Ha'aretz columnist Brad Burston:
What Carter reveals, in the end, is that he knows the organized Jewish community of the United States in ways he will never know the Jewish community - or for that matter, the Palestinian community - in the Holy Land. He knows America's Jewish leadership as do few American Jews. He was, after all, twice the nominee of the Democratic Party.
These people elected him president. They applauded him at Camp David. They sang his praises for forging the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation.
Carter knows these people, all right. He knows their vulnerabilities, their gut fears, their feelings for Israel. He knows what makes them tick. He knows what makes them squirm. He knows what makes them livid with rage. And Carter plays them, all of them, all at once, with the brio of a virtuoso on his farewell concert tour.
The thesis that Carter is "out to get" the American Jewish leadership is an interesting one. It's not exactly true that the Jewish leadership was enthusiastic for Carter, except for a brief time following the Camp David Accord (which in many ways came about despite, rather than because of Carter, who preferred an international peace conference including the Soviet Union!) Jewish leaders mostly supported Scoop Jackson in the '76 primaries. Many implicitly or explicitly supported Ted Kennedy in the 1980 primaries. And Carter got less than half the Jewish vote in 1980, a remarkably bad performance considering that Ronald Reagan's political predecessor, Barry Goldwater, received about 10% of the Jewish vote in 1964, compared to Reagan's 40% (Anderson's 15% rounded out the total). Of course, even 100% of the relatively small Jewish vote wouldn't have put Carter over the top in 1980, but the hostility of a large part of the Jewish community, which is a core constituency of the Democratic Party, made his life a lot more difficult.
Of course, I can't read Carter's mind, but something has to explain obviously misleading statements like this: "My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professor." This sounds a lot like Carter claiming that the Jewish establishment has the will and power to stop universities from hosting an ex-president who volunteers to speak "for free." So here's a challenge to Mr. Carter: name even ONE university where you were unable to speak "for free"--and I mean really "for free", not a situation in which the university has to pay for a private plane to take you roundtrip from Georgia, and pay additional thousands for your security.
Oh, he didn't really mean "for free," he just meant "without an honorarium!?" Perhaps he was just trying to "stimulate discussion" about the Jewish establishment's influence, his equally lame excuse for using the term "apartheid" to discuss the Israeli occupation of the territories, even though he acknowledges that this occupation [which Israel basically offered to end in Camp David in 2000] is not a manifestation of "racism."
I think you mean in 1980.
If we intentionally interpret what Carter said in a way that is different from what Carter meant, then we can catch him in a lie, since he obviously meant what, uhhh, he meant.
This is the type of logic that makes men cry.
However we all know that's not true. The rich as famous among us are subject to the same ravages of time as the we mere mortals. The difference is they have a coterie of yes men around them whose positions involve keeping up the pretense that the the famous one is still at the top of his game.
I've often wondered if a 52 year old Dan Rather would have asked more questions of his staff in late 2004 than did the 72 year old reporter when confronted with fantastic documents and story. I also wonder if a 60 year old Jimmy Carter would have put out the same statements as did an 80 year old (note that I say put out, not "written" as older stars tend to write less and less of their own words). Maybe a 60 year old would have been better able to gauge the reaction of the public. The 80 year old seems to have been pretty slow to realize to what people across the political spectrum would think of his effort.
But sympathy and good taste demanded that we avert our eyes when Strom Thruman obviously no longer knew what year it was when he arrived from his bed in Walter Reed to cast his vote in the senate well. Bad form to mention that you wonder if grandpa recognized you today. And, indeed, this may be the time that we're supposed to avert our eyes and silently wonder when a former president take up fly fishing full time.
Also, I hope supporters of Israel realize crying anti-semite when what one really means is anti-Irsael undermines their position, at least that is how I see it as someone who tends to favor Israel. Conservatives don't like it when a liberal resorts to the racism canard, which tends to end rather than further debate. Conservative supporters of Israel should no more tolerate the same tactic with respect to criticism of Israel; either the criticisms have merit or they do not, there is no reason to question Carter's motives.
