in sunlight into electrons and holes. But the system’s overall efficiency is only about 4 percent, in part because iron oxide doesn’t absorb all the parts of the solar spectrum.
The main achievement of Grätzel’s new research, which appears in the current issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society, is that it examines the interactions at work in the system in great detail, says Brian Holcroft, CEO of Hydrogen Solar, a company based in Guildford, UK, that is developing ways to mass-produce panels inspired by Grätzel’s materials. The findings suggest several strategies that could help the iron-oxide-based panel reach the 10 percent efficiency level that would make the technology competitive with current ways of creating hydrogen, Holcroft says. (Iron oxide could theoretically be as much as 20 percent efficient.) These include adjusting the amount and arrangement of silicon and cobalt, and improving the structure of the films.
If this level of efficiency can be met, hydrogen-generating solar energy could mitigate some of the challenges that threaten to make hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles impractical, says George Sverdrup, hydrogen technology manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), in Golden, CO. For example, if consumers and businesses used these panels to make hydrogen, rather than getting hydrogen from a large facility, it would cut out the cost of shipping hydrogen, making hydrogen more affordable. Solar-to-hydrogen panels would be more efficient than small electrolysis machines, and they would ensure that the hydrogen comes from a renewable source.
But challenges remain. Researchers at Hydrogen Solar, for example, are looking for a replacement for the expensive platinum now used in one of the cell’s electrodes, which will be important for keeping down costs, especially as demand increases for platinum in this and other applications, such as fuel cells. Meanwhile, Sverdrup says other researchers, including those at NREL, are working with materials that are much more efficient than iron oxide but so far have lasted only hours. If researchers can make them last longer, the materials could challenge iron oxide.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17887/
Scientists put hope in hydrogen sensors
John Trumbo, Tri-City Herald, Kennewick, Wash.Tri-City Herald (Kennewick, Washington)
Dec. 21–A tiny buttonlike sensor may be the key to bringing the world into the hydrogen age.
At least that is what Dan Briscoe, vice president of business development at Apollo in Kennewick, hopes will happen in the next few years.
Apollo has developed the hydrogen gas sensor with the help of scientists at the Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry in Moscow.
Briscoe said the two entities linked up at the suggestion of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program.
Briscoe said PNNL approached Apollo about four years ago with the idea to work with Russian scientists on designing and building a better hydrogen gas sensor that would be more reliable, work faster and cost less than commercially available sensors currently in use.
The collaboration resulted in a cooperative research and development agreement between Apollo and Battelle, which operates PNNL as a Department of Energy lab.
Battelle licensed the patent applications in May 2006, and Apollo applied for the global patent on the new hydrogen gas sensor in September.
Having a gas sensor that is fast and reliable is the key to taking advantage of developing hydrogen-based energy and power systems, Briscoe said.
The button-sized sensors can detect hydrogen in minute amounts in parts per million, which is important because concentrations of the gas of only 4 percent can result in an explosion, Briscoe said.
Briscoe said Apollo created a a new division, Apollo Sensor Technology, to help develop a market for the sensors and find the right high-tech company to help make the items. He expects they will be priced between $100 and $200 each, which is less than one-tenth the cost of the best hydrogen gas sensors available today.
“What makes our sensor different from others is it has a large range or spectrum of detection sensitivity, and can respond with a reading in less than one second,” Briscoe said.
Apollo’s Russian-designed sensor also has very little cross-sensitivity to other gases which would give false positive readings, and it is more durable than other sensors, not requiring frequent recalibrations, he said.
The sensors would be ideal for safety detection systems in futuristic hydrogen-powered cars, but that potential is at least 10 to 15 years a way, Briscoe said.
A better market for the sensors already exists where hydrogen is the fuel for internal combustion engine power plants, such as with emergency backup systems used at microwave towers, radio stations and hospitals in the event of conventional power system failures.
Briscoe said the demand for hydrogen sensors in those areas could be 10,000 to 12,000 units a year.
The sensors also would be valuable safety units at petroleum refineries where hydrogen gas is involved in processing heavy crude to light crude.
Briscoe said if the commercialization and marketing goes well, the Apollo Sensor Technology product could be selling 100,000 units annually by 2011.
