Why... I think that doggone anti-Semite Jimmy Carter has a point.

[Askia]

… setting aside for a moment the other detractions by the Anti-Defamation League over the other assertions set aside in his new book – I haven’t read it yet, can’t take part in an informed discussion about the books contents and would rather not this topic get side-tracked – and I’m going to try not to start hair-splitting precisely what “anti-Semitic” means, so let’s concede that Carter has problem with current Israeli heads of state, call that criticism “anti-Semitic” and let it go at that…

… why isn’t it fair to call the Israeli policy towards Palestine analogous to apartheid in South afrIca?

[RTFirefly]

From Sunday’s WaPo:

But there can be no peace, in Carter’s view, when Palestinians are “deprived of basic human rights,” their land “occupied and then confiscated and then colonized by the Israeli settlers.” A system of required passes for Palestinians; a network of roads they mostly can’t use and often can’t even cross; security barriers being constructed, on Palestinian land, to segregate the peoples – are all part of Carter’s apartheid charge.

Sure sounds like apartheid to me.

[Askia]

At the risk of being accused of being an anti-Semite, it sounds apartheid-ish to me, too. I’m curious about the rabid dismissal of Carter’s charges.

Me, an anti-Semite. Psssft! Man, I love bagels. My middle name’s Moshe! Jews can’t possibly love money while simultaneously being as cheap as I am! Jews don’t control the world – it revolves around me!

[John_Mace]

The Palestinians never were, are not, and never will be citizens of Israel. Nor do they want to be. Not apartheid. It might be something like apartheid if Israel started expelling its Arab citizens into the Palestinian territories, but they don’t do that.

[According_to_Pliny]

Since he got the peace prize, I’m sure he is not biased.
There are lots of positions to take on the middle east problem, and I respect him to have thought his through.

[What_Exit]

I saw him on Travis Smiley last night. Anyone interested can listen to it here.
I heard him on WNYC today.

I saw nothing false about his arguments and he still appears dedicated to ending the violence in Israel.

Jim

[Apos]

John, I think you’re a little confused. The accusation isn’t about Israel, but rather about how the legal arrangement with the settlements works: i.e., in supposedly Palestinian territory, the landscape is crisscrossed with Israeli-only roads, checkpoints, and Israeli-only settlements. I’m pretty sympathetic to Israel, but this is the one thing I think is completely asinine. If the reality is that Palestinians are too fanatic to live with, then chopping up their territory into swiss cheese for no reason other than to have a bunch of nutty “Returners”-style settlers lay claim to supposedly Biblical lands doesn’t seem like a real winner of a tactical idea.

[Contrapuntal]

@Askia

Me, an anti-Semite. Psssft! Man, I love bagels. My middle name’s Moshe! Jews can’t possibly love money while simultaneously being as cheap as I am! Jews don’t control the world – it revolves around me!

There is no “I” in Moshe.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

The Palestinians never were, are not, and never will be citizens of Israel. Nor do they want to be. Not apartheid.

How does the third sentence follow from the first two?

Meanwhile, in a remarkable instance of synchronicitous coinkydink, Israel has blocked a UN fact-finding mission to Gaza that was to have been led by – drumroll – Desmond Tutu!

[John_Mace]

@Apos

John, I think you’re a little confused. The accusation isn’t about Israel, but rather about how the legal arrangement with the settlements works: i.e., in supposedly Palestinian territory, the landscape is crisscrossed with Israeli-only roads, checkpoints, and Israeli-only settlements. I’m pretty sympathetic to Israel, but this is the one thing I think is completely asinine. If the reality is that Palestinians are too fanatic to live with, then chopping up their territory into swiss cheese for no reason other than to have a bunch of nutty “Returners”-style settlers lay claim to supposedly Biblical lands doesn’t seem like a real winner of a tactical idea.

I don’t support Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories either, but that doesn’t make it apartheid. It’s like calling Bush a fascist because you don’t like his politics.

Apartheid is a distinct system that was set up in South Africa over many years to reclassify its own people as non-citizens. It’s similar to what Nazi Germany did in its early days when it stripped Jewish citizens of citicenship and sent them to their “homelands” in Poland, etc. This is not what Israel is doing. It’s an occupying power in the Palestinian territories, which is altogether different.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Apartheid is a distinct system that was set up in South Africa over many years to reclassify its own people as non-citizens. It’s similar to what Nazi Germany did in its early days when it stripped Jewish citizens of citicenship and sent them to their “homelands” in Poland, etc. This is not what Israel is doing. It’s an occupying power in the Palestinian territories, which is altogether different.