One more point: Describing the situation in Israel and Palestine as "apartheid" is inflammatory, but is it really so hard to see why Israel critics use it? Does it look nothing like apartheid? Really? There is more than a little irony in that the response to Carter playing the racism card is to play the race card on Carter!
What do you think about this from Carter's book, "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." Not exactly disapproving of terrorism against Israel in the service of Palestinian nationalism, is it? How far is that from "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," since once the Palestinian "freedom fighters" have achieved their goals, they will have no further need for terrorism.
And Carter not only choses to ignore the Hitlerian antisemitism that spews forth from the Muslim world, especially Palestinian media, he consorts with those who fund the antisemitism (Sheikh Zayed of UAE), at least if they also fund him through the Carter Center and bestow honors (and honoraria) on him.
You don't have to wait for Ha'aretz to conclude that Carter is an antisemite. You should be able to see for yourself before that decidedly leftist Israel paper tells you that Carter's appearance, gait, and utterances are sufficiently like those of an antisemite that one can justify calling him an antisemite now.
And since you seem to believe that Carter's words have been tendentiously twisted to give them meaning he never intended, I would be very interested to hear how you think we should understand, "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."
As a member of the same tribe as Prof. Dershowitz, I think it's awesome that we are flipping this one around at long last. We must expose the shadowy Arab cabal!
And no, it's nothing like apartheid. Before there were persistent suicide murders and other violence emanating from the Pal side, there was basically free movement between the territories and Israel, and within the territories. In the 1980s, the same folks who are now shouting "apartheid" were shouting "creeping annexation" because of the lack of boundaries between the occupiers and the occupied.
And Carter's acceptance of, if not affection for, Arafat and others who most Americans find execrable? I suppose since the evidence incriminating Arafat in the murder of our ambassador to Sudan was deemed insufficient to prosecute him, Carter saw no reason not to embrace warmly his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat.
[can't link to 1986 NYT story. It can be Googled using "Arafat" and "American ambassador," though.]
Professor Bernstein, perhaps you are insufficiently familiar with Carter's record. Jay Nordlinger has several times noted the highlights, doing a pretty good job, though it is hard ever to do Carter's record real justice:
[Again, don't know how to link Nordlinger's pieces, but they too can be found through Google.]
I will not quibble with your distinction, because I agree with it, the sort of "apartheid" Carter describes is for the most part necessary for the security of Israel. But that isn't so much a "this isn't apartheid" argument as an "apartheid is justified in this case" argument, is it not? Obviously Carter seeks to discredit Israel with the comparison (counting on the fact that nobody wishes to defend racial or religious separatism), but certainly he would concede some of the substantive differences you think make the Israel situation "nothing like apartheid." Yet he still thinks the comparison has some value. Why is that? Being no expert, I'm far from entrenched on this, so feel free to expand on your points.
As for this:
And since you seem to believe that Carter's words have been tendentiously twisted to give them meaning he never intended, I would be very interested to hear how you think we should understand, "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."
Come on. We just had a monster thread on that quote. A significant majority of people seemed to read it not as "if and only when" but rather as just "when," as it is written. You may not agree, but demanding that people justify the quote is a little bit silly - you can just scroll down the main page and see an awful lot of commentary supporting a strictly textual interpretation of that sentence.
Thanks for the explanation of how to create a link. And again I would recommend to everyone's attention the NYT item and Nordlinger's several pieces on the subject of James Earl Carter. Perhaps one day, William Buckley, wo devoted 50+ pages of the National Review to an indictment of his fellow conservatives Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran, along with one of not-conservative Gore Vidal, as antisemites, will take up Carter's case. There is, I think, a lot of material to mine there.
(I look forward to reading the comments in response to EV's post.)
