Standing Up for Jimmy Carter's Use of the Word 'Apartheid'

The World According to Jimmy Carter

I like Jimmy Carter. I have known him since he began his run for president in early 1976. I worked hard for his election, and I have admired the work of the Carter Center throughout the world. That's why it troubles me so much that this decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

His bias against Israel shows by his selection of the book's title: "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." The suggestion that without peace Israel is an apartheid state analogous to South Africa is simply wrong. The basic evil of South African apartheid, against which I and so many other Jews fought, was the absolute control over a majority of blacks by a small minority of whites. It was the opposite of democracy. In Israel majority rules; it is a vibrant secular democracy, which just today recognized gay marriages performed abroad. Arabs serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court and get to vote for their representatives, many of whom strongly oppose Israeli policies. Israel has repeatedly offered to end its occupation of areas it captured in a defensive war in exchange for peace and full recognition. The reality is that other Arab and Muslim nations do in fact practice apartheid. In Jordan, no Jew can be a citizen or own land. The same is true in Saudi Arabia, which has separate roads for Muslims and non-Muslims. Even in the Palestinian authority, the increasing influence of Hamas threatens to create Islamic hegemony over non-Muslims. Arab Christians are leaving in droves.

Why then would Jimmy Carter invoke the concept of apartheid in his attack on Israel? Even he acknowledges--though he buries this toward the end of his book--that what is going on in Israel today "is unlike that in South Africa--not racism, but the acquisition of land." But Israel's motive for holding on to this land is the prevention of terrorism. It has repeatedly offered to exchange land for peace and did so in Gaza and southern Lebanon only to have the returned land used for terrorism, kidnappings and rocket launchings.

I don't know why Jimmy Carter, who is generally a careful man, allowed so many errors and omissions to blemish his book. Here are simply a few of the most egregious.

Carter emphasizes that "Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times," but he ignores the fact that Jews have lived in Hebron, Tzfat, Jerusalem, and other cities for even longer. Nor does he discuss the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries since 1948.
Carter repeatedly claims that the Palestinians have long supported a two-state solution and the Israelis have always opposed it. Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal, because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own.

He barely mentions Israel's acceptance, and the Palestinian rejection, of the U.N.'s division of the mandate in 1948.

He claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.

Carter repeatedly mentions Security Council Resolution 242, which called for return of captured territories in exchange for peace, recognition and secure boundaries, but he ignores the fact that Israel accepted and all the Arab nations and the Palestinians rejected this resolution. The Arabs met in Khartum and issued their three famous "no's": "No peace, no recognition, no negotiation" but you wouldn't know that from reading the history according to Carter.

Carter faults Israel for its "air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor" without mentioning that Iraq had threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if they succeeded in building a bomb.

Carter faults Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring every religion the right to worship as they please--consistant, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt's brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967.

Carter blames Israel, and exonerates Arafat, for the Palestinian refusal to accept statehood on 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza pursuant to the Clinton-Barak offers of Camp David and Taba in 2000-2001. He accepts the Palestinian revisionist history, rejects the eye-witness accounts of President Clinton and Dennis Ross and ignores Saudi Prince Bandar's accusation that Arafat's rejection of the proposal was "a crime" and that Arafat's account "was not truthful"--except, apparently, to Carter. The fact that Carter chooses to believe Yasir Arafat over Bill Clinton speaks volumes.

Carter's description of the recent Lebanon war is misleading. He begins by asserting that Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. "Captured" suggest a military apprehension subject to the usual prisoner of war status. The soldiers were kidnapped, and have not been heard from--not even a sign of life. The rocket attacks that preceded Israel's invasion are largely ignored, as is the fact that Hezbollah fired its rockets from civilian population centers.

Carter gives virtually no credit to Israel's superb legal system, falsely asserting (without any citation) that "confessions extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts," that prisoners are "executed" and that the "accusers" act "as judges." Even Israel's most severe critics acknowledge the fairness of the Israeli Supreme Court, but not Carter.

Carter even blames Israel for the "exodus of Christians from the Holy Land," totally ignoring the Islamization of the area by Hamas and the comparable exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon as a result of the increasing influence of Hezbollah and the repeated assassination of Christian leaders by Syria.

Carter also blames every American administration but his own for the Mideast stalemate with particular emphasis on "a submissive White House and U.S. Congress in recent years." He employs hyperbole and overstatement when he says that "dialogue on controversial issues is a privilege to be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and withheld from those who reject U.S. demands." He confuses terrorist states, such as Iran and Syria to which we do not extend dialogue, with states with whom we strongly disagree, such as France and China, with whom we have constant dialogue.

I hope President Carter will seriously consider addressing these omissions and mistakes. He begins his book tour soon and he will have an opportunity to correct the record.

little phil keeps banging away at the state of israel. our failed ex president has become a hero to the likes of little phil weiss, the ugly apostate.
the above is courtesy of alan dershowitz.