Because of the collaboration through PNNL with the Russian scientists, the profits would be split three ways, he said.
Links Tech News
http://www.advancedimagingpro.com/ tech news
http://www.technologyreview.com/index.aspx
2006 in Review
It’s that time of year, when we look backwards over the past orbit of the sun, elevate above the mundane of the day-to-day, and take stock of long-term trends.
I’ll take my turn: in the world of clean energy, here’s what I’ll remember about 2006, Letterman-style (though, alas, not as wittily):
10. Oil addiction. In his January 2006 State of the Union speech, President Bush acknowledged what had long been largely ignored but what should really have been obvious to any sentient being: that “America is addicted to oil” to fuel our transportation, and thereby our economy and society. It was a useful slap in the face of the citizenry: in America, with our short attention spans and predilection for glossing over unpleasantries, we can never have enough wake-up calls. An admission of addiction, coming from a man who is linked in the public eye to the oil industry, was strong stuff to many.
9. Biofuel boom. It seemed like every day during 2006 I’d read about something new in the biofuel world. Either it was a big oil company like BP (NYSE: BP) or Chevron (NYSE: CVX) announcing a major research initiative, yet another business plan seeking capital for a biofuel refinery, some scientist in an academic setting working on a new way of converting feedstocks to fuel, or a capitalist like Vinod Khosla going hyperbolic about the future for ethanol. Everyone’s jumping — or jumped — onto the biofuel bandwagon, as a key means of reducing our oil addiction. The main catalyst was the alternative fuel requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which mandate 7.5 billions of gallons of new annual ethanol and biodiesel supply by 2012, and the current players are having trouble ramping up fast enough to meet demand.
8. Sizzling solar. With $60+ oil, retail investors were clamoring for alternative energy plays, and after biofuels they went straight to photovoltaics: solar energy is where people seem to instinctively look they think of alternative energy. Capitalizing on these robust (some would say, “frothy”) market conditions, we saw a number of sizable IPOs such as First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR) and Renewable Energy Corp (OL: REC), and a corresponding resurgence of venture capital investment in PV (seeking to achieve an exit before the fickle financial fates close the window). The additional capital is being poured into innovative R&D and new production facilities — the former to achieve major economic/performance breakthroughs, the latter to debottleneck the recently-constrained industry and alleviate near-term shortages and upward price pressures. If the PV market/sector doesn’t make major strides in coming years, it won’t be because of capital starvation.
8. 20% from wind by 2030. Offhandedly, President Bush mused in a May 2006 speech on energy that “it’s worth trying to find out” if wind could provide 20% of the U.S. electricity requirements. This remark has sent the wind community into a tizzy. Taking Bush’s comment seriously, DOE and NREL are now developing a roadmap characterizing how the wind industry could supply 20% of the U.S. electricity requirement. This would imply hundreds of gigawatts of wind generating capacity across the U.S., which would require a new wind turbine to be installed every 15 minutes, every hour of the day, for many years. With this level of penetration, you wouldn’t be able to drive very far across our country without seeing a turbine, just like the case today in Germany, and I’d bet we’d see a lot of turbines out on the Great Lakes too. If we even get halfway to the pseudo-vision suggested by Bush, wind will become a really big player in the energy industry — “alternative” no longer.
7. 25 x ‘25. Putting together these three renewable thrusts — biofuels, solar and wind — the common element is lots of land. Thus, the segment of interests that own muchs of the land in the U.S. — the agricultural community of ranchers and farmers — has put its weight behind the vision of “25 x ‘25″: 25% of the U.S. energy supply from renewable sources by 2025. This initiative is less green than it is red-white-and-blue, as a means to reduce our reliance on imported energy. However, for the first time, this puts a large mainstream conservative force on the cleantech side, potentially a harbinger of an important realignment of interests in the energy debates. It’s one thing for Ms. Birkenstock Hippie from Berkeley to argue for renewable energy; another thing entirely when it’s Mr. Meat-and-Potatoes from Des Moines making the case.