Not from the POV of the Palestinians, it isn’t. They are under the thumb of another people who won’t let them vote or participate in the government but still insist on subjecting them to its authority – just like the blacks in apartheid SA. True, they have the Palestinian Authority now – just like the blacks had their bantustan governments.

[John_Mace]

Israel is an occupying power and, arguably, a colonial power, but that doesn’t make it an apartheid power. I see what they’re doing is establishing some facts on the ground in disputed territory so that the eventual borders are drawn more in its favor than not. Israel didn’t set up the Palestinian territories, it occupied them after the folks living there lost a war with Israel.

There are similarities to apartheid, but important differences, too-- especially the fact that Arabs living in Israel proper (ethnic Palestinians) are citizens of Israel and have not been shipped off to the Palestinian territories.

[Kimstu]

@John Mace

Apartheid is a distinct system that was set up in South Africa over many years to reclassify its own people as non-citizens. It’s similar to what Nazi Germany did in its early days when it stripped Jewish citizens of citicenship and sent them to their “homelands” in Poland, etc.

I agree that by that definition, Israel’s policies don’t qualify as “apartheid”. However, I’m not sure that most people nowadays who use the term are being that strict about its implications. Many, I think, just use it to mean any kind of racial/ethnic segregation and oppression by governmental fiat. It seems to be so used even by the Israeli columnist quoted in RTFirefly’s link:

In a blog entry otherwise quite critical of Carter, Shmuel Rosner, chief U.S. correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, writes: “There is enough material evidence to prove that apartheid exists in the occupied territories in one form or another. If you argue about the use of this word, you lose. If you argue that Israel is blameless you also lose.” […]

[Carter] makes another point, when asked, about America’s own apartheid years.

The term has often been applied to the segregated South in which Carter was raised. In his mind, “there’s an interrelationship between what’s happening to the Palestinians and what happened to black people under segregation,” and that connection has long influenced his thinking.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@BrainGlutton

Not from the POV of the Palestinians, it isn’t. They are under the thumb of another people who won’t let them vote or participate in the government but still insist on subjecting them to its authority – just like the blacks in apartheid SA. True, they have the Palestinian Authority now – just like the blacks had their bantustan governments.

A bit extreme and not quite on target. Palestinians in Israel have the franchise and a significant representation in the Knesset. In addition, there’s also a group of Druze. Of the 120 Knesset members I found listed 41 were Arab and 11 were Druze. That’s a significant percentage. So it’s not like there’s no representation there.

I’ve always viewed the settlements in the west bank et al to be a political bargaining chip. There’s nothing on Earth the Israeli government would like more than to establish a peace with the Palestinians where the west bank and gaza are ‘Palestine’ and everyone could get on with their lives. But as long as the palestinians continue to build a siege mentality in the Israeli citizenry and government there’s little for Israel to gain, politically, from not turning up the heat. Eventually a palestinian government will emerge that will cut the deal and provide peace for the territories and come through with the goods.

But it ain’t now. And it ain’t for the future. So the Israelis keep up the ‘skeer’ and place pressure on their opposite numbers.

In addition, it’s a carrot they can provide to any honest broker that they believe they can work with. Someone begins running the show in the PA who seems legit and BANG, the Israelis give some land bank and the new guy wins support among the palestinian population for ‘gaining back land’ from Israel.

[John_Mace]

@Kimstu

I agree that by that definition, Israel’s policies don’t qualify as “apartheid”. However, I’m not sure that most people nowadays who use the term are being that strict about its implications. Many, I think, just use it to mean any kind of racial/ethnic segregation and oppression by governmental fiat. It seems to be so used even by the Israeli columnist quoted in RTFirefly’s link:

Well, if we change the definition of “carrot” to mean “either a carrot or an apple”, then yes, a apple is an carrot. There are lots of similarities between the two foods-- they’re both good for you… they are both generally eaten raw… they are both made into juice…

But I don’t accept that the common definition of apartheid has changed as you say it has. If it did, then we need to invent a new term for what on in South Africa, because it was substantially different from what is going in in the Palestinian territories.