Carter has every right to say what he wants. However when one reads this nonsense of a book, even a neutral observer can plainly see Jimmy Carter is a bit of a prat because he wasn't able to even understand that not checking facts correctly and spinning the truth would rebound on him to make him a laughing stock.
Remember this is a man who made a complete fool of himself by locking himself away in the WH in order to deal with the Iranian embassy hostage crisis.

Wow, nothing like a perceived attack on Zionism and Isreal to get the anti-Carter crowd going. Yes, what a hateful despicable man, sticking up for the Palestinians, trying to add just a small amount of evenhandedness on the Israeli/Palestinian subject in a country sorely needing it, and writing so many incorrect statements about Israel. Perhaps he is starting to suffer from early stage dementia, or is he just an anti-Semite or old-school lefty?

First of all, the concept
- to live apart from others and
- to live on a morally different (superior) basis from others
is at the very core of the concept of the Jewish people.

So, why wonder that the Israeli Jews have a concept of apartheid - for themselves and others.

Klaus
Frankfurt, Germany

Swan:
If you think Gaza is like the warsaw ghetto than you should read a fucking book because your education when it comes to history is sadly deficient.
Klaus:
I figure that you should wait until 2933, the end of the thousand year reich to make any moral judgements

If the Jewish state would like to be on the side of right. It should not drop cluster bombs on children and the elderly. We give them weapons for defense, not to kill innocent people. Blood on the hands of the Jews is blood on our hands as well. We have given enough to the jewish people, we need to find a new cause like fighting prostate cancer, or poverty in our own country. I am sure the Saudis have alot of money to donate to a good American cause. Why does Isreal have nuclear weapons, but Arab states should go with out. I say nukes for them all, at some point they will blow each other off the map. Why are they special, are they not just another country in the middle east. They should seek "peace not war", is this on a christmas card. Oil is becoming more important to us and I really enjoy driving my SUV with the family everyday of the week. Bring back 99 cents a gallon gas and I think Iran can do that for us. Very soon our relationship with oil producing arab states will be more important than the people of Isreal, they should really wake up before they have lost the US support. It's only a matter of time when we will stop sending our sons to die to protect the interest of the Jews. I guess the Jews are just taking a page from our book, look how we treated our negros for so long.... most children tend to copy the actions of the parents. I guess darker skin, means your life is worth less, we can put you in ghettos and cut off your basic needs. Philistine is not free... it is close to what south africa was.

Israel is not a democracy by any means. Until Israel gives the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories the full rights of citizens (by the way Israeli textbooks ignore the Green Line or pre-'67 borders), then the analogy to South Africa is absolutely correct.

I grew up in GA when Carter was governor and the overriding characteristic of Carter, unlike most politicians, is his belief in justice and fairness. Without war or bombs, Carter freed over 50 hostages. Throughout his term it was the first time in 30 years that the US foreign policy started to side with the impoverished and oppressed: Philippines, Argentina, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, etc. This book on Israel is absolutely consistent with Carter's philosophy. What he is trying to do is to get Americans to admit their foreign policy hypocracy when dealing with Israel.

Why does Israeli expect that they can continually appropriate property from Palestinians and not receive a violent reaction from those taken off their land? Why can Israel have a nuclear bomb and no one else in the Middle East?

It is a US law that the federal government must stop all aid and military sales to any country that doesn't follow the non-proliferation treaty. Why is Israel an exception? US law forbids the use of US military equipment on civilian targets, yet in Lebanon and Gaza Israel does exactly that.

If Israel ever expects to live in peace with her neighbors, then they must address the "right of return", compensation of appropriated lands, and the utter poverty of her Arab population. Poverty breeds terrorism.

Extreme and oppressive Arab governments keep their power (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, etc.) in part because Israeli policies and US military actions destroy any basis for moderates in those countries. It is an old military strategy to keep your enemies at war among themselves (divide & conquer), and Israel and the US have used this policy in the Middle East for the past 50 years. It is time for a fundamental change and time for a real peace.

President Carter is correct, call it whatever makes you feel most comfortable.

However, more importantly explain to me why I should care?

If the Israeli government feels so strongly that killing hundreds and destroy the infrastructure of neighboring countries in response to a couple of kidnappings is cool - fine. But get someone else to flip the tab for all that , the US doesn't need any more enemies right now.

Only two times in 60+ years has Israel be attacked and successfully able to defend itself at that. Almost universally thereafter the in-extremis case is involved.

In the US, we don't hear about Israeli attacks on Palestinians - I'm sure they must occur - I'm also sure that I've never heard of one, we do here about frequent Israeli army attacks. "A disenfranchised,____, from a family with ____ previous hardships in the family attributed to ____ actions, attacks Israeli interests, killing ____, maiming ___ and causing ___ amout of damage."