6. What happened to efficiency? Renewable energy is wonderful and did well in the past year, but unfortunately, there were few significant developments on the energy efficiency front. Oh, sure, there were more LEED buildings, fluorescent light sales continued to increase, and hybrid cars are no longer a curiosity. But, there was really no defining moment for the demand-side arguing for an upcoming step-change. Pity, because we need this side of the energy equation to be far more robust — the opportunities here are enormous, and often more cost-effective than renewables.
5. Whither hydrogen? While fuel cells continue to attract substantial R&D dollars and attention, more and more the so-called “hydrogen economy” is fading into the future. An increasing body of observers are recognizing that the challenges of economically producing, transporting, storing, and utilizing hydrogen may well be too daunting. Thus, the fuel cell community is generally moving away from tackling the mass-market transportation application that would entail displacing petroleum-based fuels with hydrogen, and instead focusing on applications with narrower niches where fuel cell performance characteristics (small size, modularity, no emissions, low noise, etc.) are highly desired by customers — often, in military settings. Maybe someday hydrogen will be ubiquitous as a fuel, but fewer and fewer people are betting their careers on it.
4. The Stern report. The U.K. government commissioned a study by Sir Nicholas Stern to assess the economics of climate change. When issued in the fall of 2006, the report was a blockbuster, arguing that the costs of dealing with climate change now were small in comparison to the enormous economic consequences that would accrue later from not addressing climate change. With each ice shelf that slips into the ocean, and each inch of sea-level rise, the costs of do-nothing are getting more apparent every day.
3. Thomas Friedman. Long one of the most influential observers of the Middle East scene, the widely-read op-ed columnist in the New York Times and best-selling author (The World Is Flat, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, From Beirut to Jerusalem) is making energy and the environment the cornerstone of many of his recent essays. When Friedman says/writes something, many thought-leaders get it, some for the first time. The clean energy community could not have a better spokesman.
2. An Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore goes from inventing the Internet, and losing (somehow, ever-more-incredibly in retrospect) the Presidential race to George Bush in 2000, to becoming a movie star in a “talking head” role, educating viewers on one of the least-sexy and most-wonkish topics known to man: climate change. Yet, the movie drew an audience of millions, and perhaps more importantly, generated lots of ink and an increased throbbing in the public consciousness concerning the reality and severity of the threat. When you see sports media talking about climate change in a meaningful way, you know that awareness is improving and perceptions are changing: it’s not just the tree-huggers anymore. Bet on some more exposure come Oscar night in a few months.
1. A new political landscape. The citizens of the United States spoke loud and clear on November 7: pretty much a landslide victory for the Democrats, a trouncing of the Republicans. There’s lots of conjecture as to why this occurred: was it “Just Say No” to Bush and Iraq, or was it a more systemic shift to the left? However, there’s no doubt that, for the next few years at least, the new political scene is more conducive to more favorable clean energy policy of all sorts — not only at the Federal level, but in many states as well (such as here in Ohio). Best of all, Senator James Imhofe (R-OK) — who is on record as stating that “climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” — will be deposed from Chairing the Committee for Environment and Public Works, where he has been (in my view) an embarassment. I doubt we’ll get climate change legislation during the Bush Administration, but at least we’ll get less airing of bunk from fictional author Michael Crichton passing off as climate science.
All in all, 2006 was a step in the right direction for the clean energy arena — but definitely not far enough, not fast enough. Here’s hoping that we can make more progress — on technology R&D, on financing, on human capital, on policy — in 2007 than we did in 2006.
source
Hydrogen Solar Ltd has been awarded a £70,000 research grant for work on photoactive thin film Iron Oxide nano particles
Publication Date:02-January-2007
04:30 PM US Eastern Timezone
Source:Hydrogen Solar
Hydrogen Solar Ltd has been awarded a £70,000 research grant from the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) for work on photoactive thin film Iron Oxide nano particles to be used in the company’s solar technology.
The award will build upon recent work by Hydrogen Solar on photoactive iron oxides showing a sunlight-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency of 2.1%.and a theoretical maximum of 20%. The 18 month programme aims to significantly raise this efficiency at both test sample level and within scaled units.
The work will focus upon a range of pyrolytic deposition techniques Hydrogen Solar will retain exclusive rights arising from the work.
“The iron oxide programme will be building upon the insights and signposts from research. We will develop the sunlight-to-hydrogen efficiencies of these and other materials for use at a scale suitable for industrial manufacture,” said Dr Brian Holcroft, CEO of Hydrogen Solar Ltd.
