Our debt to Jimmy Carter

[bemildred]

The government of Israel is boycotting Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, during his visit here this week. Ehud Olmert, who has not managed to achieve any peace agreement during his public life, and who even tried to undermine negotiations in the past, "could not find the time" to meet the American president who is a signatory to the peace agreement with Egypt. President Shimon Peres agreed to meet Carter, but made sure that he let it be known that he reprimanded his guest for wishing to meet with Khaled Meshal, as if the achievements of the Carter Center fall short of those of the Peres Center for Peace. Carter, who himself said he set out to achieve peace between Israel and Egypt from the day he assumed office, worked incessantly toward that goal and two years after becoming president succeeded - was declared persona non grata by Israel.

The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world. Recently, he was involved in organizing the democratic elections in Nepal, following which a government will be set up that will include Maoist guerrillas who have laid down their arms. But Israelis have not liked him since he wrote the book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."

Israel is not ready for such comparisons, even though the situation begs it. It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel's control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted. The interim political situation in the territories has crystallized into a kind of apartheid that has been ongoing for 40 years. In Europe there is talk of the establishment of a binational state in order to overcome this anomaly. In the peace agreement with Egypt, 30 years ago, Israel agreed to "full autonomy" for the occupied territories, not to settle there. These promises have been forgotten by Israel, but Carter remembers.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html

[jeff30997]

1. A real shame.

I won't see peace there in my lifetime.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. The Magnes Zionist offers an interesting PS to the editorial

(P.S. from Jerry <"the Magnes Zionist"} -- the situation in the West Bank, of course, is not apartheid -- that is an insult to apartheid -- but much worse. At least in apartheid, black South Africans were not as restricted in movement as were the Palestinians. Both groups, of course, were considered to be culturally and morally inferior to their overlords. No, the proper word is not "apartheid", but rather, hafradah had-tzedatit, which may be roughly understood as "limiting the freedom of the untermenschen to protect the well-being of the ubermenschen")[br />
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. As an American subsidizer.. um taxpayer, I find that snub infuriating.

How. Dare. They.

[bemildred]

5. That's an interesting blog. nt

[Vegasaurus]

4. We've already gone over why the I/P situation isn't apartheid

or genocide, or any of the other hyperboles offered.

Just because it makes for good propaganda doesn't make it true.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shaayecanaan]

7. I may have missed that discussion...

but I don't recall anyone mustering any compelling arguments to the effect that the IP situation is not apartheid, although I do remember a lot of incredulous screeching without a great deal to back it up.

Again, this is another annoying example of certain posters presuming that their limp arguments have carried the floor here. One of the more irritating things about this place, IMO.

[Shaktimaan]

8. OK, I'll bite.

How can it be apartheid when we are discussing two separate nations? Apartheid is segregation and oppression based on race, where two groups are treated vastly differently despite being citizens of the same country, correct? In this case the difference is one of citizens and non-citizens. Almost all non-Israelis living in the territories are under PA or Hamas' jurisdiction, not Israel's. You may be able to make the argument that Israel oppresses Palestinians or that they practice discrimination, sure... but apartheid? The argument becomes funky right away because you have to alter the original meaning of apartheid for it to work here; you need to figure out a way to define apartheid where race and ethnicity are irrelevant. Can you even have real live apartheid if the discrimination isn't based on race? Or does it become something else?

Maybe you can give a definition of apartheid you agree with and then explain exactly how it applies to I/P?

[azurnoir]

9. The meaning of apartheid

apartheid
One entry found.

apartheid

Main Entry:
apart·heid Listen to the pronunciation of apartheid Listen to the pronunciation of apartheid
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈpär-ˌtāt, -ˌtīt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Afrikaans, from apart apart + -heid -hood
Date:
1947

1: racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa2: separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartheid

unless you'de like to quibble with Merriam Webster, the word has grown beyond it's original Afrikaners meaning, and I think cultural apartheid would apply here.

[Shaktimaan]

10. But for the term "cultural apartheid" to apply here

the discrimination would have to be based on the cultural difference between Israel and the Palestinians. Yet 20% of Israel's own citizens are Arab, and culturally Palestinian to boot. If Israel was practicing apartheid based on culture then it would apply to them as well, which it clearly does not.