As a Jewish friend pointed out, religion in Israel is a nationality. Thus, dumping on Palestinians does not have quite the stigma for some that racism may elicit. One irony in this situation is that Jews who were compelled or elected to convert to Islam, for instance, to avoid migration (note that the very first purge of non-muslims was in Medina, where an entire Jewish tribe had its men slaughtered and women and children enslaved under guidance of Muhammad for not submitting to Islam) are now not worthy of any type of reintegration or respect for their choice of religion. What they did for survival is grounds for wanna-be-Jews of today expelling them or refusing them entry into their homeland that they clung to for more than a thousand years, even if as muslims.
The present state of Israel does not have equity on its side for many additional reasons. It has not been kind or accomodating to non-Jews and is increasingly sliding towards orthodoxy that may exclude even more of the Jews. What Israel does to Palestinians (read original inhabitants of the present Israel) is an indication of what awaits other non-mainstream Jews and their practices should they protest when politically weak. In a manner of speaking, the dynamic labelled as apartheid in describing the treatment of Palestinian refugees is quite appropriate with water rights, family reunification, land occupancy and movement all restricted in a manner to reduce Palestinians to a captive cheap labor force that is disciplined by disproportionate force for the benefit of its masters accross the border. No Israeli has been substantively punished for advocating liquidation of Palestinians or even killing a few or more. Palestinian children have been shot dead for throwing stones at forces out to destroy their homes and security-- again.
The only way out is to force integration of all people with a right to vote to all, be they Palestinian, refuggess or not, or Jewish or Druze or whatever. If demographics hurt the Orthodox Jews-- tough luck. Make yourself palatable to the rest to survive politically. Then, with equal access to housing subsidies from the Israeli government (presently restricted to Jewish citizens), apartheid can be removed and normalcy and peace prevail.
The pretence that Jewish tribes are at a greater risk of annhilation than other people is just that. It is not a proper reason to promote the present policies of apartheid that reek of overkill.
That said, in the present political climate, it is unlikely that Israel will see any value in fairness towards the dispossesed. Instead, executions and assasinations and other acts of violence will continue to be the norm for all sides in this conflict.
Israeli historian Benny Morris observed that Zionists could choose from only two options: "the way of South Africa" -- i.e., "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority" -- or "the way of transfer" -- i.e., "you could create a homogeneous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out." [1]
Norman Bentwich, a Jewish officer in the Mandatory government who later taught at the Hebrew University, recalled in his memoir that, "One of the causes of resentment between Arabs and Jews was the determined policy of the Jewish public bodies to employ only Jewish workers....This policy of 'economic apartheid' was bound to strengthen the resistance of Arabs to Jewish immigration." [2]
More than a decade ago while the world was celebrating the Oslo Accords, seasoned Israeli analyst and former deputy mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti observed, "It goes without saying that 'cooperation' based on the current power relationship is no more than permanent Israeli domination in disguise, and that Palestinian self-rule is merely a euphemism for Bantustanization." [3]
A major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B'Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank again concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa." [4]
The editorial board of Israel's leading newspaper Haaretz observed in September 2006 that "the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation" [5]
As well as former Israeli Knesset member Shulamit Aloni [6],
Former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa Alon Liel, South African Archbishop and Nobel Laureate for Peace Desmond Tutu [7]
And "father" of human rights law in South Africa John Dugard [8].
If making the claim that Israel has set up an apartheid system to control its "Palestinian Problem" constitutes anti-semitism, the world is awash in it. Methinks Mr. Bernstein dost protest too much...
1. Benny Morris, "Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948," in Eugene L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds), The War for Palestine (Cambridge: 2001), pp. 39-40.
2. Norman and Helen Bentwich, Mandate Memories, 1918-1948 (New York: 1965), p. 53.
3. Meron Benvenisti, Intimate Enemies (New York: 1995), p. 232.
4. B'Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), Land Grab: Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank (May 2002), p. 104. B'Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), Forbidden Roads: Israel's discriminatory road regime in the West Bank (August 2004), p. 3.