“This award comes after careful peer review, and we are delighted by the confidence this has demonstrated in our approach and technology,” Brian said.
About Hydrogen Solar Ltd
Hydrogen Solar has developed break-through technology for producing high purity hydrogen at competitive commercial rates. Using well established science and low cost materials, the company’s technology can split water directly into pure hydrogen fuel and oxygen without external power requirements. The Cells are built into arrays which are of modular design such that installations are scalable to applications of any size.
About SEEDA
SEEDA is the Government funded agency responsible for the sustainable economic development and regeneration of the South East of England – the driving force of the UK’s economy. Our aim is to create a prosperous, dynamic and inspirational region by helping businesses compete more effectively, training a highly skilled workforce, supporting and enabling our communities while safeguarding our natural resources and cherishing our rich cultural heritage
January 2, 2007
Dua UTK dituduh bunuh Altantuya pengawal Najib?
| Abu Bakar Rahman Fri | Dec 22, 06 | 07:19:13 PM |
|
| KUALA LUMPUR, 22 Dis (Hrkh) - Selepas Melbourne Age melaporkan bahawa kes pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu mencetuskan soalan-soalan berapi-api kepada Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak, isu itu semakin berapi-api apabila ucapan bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim baru-baru ini memanaskan lagi persoalan umum adakah kedua-dua anggota polis dari Unit Tindakan Khas (UTK) yang dituduh membunuh Altantuya adalah pengawal peribadi Najib.Anwar juga mendakwa bahan letupan C4 yang digunakan untuk meletup dan menghancurkan mayat Altantuya tidak boleh diperolehi tanpa kebenaran Menteri Pertahanan.Najib juga adalah Menteri Pertahanan.
“Saya tidak mahu menuduh sesiapa tetapi hanya menyatakan fakta. Kita tidak boleh menuduh tetapi kita boleh bertanya, tidak ada salahnya bertanya,” kata bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri ketika berceramah di padang Flat Seri Melaka di Cheras baru-baru ini. Melbourne Age 14 Disember lalu melaporkan, kes pembunuhan Altantuya mengakibatkan soalan-soalan berapi-api kepada Najib. Menurut akhbar itu, penganalisis politik Abdul Razak Baginda, yang kini didakwa berikutan pembunuhan Altantuya, ialah orang kepercayaan Najib. Walaupun Najib tidak dikaitkan secara rasmi dengan kes itu, kata The Age, tetapi persoalan berbangkit mengenai dakwaan penglibatan UTK dan adakah apa yang disebut sebagai penggunaan bahan letupan C4 boleh dikaitkan dengan penyalahgunaan kuasa Kementerian Pertahanan. Kes yang melibatkan Abdul Razak, 46, disifatkan amat menarik perhatian apabila isterinya, Mazlinda Makhzan, menekankan di luar mahkamah sebelum perbicaraan 16 November lalu bahawa suaminya tidak bersalah, diperangkap dan tidak mahu menjadi Perdana Menteri. “Dia orang baik. Dia bukan perdana menteri negara ini. Dia tak mahu pun menjadi perdana menteri. Dia tidak berminat dengan itu semua,” Mazlinda, seorang bekas majistret, menegaskan. Ketika Abdul Razak memeluknya, beliau berkata: “Begitu teruk. Kekejaman”. Pertanyaan timbul mengapa Mazlinda menyatakan: “Dia bukan perdana menteri negara ini. Dia tak mahu pun menjadi perdana menteri. Dia tidak berminat dengan itu semua”. Laporan lain pula menyatakan Mazlina berkata: “Dia tidak berminat dengan politik. Dia tidak mahu menjadi perdana menteri yang akan datang. Dia orang baik. Dia suami yang baik. Dia sepatutnya melindungi saya. Polis yang melakukannya. Merekalah orangnya. Mereka sepatutnya mempertahankan negara ini. “Sampai hati you all buat dia macam ni. Jangan buat begini kepada dia. Itu kehidupan dia. Mengapa letakkannya ke atas suami saya? Ini kejam, kejam, kejam”. Peguam kepada Abdul Razak, Datuk Shafee Abdullah, pernah dilaporkan sebagai berkata, “Saya yakin sepenuhnya beliau tidak bersalah … beliau tidak terlibat sama sekali”. Bagaimanapun dalam perbicaraan 14 Disember lalu di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam, Shafee digantikan oleh peguam Wong Kian Kheong. Dalam perbicaraan itu juga, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Salehuddin Saidin memberitahu Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa tiada pihak