In order to label Israel's policy "apartheid" then you have to demonstrate a way that it can only apply to some Palestinians and not others. As I see it there is only one difference between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs and that is nationality. Is it really apartheid to have different rules for citizens than for non-citizens? I think that stretching the meaning of apartheid to include discrimination based on citizenship is a gross misuse of the term.

Unless I am overlooking another difference between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians that would explain how treating the two groups differently amounts to apartheid. Got anything?

[azurnoir]

11. The West Bank is what country?

you can parse all you want it changes nothing, or are claiming that the West Bank is an official part of Israel? Because the Israeli citizens living there are not citizens of that territory either so your claim a country has the right to treat citizens and non-citizens differently has little meaning
BTW does this IYO apply to the US as well?

[Shaktimaan]

13. The west bank is unclaimed territory. It is not anyone's country.

It is also disputed territory, some of which is administered by the Palestinians and some by Israel, by mutual agreement.

your claim a country has the right to treat citizens and non-citizens differently has little meaning

I never made that claim. My claim is that if the only difference between two groups is nationality then it is disingenuous to use the term "apartheid" to describe a system that treats them differently. You also seem to be arguing that a system which wouldn't qualify as apartheid inside of Israel automatically becomes so when instituted outside of Israel. That doesn't make sense to me. A system is either apartheid or it isn't. Think about south africa for instance.

Also bear in mind, many of the supposed examples of Israeli apartheid, like the policy of maintaining two separate road systems in the territories, don't exist to maintain a matrix of control over Palestinians, (which is what south african apartheid was created for), but are the direct result of a war going on between the two groups. So again, the original meaning of apartheid gets significantly changed to make it fit Israel's situation.

I still think it would be best for you to come up with a definition of apartheid that represents what Israel is doing, yet still applies to other scenarios. It is probably the best way to determine whether or not Israel is practicing apartheid. Come up with a definition and we'll test it to see if it applies. I'd also be interested in hearing your opinion as to what the difference is between mere discrimination and actual apartheid. (Or do you consider any systematic discrimination to count as full-blown apartheid?)

The Rome statute of the ICC and the UN both have similar definitions, neither of which would apply to Israel.

The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which established the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

On 30 November 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

BTW does this IYO apply to the US as well?

I don't understand. Does what apply to the US as well?

[azurnoir]

14. And still more parsing

"Is it really apartheid to have different rules for citizens than for non-citizens? I think that stretching the meaning of apartheid to include discrimination based on citizenship is a gross misuse of the term."

This quote would indicate that you first say it is not apartheid because the Palestinians on the West bank are not Israeli citizens

Then claim that is not what you meant but it is still not apartheid because there are no racial differences between Israeli Arabs who you freely seem to admit are discriminated against in Israel and Palestinians.

The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which established the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

So separate roads 450+ roadblocks and home demolitions do not count as "institutionalized regime of systematic oppression" or it that it does not take place because of racial differences?

LOL it's just discrimination not apartheid, yeah, world opinion is not a court of law so you can use a defence such as that here we are "technically" innocent, but that will not change anything, just ask OJ.

[Shaktimaan]

15. OK, let me try and clarify my argument for you.

The reason I asked you for a definition is so that we could have a fixed point of reference to argue from. Once we can agree what apartheid is, then it is relatively easy to determine whether Israel's policies qualify. What I hate doing is trying to discuss this when someone has clearly already decided that Israel practices apartheid and uses a fluid, changing definition to retroactively "prove" it. So for this discussion I'm going to use the Rome statute's definition as you've already referenced it. OK?

The reason apartheid is such a meaningful accusation is that it is considered a crime against humanity, the worst level of criminal act, reserved exclusively for large scale atrocities. So when the ICC's definition includes a number of qualifying traits it is to differentiate apartheid from run of the mill discrimination and other lesser crimes. Simply, Israel must meet these qualities in order for its policies to be considered apartheid.

• The acts must be inhuman on the same level as murder, rape, enslavement, extermination and so on.
• It must be committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination.
• It must be domination or oppression of one race over another. (But I agree that "culture" or "ethnicity" is applicable.)
• It must be committed with the intention of maintaining said regime.