Pretty much sums up the most news items for Arab-Israeli relations for the last 70 years.

It seems to me the US often behaves like a parent who doesn't know how to discipline their children, always making apologies for Israel's bad behavior. Never setting any standards or rules of behavior, never denied a thing, always cleaning up after their messes. For some reason the other kids...don't like our kid very much because they keep getting into fights for any number of reasons and we still don't do anything about it. The word you are looking for is spoiled brat. To me, that is very much what Israel has achieved in the world.

I have never completely understood why the US must relinquish any sense of US self interest when the word Israel is interjected into the conversation. The unswerving disregard for US interests consistently since the 1960's is clear and plain for anyone to see. To be perfectly frank Israel has been a bad ally of the United States it seems based on a read of history - pretty much always.

If there is any need to emphasize this please refer any appologists to the USS Liberty Memorial Fund.

For my money - and it is my money, the US foreign interests must either be served obediently by our client state (Israel) or we should find/work with other allies to achieve our goals.

Were the US to exersize merely our economic options, the Israeli situation could become distinctly uncomfortable.

Our repeated inability to do this hints at either a too strong an influence of the tail upon the dog, or simple cowardice on the part of US politicians.

It seems that the combination of the Palestinian gift of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity coupled with the morbidly curious US-Israeli relationship have enabled this situation far too long.

However before I am cast into the rhetorical pit as an anti-semite, it should be mentioned that the Israeli government itself is my complainant, not the Israeli people (there are segments thereof, that do pose a real political problem but that's not my point). It is the government which consistently fails to act in the greater long term interests of it's own people which has served Israeli needs so disasterously.

All this is really a pointless exersize as there is a demographic clock ticking. In a few years, Israeli Jews will be out-populated by the Arab peoples living inside Israel proper. This will spell the end of anything less than minority rule, with a nearly completed wall, and a disenfranchized majority in their midst, how else should we describe a situation otherwise known as Apartheid.

Perhaps it should be called segregation or perhaps decentralized systematic ethnic disenfranchisement any way it's done I suspect it is of cold comfort to many who survived the camps Germany , as it seems nobody ever thinks it's fascism when "they" do it.

Personally, I see no compelling reason why the US should have enabled a slow-motion ethinic cleansing of the "greater" Israeli area in the past and seeming unending ethnic disenfranchisement in the future.

From a foreign policy perspective, it seems clear that it is up to the US state department to remember that the basis of OUR democracy is "E Pluribus Unum" . Which is seldom concordant with the "Separate and Superior" basis of Israeli politics.

From another perspective,one is compelled to wonder, however after so much disregarded privation and disenfranchisement whether one is any longer holy.

It seems a tragedy and perhaps a trick or test set upon the good meaning Israeli people, perhaps by fate, or G_d or just plain old human stupidity, that a people who so clearly earned the sympathy of the world after WW II should choose to so poorly spend that capital in actions so remenicent of what earned them their sympathy.

Perhaps it is a test of the good people of Israel by G_d that arrogance and stupidity from which all else (in this regard) stems must be abandoned to be able to find peace. Nah...it couldn't be that simple.

Personally, I need look no further than our current president's actions in office to realize that....perhaps it is.

I think also, however that the Palestinians can be called to account for failure to address their own situation properly and work hard to enfranchise themselves somewhere else.

They were in a war 60 years ago, and for the most part, they lost. Restore your civilization call for a diaspora of your own.

But for the love of G_d stop blowing stuff up. You don't even help yourselves when stuff like that happens, If you really don't like it, ask the UN for passage to some other country , vote with your feet and get the heck out!
Setup financing to bring poorer Palestinians to a new land where you can build a future.

Find a sympathetic emirate or some other area and ask the the current landholder if you can setup a Palestinian province. Show the Israeli's up - be good neighbors, contribute to that society and they'll be glad to have you.

Reinforce your ethnic traditions and heritage.

If you want come to America, and settle down, please leave the blowing stuff up Jihadi whatnot at the door and come on down.

Heck we've got more Jewish folks here than Israel itself does, I don't see why we can't have more Palestinians than Palestine.

Consider it another way, It doesn't make any difference in the long run, if you consider the goal that Germany had - to be "free" the "Jewish problem", well Germany is now largely "free" of the "Jewish problem", and everyone knows what they did to get that way.

Many of the Israeli governmnents sentiments are clearly similar to be "free" of "Palestinian problem" and it seems something fondly to be desired from that perspective. I say give them what they want. Everyone will still remember how they got that way.

On a personal note, Bill, rhetorical statement aside, please try not to attack folks personally as this is a discussion worthy of not degenerating into a flame-fest.

A "Jews Only State" (jos) = Apartheid

Zionism = racism

Truth hurts does it Mr. Pearlman?