lain yang terlibat dalam pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu selain daripada Abdul Razak dan dua anggota UTK Ibu Pejabat Polis Bukit Aman. Salehuddin berkata perkara itu perlu diperjelaskan berikutan wujud terlalu banyak tohmahan dan sindiran bahawa ada pihak lain yang terlibat sedangkan mengikut siasatan polis hanya tiga tertuduh itu yang terlibat. Salehudin berkata perbicaraan kes itu juga perlu disegerakan bagi memberi peluang pendakwaan menepis segala spekulasi yang timbul. Abdul Razak yang lebih dikenali sebagai Razak Baginda didakwa bersubahat membunuh wanita warga Mongolia Altantuya, 28, dengan Cif Inspektor Azilah Hadri, 30, dan Konstabel Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, di pejabat Abdul Razak di tingkat 10, Bangunan Getah Asli, No 148, Jalan Ampang antara pukul 9.54 pagi dan 11.05 pagi, 18 Oktober lalu. Azilah dan Sirul Azhar yang sebelum ini bertugas di UTK, Ibu Pejabat Polis Bukit Aman pula didakwa membunuh Altantuya, 28, di lokasi antara lot 12843 dan lot 16735, Mukim Bukit Raja di sini antara pukul 10 malam 19 Oktober dan 1.00 pagi 20 Oktober lalu. Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin telah menetapkan 5 Januari depan untuk sebutan semula kes itu dan turut membenarkan jaminan terhadap Abdul Razak dilanjutkan tetapi mengenakan syarat tambahan dengan mendepositkan wang tunai RM1 juta atau sekuriti yang setara dengannya selain melaporkan diri di balai polis seminggu sekali dan menyerahkan pas perjalanan ke mahkamah. Bantuan anda diperlukan! PAS menyeru seluruh rakyat Malaysia menghulurkan bantuan kepada mangsa banjir melalui Tabung Kebajikan PAS Pusat (no akaun Maybank : 564070705537) atau menghubungi Dr Hatta Ramli di talian (019-3398659). Setakat ini, pihak Tabung Kemiskinan Harakah (TKH) telah menyerahkan bantuan wang ringgit kepada mangsa banjir melalui PAS Johor dan Melaka. |
December 16, 2006
Palestine – Peace Not Apartheid (Jimmy Carter)
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Carter shares insight on peace in Mideast
By Marty Rosen
Special to The Courier-Journal
Former President Jimmy Carter’s new book, “Palestine — Peace Not Apartheid,” reflects a lifetime of contemplation on the Middle East. Mixing memoir and policy, it recounts his youthful fascination with the Holy Lands, his long acquaintance with the political leaders who have shaped the modern history of the Arab and Israeli worlds, and it makes a strong case for renewed debate about the best path to peace in a long-troubled part of the world. In a telephone interview, Carter spoke in detail about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his hopes for peace. Here are his unedited responses:
Q. Earlier this year the London Review of Books published an article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt called “The Israel Lobby.” That article, which generated much controversy, argued that American foreign policies in the Middle East, especially regarding Israel and Palestine, are not reflective of genuine American interests in the region and instead reflect very influential and successful lobbying efforts on the part of Israel and American supporters of Israel. Do you think that assessment is correct?
Carter: That’s correct. Over the last 30 years of my life, one of my strongest commitments has been to bring peace to Israel and to have its existence accepted by all nations. I’ve traveled all over Israel. In fact, I’ve been to the Golan Heights three times, and we’ve conducted three elections there for the Palestinians. I’ve seen the intense debate in Israel about Israeli government policies, with the majority of Israelis habitually favoring the withdrawal from occupied territories in exchange for peace. But that debate does not even exist in the United States. A member of Congress would not dream of coming out in favor of Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories or condemn Israel’s treatment of Palestinian people. And very few of the news media in this country would ever bring out an intense analysis of the issues involved in the Middle East as they are brought out fervently in Israel and throughout Europe. There’s no doubt that there is a strong aversion to criticizing Israel in this country. I wouldn’t say it’s all because of intimidation, but that is one factor.