5. "The Problem That Disappeared," editorial, Haaretz (11 September 2006),
6. Roee Nahmias, "'Israeli Terror is Worse'," Yediot Ahronot (29 July 2005) (Aloni),
7. Chris McGreal, "Worlds Apart: Israel, Palestine and Apartheid" and "Brothers In Arms: Israel's secret pact with Pretoria," Guardian (6 February 2006, 7 February 2006) (Tutu, Liel),
8. John Dugard, "Apartheid: Israelis Adopt What South Africa Dropped," Atlanta Journal-Constitution (29 November 2006).
(My thanks to Norman Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors, for the pointers)
It isn't apartheid at all. Those Arabs who live inside Israel are allowed full citizenship including the ability to vote and hold elective office. Since the entire argument of the Palestinians is that the occupied territories are not a part of Israel, I cannot for the life of me see why it would be analogous to apartheid for Israel to control its national borders and not allow free entry to non-citizens. Sure, Israel has generally imposed controls upon Palestinians living in the occupied territories but that has no resemblance to apartheid either. The proper inflamatory comparison would be Nazi-occupied France or something. If Carter is going to attack Israel then he should at least use comparisons that aren't completely inapplicable.
Because it is an appeal to emotion and one that implies that only one side is in the wrong and that fixing the situation requires that side to act unilaterally. Of course Israel already acted unilaterally to offer Arafat 97% of everything he was asking for plus a committment to a second round of negotiation that would decide the fate of Jerusalem. The Palestinians' response was to start the second intifada.
That response should give everyone pause since the obvious best choice would have been to take the deal and then build up a genuine military force to use to take the rest. Of course that assumes that the ultimate goal of the decision-makers was to get 100% of what the PLO was publicly demanding. Under what circumstances would refusing the deal in favor of a second intifada make sense? If the ultimate goal was to destroy Israel and you wanted to use dead Palestinians to generate international disapprobation of the Jewish state.
Please answer this question for free, at your earliest convenience.
Why is Israel planning, against American policy wishes, to build a new settlement in the West Bank? For security purposes?
As an American non-Jew, I think we need to look closer at our "allies" support.
If they are pursuing their own interests -- settlement expansion -- against expressed American policy, at a time when the US is bogged down in Iraq and America is sacrificing more of her men in the Middle East, we should have an honest and open discussion.
No "selective" interepretation like in the EV thread, no quick charges of anti-Semitism or racism... just an honest question of why someone who is supposed to be on America's side insists on continually building on land under contention.
Again as a non-Jew, I think there is something to Palestinian complaints that Israel would "give" them a pockmarked state, portions of land here and there split by exclusive roads to settlement entrances. Now they're building more??
I've heard that this new settlement is fulfilling a promise to those extremist settlers who were evacuated from Gaza and wished to remain together.
Why not stand up to those, and have Israel explain that she cannot build on contested land right now, due to a committment to a major ally (US). If Israel wants to go it alone, I would be all for that too as an American.
What I don't like is that my country (US) suffers from its unconditional support of Israel, who is acting in its own interests and not thinking of the thousands of American servicepeople who apparently will be stationed in the MidEast for the next 20 years ... or until the first nuclear bomb falls ... or until the Jewish and Arab peoples can learn to coexist in peace.
If I were a betting man, unfortunately, I'd have to bet on the middle option. Fired by Israel, is my prediction. I think we'll look back in time, and wish more Americans and Israeli-Americans would have questioned Israel's land confiscation and treatment of non-Jews. I'd put Jimmy Carter in that camp.
None of us want an uglier world for our children just so some Jewish settler's children may have their own rooms in their new house built on Palestinian land. If the settler's are willing to risk their children's lives, so be it. But American children should not have to grow up without their fathers to pay this price.
Why does this use of italics remind of Woody Allen's "proof" that antisemitism was all around him because people were always saying 'd'you..." Annie Hall
a) DB "interprets" what he said to mean something different
b) DB res ipsa loquitor states how absurd that new meaning is (and yes, that new meaning would be absurd).
"My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professor."
I suppose it would have been more honest for Carter to substitute "for free" with "waiving my usual fee" or something like that, but according to this site, Carter usually charges $50-75k to speak.
If he offers to waive his fee in some circumstances, I don't think it's dishonest of him to advertise that fact without tacking on the caveat that he still intends to send his receipts to his host.