I think an argument could be made for the first point. Israel's actions are harmful enough to qualify. The second point is definitely true. But the third is definitely not. It just isn't oppression of one race over another. The basis isn't race or ethnicity but citizenship and national identity. Finally, the fourth point is also untrue. Things like the security fence and checkpoints exist because the two groups are at war with each other. They exist for security reasons, not to enable racist oppression.

LOL it's just discrimination not apartheid, yeah, world opinion is not a court of law so you can use a defence such as that here we are "technically" innocent, but that will not change anything, just ask OJ.

You certainly play fast and loose with deciding guilt of crimes against humanity, don't you? You accuse me of "parsing" and admit that Israel's "technically innocent" but then act as though it doesn't matter. I don't get the OJ reference at all. OJ was guilty, technically and otherwise. He just wasn't convicted. In Israel's case they are not committing apartheid. It is that simple. You may equate discrimination and apartheid because it is easy to do so. But then any impact that apartheid may have is lost. The way you use the term we are all guilty of apartheid.

By the way, your final is great! It sums up the most common way people determine Israel's guilt... world opinion says so, even if it isn't really true. You have decided Israel's guilt before looking at the facts. You call them guilty of apartheid because apartheid is really bad and you don't like them. Sure they're "technically innocent" but that doesn't matter because they are unpopular enough to warrant overlooking that sad fact. Basically, Israel practices apartheid because they are disliked, not because they actually do so. What is the word for that again?

Oh, yeah... discrimination.

[azurnoir]

17. Thank you

you made my point for me with the OJ reference-

I don't get the OJ reference at all. OJ was guilty, technically and otherwise. He just wasn't convicted.

these points-

• The acts must be inhuman on the same level as murder, rape, enslavement, extermination and so on.
• It must be committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination.
• It must be domination or oppression of one race over another. (But I agree that "culture" or "ethnicity" is applicable.)
• It must be committed with the intention of maintaining said regime.

I have not seen that first item referenced anywhere, although murder could be applicable in Israel's case. The last 3 however do apply, unless you are claiming Israel plans on leaving the West Bank.

You accuse me of using fluid changing definitions to "prove" something, in truth you are ther one moving the goal posts, with every post.

Oh and BTW you assume I dislike Israel common charge, but untrue and then say I decided before "knowing" the facts, also untrue, it was the facts that convinced me.

[Shaktimaan]

20. Care to explain the OJ reference?

The first point is in the first sentence of the Rome statute's definition of apartheid. "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; Paragraph 1 defines certain acts as "crimes against humanity."

I'm willing to accept the first point as valid, but murder isn't applicable. The statute defines murder as "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; Israel has no state or organizational policy to attack the civilian population. Collateral damage obtained during an attack targeting non-civilians is not what they are describing. Torture and forcible transfer of population are both applicable crimes though so this point still holds water.

As for the third point, it clearly does not apply. Israel is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society. Both the state of Israel and the IDF have ethnic Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, Druze and Jewish members, among others. Ethnicity (or race) is not the defining difference between Israelis and Palestinians, there simply is no oppression of one race over another.

The final point requires that the aforementioned racial oppression be committed with the intent of the race in power maintaining its dominance over the other. Because it would seem that every applicable action perpetrated by Israel have been legitimate responses to terrorism and were intended to protect Israeli citizens, NOT to perpetuate Jewish dominance over Arabs, Israel fails to meet this qualification. According to this statute's definition of apartheid, intent matters. Perhaps you can give me an example of Israeli policy that oppresses Arabs to ensure Jewish dominance over them? I can certainly show you examples of Israeli policy that do the exact opposite.

IMHO, your biggest problem lies in articulating exactly who is oppressing who. It is not Jews oppressing Arabs as not all Israelis are Jewish and, in fact, many are Arab. You could say Israelis are oppressing Palestinians but then you are describing a sovereign state oppressing a different nation, the sole difference between them being nationality. If that is apartheid then so is every other state on the planet. The occupation of Iraq would be apartheid.

I also fail to see what Israel leaving/not leaving the west bank has to do with anything. How does it have anything to do with whether Israel practices apartheid? Also, how have I moved any goal posts? You never gave me a definition you liked so I used the most recent one accepted by the international community. I never changed any of my arguments, all I did was try to clarify them for you.