How did lobbying affect your presidential administration’s relationship with issues in the Middle East? Specifically, in the book you write about a March 1978 PLO attack in which a bus was seized and dozens of Israelis were killed. You immediately condemned that attack. A few days later, Israel invaded Lebanon. You write that before making any diplomatic response to that, you consulted with congressional supporters of Israel before stating that you expected Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, and before approaching the U. N. Did you feel under pressure in shaping the U.S. response to the invasion?
Carter: Yes, there was a lot of pressure exerted on members of Congress and so forth on behalf of Israel. At that time, there was a general consensus between me and the key members of Congress, and that included Sen. (Jacob) Javits (of New York), who was Jewish, that there was a presumption that Israel would withdraw from the occupied territories. When I negotiated with (Israeli Prime Minister Menachem) Begin and (Egyptian President Anwar) Sadat, that was one of the things I insisted upon, that both of them agreed to accept. If you read the Camp David Accords, which are in the book, they call for the withdrawal of Israel’s military and political forces from the West Bank and Gaza, for full self-determination for the Palestinians. And the Knesset of Israel agreed with that in a Likud administration. So I felt then and now that the main thrust of my effort was to bring permanent peace to Israel, on the premise that they would accept international law and withdraw to their own territories. That was subsequently confirmed in the Oslo Agreement in 1993, and more recently the international quartet’s (the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations) “Roadmap” also requires that Israel withdraw from occupied territories as its main premise.
In the meantime, Israel has been occupying and confiscating and colonizing increasing areas of Arab territory, which in my opinion is inimical to any sort of prospect of peace for Israel.
In response to the 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, your administration supported and the United Nations passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon. How many times over the last half-century has the United States sponsored resolutions that could be construed as anti-Israel? It strikes me as a rare thing over the last 60 years.
Carter: Well, it has been. I mention in the book that we’ve vetoed resolutions, some of them overwhelmingly supported by the world community, probably now about 45 times, in fact twice within the last two weeks when Israel attacked the Gaza people and killed those 18 civilians. The United States vetoed the resolution that condemned that action. And I have to tell you that I have always considered myself a supporter of Israel — but with the premise that Israel comply with international law and withdraw from occupying territories of the West Bank and Gaza. And what’s degenerated in recent years, to a very disturbing degree, is the gross abuse of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying powers. It’s one of the most serious human-rights abuses about which I’m familiar. It aggravates and alienates not only the Palestinians and the Arab world, but most of the rest of the world.
Your style was a great deal of active personal diplomacy and negotiation in that area. By contrast, President Reagan began his term with a very hands-off approach, as did the current President Bush.
Carter: Reagan eventually, by 1982, decided to issue a strong statement about the Middle East, and as I describe in the book, he asked me to help draft the statement, which I did. He sent his speechwriter down to my home in Plains, and we put language in there that Reagan repeated publicly that fully endorsed the premises of the Camp David Accords, including Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. And of course the first President Bush did more than anyone since I left office to try to minimize the impact of Israel’s occupying Arab land. In fact, George Bush Sr. even withheld several hundred million dollars from Israel because they spent the money on settlements. But that hasn’t been the case with other presidents. There were more Israeli settlements established on the West Bank when (former President Bill) Clinton was in office than at any other time. They had a blank check, in effect, Prime Minister (Ehud) Barak did, to establish all the settlements he wanted. And when President Clinton decided to get involved in the issue pretty late in his term, his proposals, which were very sincere and heartfelt, were never seriously considered by the Israelis or the Palestinians. His final proposal would have cut the West Bank in two, and would have left 205 settlements in the West Bank. And one of the key provisions of the Clinton proposals was that all previous U.N. resolutions would be moot and would be replaced by his proposal — and no Palestinian leader could accept that and survive.
One premise of your book is that there is a divide between the public statements and the private aspirations of the leaders of the various parties in the Middle East. Can traditional diplomacy with diplomats sitting around a table solve these problems, or does this require that individuals meet privately for intense discussions like the ones you facilitated at Camp David?