Justin's a little nasty about it, but he's right.
I think there is an argument to be made that President Carter is frustrated that no true discussion regarding Israeli policies, and America's linkage to this ally, is being had in American society.
If we can't ask and answer the questions raised above about America's role as either leader or follower to Israel's internal decisions, they we have to wonder whether the American democracy should face the consequences of poor policy decisions.
President Carter suggests that if pro-Israel lobbying groups were not so reluctant to answer these questions and take part in an American discussion about Israel -- open to all Americans -- perhaps they would not be so dominant in driving America's MidEast policy.
Agreed the way that some people have acted crying “anti-Semitism” for being critical of Israel or not denouncing terrorism enough has become almost a parody of the old Cold War cliché about a state-mandated “spontaneous” protest of the United States in a communist country complete with mass-produced placards and the secret police going from protester to protester whispering in their ear “comrade, you are not protesting vigorously enough.”
If someone had claimed that a person was biased towards the Jews because of “massive Jewish gifts to their center and themselves” and called on that person to “make full disclosure of all of his Jewish funding” they would probably be denounced as an anti-Semitic bigot. If Alan Dershowitz really said what you claimed he said, what would that make him?
Jay makes a couple very good points.
It's important--to amplify--that we have a definition of 'Apartheid'. Since the word is Afrikaans, let's stick with the South African usage. With that in mind, something that a country does on land that is not it's own, with people that are not it's residents, can't be apartheid. Perhaps one might want to compare Israel's actions in the territories to, say, white South Africa's incursions in Namibia.
But that's not apartheid.
I completely agree. Just the other day, I was walking in the mall when a jewish friend of mine whispered "you must denounce Carter's antisemitism." I naturally did, for I was in fear of my life. He then pointed out that if I did not burn an effigy of Jimmy Carter, my wife might have an "accident." I naturally did what I had to do. If only more of us were willing to speak out about this cabal, the world would be a safer place.
I'm not crying, but the logic seems faulty to me.
Or maybe he just remembers the old saying about why it’s not a good idea to mud wrestle with a pig.
I am frequently not in accord with Dershowitz on many issues, but I would hardly call him a “pig” even in a metaphorical sense. Carter must know that he made factual errors in his book like claiming that Israel attacked Jordan first. What we see here is simply the reluctance to engage. Just call your adversary a bigot, a racist, a fascist, a denier, etc and withdraw.
Aside from the fact that this is a sentence fragment, what do you mean by "low-born populism?" Have we gone from a culture war to a class war?
Too, unlike the earlier thread, this thread concerns an aspect of Carter's PR methods and attempted appeals to that low-born populism, moreso than the content of the book per se.
Firstly, obviously (A) is true, I had made a general statement only, I didn't develop a detailed thesis addressing particulars. As to (B) and (C), forget about the general application alluded to, at least for the moment, and refocus back upon Carter, his recently published book and the type of appeals he is offering. But as with (A), in terms of (B) and (C) it was a general allusion only, not a detailed thesis addressing specifics - I was responding to your query concerning socio-economic class distinctions.
Back to (A) again, even Norman Finkelstein, a well known anti-Israel polemicist in academe and a decided bigot in that vein, opens his own review of Carter's book with the following admissions: "The historical chapters of [Carter's book] are rather thin, filled with errors small and large, as well as tendentious and untenable interpretations," emphases added. (And the "historical chapters" comprise the greater part of the book, the prescriptive aspects of the book are largely comprised in the closing two chapters.)
You still haven't explained what "low-born" means, other than--if I may put words into your mouth--"a person or claim that I do not like." My dictionary doesn't have a "low-born" entry, and if did, I doubt it would say, "the ahistorical and anti-intellectual quality of . . . claims."
And I do not for a minute think that Saudi funding is the reason Carter publishes his lies and distortions about Israel and his anti-Semitic musings. It's much more reasonable to conclude that Carter's lies and anti-Semitic musings are the reason Carter receives Saudi funding.