[azurnoir]

24. I already explained that reference n/t

[Shaktimaan]

33. so that's it?

you're done here, I take it?

[msmcghee]

22. In this comment you stated . .

• The acts must be inhuman on the same level as murder, rape, enslavement, extermination and so on.

"I think an argument could be made for the first point. Israel's actions are harmful enough to qualify."

Is that an argument you'd be willing to make? That's a pretty strong condemnation. If so, I'd like to see your justification for it. Since I haven't seen any bias from you in that direction I'd be inclined to seriously consider whatever argument you make.

[Vegasaurus]

16. There were no separate roads or roadblocks

before blowing up Israelis became part of the Palestinian national cause.

Their bad choices have made their lives more difficult.

History proves that. There were no "apartheid conditions" before the Palestinians began violent resistance on a huge scale.

Israelis have to protect themselves. If a Sunday drive is taking ones life in their hands (which it is, because Jews can't even go for a drive or a hike without fear of being killed), then there have to be separate roads.

If the Palestinians want to have no road blocks, and drive on the same roads, they should stop trying to kill Israelis. Simple as that.

[azurnoir]

18. If Israelis must "protect" themselves

why are they still building more settlements on the West Bank? After all if the separation wall is supposedly to "protect" Israeli's, why are they then not in Israel proper where they are protected?

[Shaktimaan]

21. Why does it matter?

I think you're confusing different issues. So some Israelis live in the west bank. How does their presence there have anything to do with whether or not Israel's policies are apartheid?

[azurnoir]

23. I was answering totally different question from

a different poster, sir.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. UNCLAIMED??? WTF are you talking about? nt

[Shaktimaan]

26. The west bank and gaza are de facto unclaimed territory.

You know this.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

28. Shakti

you are out of your mind.

The moral chasm you have jumped with this assertion is wide and astounding.

You are scaring me.

[bemildred]

29. Oh come come, nobody wants the West Bank and Gaza.

That's not what all the fighting is about is it?

[Shaktimaan]

30. Sorry, I meant de jure unclaimed.

They are de facto occupied.

I've crossed no moral chasm. These are just legal terms, they don't reflect any change in my opinion, or anything about my opinion in fact. "De jure unclaimed" merely means that the OPT aren't legally part of any sovereign state. Some of it is disputed territory, both nations have legitimate arguments supporting their claims to the areas under dispute.

There have always been two sides to this conflict, and I don't mean Palestinian and Israeli. I mean the legal aspect of it versus the ethics. I often find when I am making a case for a specific legal issue my opponent will try and turn it around and imply that I am arguing an opinion I hold, scrambling for the moral high ground and the comfort of its nuanced shades of gray area as opposed to the stark simplicity of legal arguments. Not that I think this is what you are doing here, I just think you are unfamiliar with the terminology I used. (Obviously I'm no expert myself.)

In this case all I was saying is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians can claim the OPT as its own sovereign territory from a legal standpoint. Regarding apartheid, I fail to see how a nation can be practicing it in land that it is not sovereign over, against a people who are not its citizens, who actually claim a different nationality for themselves with a government to match. Say Israel oppresses them instead. Or that Palestinians are discriminated against. Both terms apply. But apartheid means something specific, something that carries with it a stigma that's undeserved in this case. It is an example of people trying to take their point to extremes for emotional effect.

Not every fascist is a Nazi. Not every racist is a Klan member. And not all discrimination is apartheid.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. and yet...

this antiseptic legal thinking is really a kind disassociation which enables the rationalization of heinous wrong-doing.

Can you not see that?

The fact is the presence of settlers in the WB is very well leading to an apartheid system of law, whereby one group is subject to one set, and another group to another. Jews-only roads are just the beginning.

To quote Jeremiah Haber, an Israeli commentator whom I really respect, "the situation in the West Bank, of course, is not apartheid -- that is an insult to apartheid -- but much worse. At least in apartheid, black South Africans were not as restricted in movement as were the Palestinians. Both groups, of course, were considered to be culturally and morally inferior to their overlords. No, the proper word is not "apartheid", but rather, hafradah had-tzedatit, which may be roughly understood as "limiting the freedom of the untermenschen to protect the well-being of the ubermenschen."