Carter: It would be difficult for public diplomats to solve these issues. But the only peace agreement I can envision that would be suitable to Palestinians and Israelis is what was encompassed in the so-called Geneva Initiative. I helped negotiate that agreement, and it was endorsed by Clinton, (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair and by 50 other top political leaders and Nobel Peace laureates at the time. And a public opinion poll conducted by the James Baker Institute found that it was supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians. That spells out the premises on which Israel can have peace, and the Arab world can recognize Israel’s right to exist in peace.
I’m sure you’re aware that there is emerging controversy about your use of the word “apartheid” to describe the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. It’s a word with enormous moral weight, and you’re certainly the most prominent American to describe the situation using that word. Could you comment on your use of the word?
Carter: I made it plain that I was not referring to racism, but simply to the desire to acquire Arab land inside Palestinian territory. And there is a total establishment imposed by Israeli powers of a separation of the two peoples from one another. I would say that in many ways the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying forces is as onerous — and in some cases more onerous — as the treatment of black people in South Africa by the apartheid government. All Palestinians have to carry passes. When I was there monitoring elections in 2005, there were 719 roadblocks closed by concrete barriers, earth mounds or by official Israeli checkpoints. The Palestinians can’t move from one place to another. They can’t grow produce, for instance, to sell to their own people if it competes with Israeli fruit, vegetables and flowers. Gaza, which was supposed to have been abandoned, is absolutely imprisoned in a wall that the Israelis have built all around it. There are only two possible openings in that wall. One opens into the Sinai, and is open to only a few chosen people. And the other is open into Israel, and it has been closed almost all the time since the Israeli so-called withdrawal from Gaza. So the Palestinians are horribly abused and persecuted and deprived by the Israeli policies in the West Bank.
Your book argues that the United States has a unique and enormously important role in facilitating the peace process in the Middle East, and that it has to function as an honest broker in that region. Many observers have argued that for decades the United States’ image as an honest broker was questioned by Palestinians and Arabs in that part of the world, and many observers believe that during the last few years the United States’ moral authority has diminished worldwide. What will it take for the United States to regain that moral authority and the ability and credibility to facilitate a successful peace process? Do you see any hope for that?
Carter: This is a bit presumptuous, but I would hope my book will stimulate debate and discussion that can help the process along. And I’m not trying to speak for him, but I’ve had long discussions with James Baker about this same issue. As I mentioned, his institute in Texas has run public opinion polls in Israel. And when he and George Bush Sr. were in office, they took strong action, not just words, to induce Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and to treat the Palestinians fairly. So I think there are some strong influences of a bipartisan or nonpartisan character that might be forthcoming in the future. Another thing is that many prominent and influential Jews have privately expressed their complete agreement with the thrust of my book, but it’s almost impossible for them, in the present American environment, to say these things publicly. So maybe it will stimulate a discussion. And I don’t think there’s any doubt that the key factor and one of the primary causes of intense animosity against America from so-called terrorists of different kinds is the obvious bias of the United States government against Palestinians and for Israel. So these collective factors may, in the future, bring about an honest, good-faith effort for peace as we’ve seen on a few occasions in the past.
Carter and the truth about Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26bavIM-3Pw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHvInBhI84E
President Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt and The Israel Lobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbapmPR0ZeQ
President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBJgaBe5NgM
More Evidence That Mearsheimer and Walt Are Largely Right:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-alterman/more-evidence-that-mearsh_b_36373.html
The viewer caller mentioned former Republican Congressman Paul Findley’s ‘They Dare to Speak Out’ book via the following youtube video URL:
President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBJgaBe5NgM
Rep Paul Findley Dares to Speak Out About the Israeli Lobby
http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/1416/default.aspx
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15896.htm
Carter and Israeli crimes
Video Runtime 3 Minutes
Carter and the truth about Israel
Video Runtime 3 Minutes
President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN
Video Runtime 4 Minutes
President Carter, Mearsheimer and WaIt and The Israel Lobby
Video Runtime 3 Minutes
US Support of Israel’s Brutal Oppression of the Palestinian people PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