The principal “apartheid laws” were as follows:

* Amendment to The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949)
* Amendment to The Immorality Act (1950)
      o This law made it a criminal offence for a white person to have any sexual relations with a person of a different race.
* The Population Registration Act (1950)
      o This law required all citizens to be registered as black, white or coloured.
* The Suppression of Communism Act (1950)
      o This law banned the South African Communist Party as well as any other party the government chose to label as 'communist'. It allowed the government to ban any 'communist' simply by naming them. It made membership in the SACP punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment. The South African minister of justice, R.F. Swart, drafted the law.
* The Group Areas Act (27 April 1950)
      o This law partitioned the country into different areas, with different areas being allocated to different racial groups. This law represented the very heart of apartheid because it was the basis upon which political and social separation was to be constructed.
* Bantu Authorities Act (1951)
      o This law created separate government structures for black people.
* Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act (1951)
      o This law allowed the government to demolish black shackland slums.
* Native Building Workers Act and Native Services Levy (1951)
      o This law forced white employers to pay for the construction of proper housing for black workers recognized as legal residents in 'white' cities.
* The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (1953)
      o This law prohibited people of different races from using the same public amenities, such as drinking fountains, restrooms, and so on.
* The Bantu Education Act (1953)
      o This law brought all black schooling under government control, effectively ending mission-run schools.
* Bantu Urban Areas Act (1954)
      o This law curtailed black migration to the cities.
* The Mines and Work Act (1956)
      o This law formalised racial discrimination in employment.
* The Promotion of Black Self-Government Act (1958)
      o This law set up separate territorial governments in the 'homelands', designated lands for black people where they could have a vote. The aim was that these homelands or 'bantustans' would eventually become independent of South Africa. In practice, the South African government exercised a strong influence over these separate states even after some of them became 'independent'.
* Bantu Investment Corporation Act (1959)
      o This law set up a mechanism to transfer capital to the homelands in order to create jobs there.
* The Extension of University Education Act (1959)
      o This law created separate universities for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians.
* Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act (1967)
      o This law allowed the government to stop industrial development in 'white' cites and redirect such development to homeland border areas. The aim was to speed up the relocation of blacks to the homelands by relocating jobs to homeland areas.
* Black Homeland Citizenship Act (1970)
      o This law changed the status of the inhabitants of the 'homelands' so that they were no longer citizens of South Africa. The aim was to ensure whites became the demographic majority within 'white' South Africa.
* The Afrikaans Medium Decree (1974)
      o This law required the use of Afrikaans and English on a fifty-fifty basis in high schools outside the homelands.

[John_Mace]

And one other very important thing: The solution to Apartheid is to give full citizenship to all non-alien residents. So, the solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem would be to form one state where Israelis and Palestinians are citizens. Carter is off his rocker on this one. Or maybe he is deliberately trying to be provocative because, per the WaPo story (emphasis added):

He ticks off three reasons for his constant typing.

He needs the money, in part because he’s chosen not to go on the lecture circuit or sit on corporate boards. He enjoys the discipline of writing. And books get him attention when he has something to say.

“I could make a speech,” he says, “or I could write an article.” But “this way, I’ve been on ‘The Diane Rehm Show’ yesterday and the Chris Matthews show and Larry King and ‘Good Morning America’ and ‘The Early Show’ and 15 others.”

[Apos]

@John Mace

I don’t support Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories either, but that doesn’t make it apartheid. It’s like calling Bush a fascist because you don’t like his politics.

I ah, forgot this was the John Mace school of nitpicking, wherein comparisons must be EXACTLY litterally the same for other people to legitimately use them.

Apartheid is a distinct system that was set up in South Africa over many years to reclassify its own people as non-citizens. It’s similar to what Nazi Germany did in its early days when it stripped Jewish citizens of citicenship and sent them to their “homelands” in Poland, etc.

Wait, similar? It doesn’t have to be the distinct system set up in South Africa, like the committee that wrote your previous sentence said?

This is not what Israel is doing. It’s an occupying power in the Palestinian territories, which is altogether different.

Altogether different except that it is, de facto, a system of territorial segregation. Which is the defining feature of the apartheid. You know: the one that they developed by studying what America did to the American Indians. But since that wasn’t the exact same distinct system as in South Africa, I guess nothing else can ever be apartheid. Unless you say it is for the purposes of talking about Germany.

[John_Mace]

@Apos

I ah, forgot this was the John Mace school of nitpicking, wherein comparisons must be EXACTLY litterally the same for other people to legitimately use them.

Ah, I forgot, this is Apos, kind of the ad hominem arguments.

Wait, similar? It doesn’t have to be the distinct system set up in South Africa, like the committee that wrote your previous sentence said?

So, list the similarities and differences and make your fucking case.

[MrDibble]

Is it time for this again? Of course Israel is an apartheid state, it was the last time we had this debate and it still is.

People are soooo touchy about that word, and seem to think it means you hate Israel or are for blowing up Tel Aviv discos or something. Sheesh. I like Israel, it’s got a lot going for it, but yeah, it’s an apartheid state.

[ElvisL1ves]

@John Mace

Ah, I forgot, this is Apos, kind of the ad hominem arguments.

Look up what ad hominem means sometime.