[Shaktimaan]

32. Law is law. Ethics is ethics.

We can discuss one or the other. But let's not cross-pollinate, there's nothing more annoying than hearing an ethical defense to a legal argument.

My argument against the apartheid label is not that Israel isn't worthy of critique or that I support most of their policies in the west bank and Gaza. I'm not even saying whether apartheid was worse or better than what's going on in the OPT. All I'm saying is that they are entirely different.

I'm sure you can relate to my frustration over people distorting or simplifying aspects of this conflict for emotional effect or to rally/convert supporters. I truly feel that hyperbole on both sides, anything that makes this overly complex subject any less understandable or more misrepresented, is damaging to everyone in the long run. I am against using the apartheid label because it is a craven attempt at avoiding real understanding by portraying Israel against a hated historical regime. The reality is that you really have to torture these parallels to get them to even remotely fit. The Palestinians are not like black south africans. Their motives, history and goals are not similar. They are not fighting for equality under Israel's government. And Israel is not oppressing them because it is a racist society that's afraid of the consequences of equality. Casting Israel as an apartheid state is an easy way to say that their position has no relevance, that it is without any morality or reason. And that just is not the case. It is the equivalent of comparing the Palestinians with the Nazis, and the intifada with the holocaust.

Both comparisons end up quelling real understanding of the problems at hand instead of clarifying anything.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. Moral leaders around the world such as Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu

are clear about what's going on.

You think it's hyperbole because you can't stand the truth.

The truth hurts but to call that land "unclaimed" is beyond the moral pale.

[Vegasaurus]

35. There is no universal "truth"

with regard to I/P.

Only in your mind, is there such a truth.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. I'm sure that's what you'd like to convince people... that the expulsion of 750,000 refugees,

destruction of 400+ villages, massacres of 100s of innocent civilians... that these are all matters of opinion.

Unfortunately, history does not accommodate you.

[Shaktimaan]

37. you do know that "unclaimed" is a technical term meaning that

the land is not part of any sovereign nation, right?

It has nothing to do with morality or my own opinion at all. I understand you are upset and perhaps have misunderstood the terminology. Perhaps you think that the term is a deliberate attempt to blur the issues, although it wasn't invented for this conflict.

I'm not going to play "my world leaders moral opinions vs. yours." It's silly. I lost a lot of my respect for Carter after reading his book precisely because of his unbridled hyperbole and tendency to present a skewed version of historical events. It has nothing to do with my disagreeing with his opinion. It is that his opinion was based on faulty and biased information. He disseminated facts according to what supported his opinion, which I find repugnant considering his stature and the fact that his book was meant as a primer for neophytes. Desmond Tutu is not necessarily someone I would label as a moral leader. But again, that doesn't matter. Gandhi also had plenty of criticism for Israel, why not drag him out? The opinion of various world leaders doesn't change the facts of the matter one iota.

If Israel is practicing apartheid then what is the entire Arab world practicing? More to the point, if the meaning of apartheid has to be so diluted as to be applicable to Israeli policy then shouldn't we be condemning the majority of world nations (that it is now also applicable to?) Or was the meaning of the word twisted thus specifically so that Israel could be condemned, despite it being the least racist state in the entire region?

Yup, the truth must hurt.

[azurnoir]

12. dupe delete

[shaayecanaan]

27. During the Jim Crow era...

black people in the southern United States were subject to wide-ranging segregation and discrimination. Certainly, their treatment resembled apartheid, although perhaps largely petty apartheid rather than the grand version.

Black people in the northern United States, were, by contrast, relatively enfranchised, although still subject to quite severe discrimination.

That black people were not as disenfranchised in the north in no way attenuated the fact that they were treated terribly in the South, and the absence of apartheid in one place does not imply its absence in another.

The proper question to ask is: how are Jewish, Palestinian residents of the West Bank (I am primarily referring to the 600 or so Samaritans left in the vicinity of Nablus) treated in comparison to the Arab population at large? If you can answer that satisfactorily, you're on the right track.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. In your dreams. See post #2 above. nt