I don't think you get to be 'provocative' in the title, and say that you didn't really mean it in the text. It's disingenuous crap. It's not good when Ramesh Ponnoru did it, and it's not good when Carter does it, either.

Simple, Kevin.

Kinsley is a professional schmuck. He has made a lucrative career of making the "left" (whom he does NOT represent) look bad.

And didn't you get the memo?

Carter's an anti-semite, you know.

Aaron: Carter doesn't say he doesn't really mean it. In fact, he very clearly says he does mean it. He just says that the "driving purpose" is different. Agree or disagree, he believes that the treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories amounts to apartheid.

In any case, Kinsley specifically says "the book makes no attempt to explain it," and that just doesn't seem to be the case.

Kinsley is a genius, the best of his generation at ripping people apart with gentle, rational words. Take a look at some of his old columns from when Bush #1 was president.

This column read like it was chopped down from something three times as long. It doesn't just miss the point Carter is making, it also jumps around in tone. Or maybe he's having a bad day. I don't know. But let's not pretend that he isn't a supremely talented writer and incisive observer. He's my hero, and if he were as alcoholic as Christopher Hitchens, he would be my God...

Sorry, Kevin, but the first commenter had it right: Whatever a dictionary may say, the everyday definition of "apartheid" doesn't just connote racism, it lays it at the doorstep of the accused. President Carter is far too smart to not know this, which makes Kinsley's article irrelevant to the question.

Expect all the usual suspects to go gunning for Carter. Kinsley is just in the first wave testing one of the more ridiculously vapid talking points. There will be many more attacks on Carter, and when one or more rhetorical jabs score a hit, the rest of the troops will coalesce their effort around propagating them.

Kevin Drum >"...But why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?"

To get attention because he still hasn`t figured out how to use the brain he was born with.

What else would you expect from a faux-lefty ?

"The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices." - James Carter

President Carter is a tower of integrity and honesty compared to the current occupant of thhe White House.

Mr. Kinsley, like all the talking heads, doesn't qualify to to be mentioned in the same paragraph. President Carter as been there and done it all with an honesty that isn't found in politicians.

It [apartheid] doesn't imply anything that relates to racism.

That's an idiosyncratic definition of "apartheid", which indeed was based on race. Since when does an Afrikans (of Dutch origin) word specifically meaning racial segregation in South Africa have an "everyday" meaning in American English?

...little more than disingenous smart aleckiness.

From Michael Kinsley? The devil you say!

Kinsley doesn't understand many things. I've never been impressed with his column, or his commentary, whether in print or on the screen. He has a very definite agenda he's always spinning, and I get the feeling it's not fact-based, but instead seeks to fit facts around ideology (which, in the end, is oh so easy to skewer).

Carter Controversy: The UN Definition of Apartheid

It's easy to argue about semantics, especially when it allows you to avoid dealing with either the underlying problem or other erstwhile important issues.

Kinsley's word games are no more valid than FOX News' bloviations over the so-called "War on Christmas". It's simply a way to manufacture controversy where none would otherwise exist.

I am reminded of the famous quote attributed to Ariel Sharon that Israel will take over land like a pastrami sandwich, taking over slice of land by slice of land by building Jewish settlements until it is impossible to remove Israelis.

Sometimes reviewers skim. My wife wrote an award-winning book about growing up in Wyoming, and a book reviewer from a large city daily wrote that the book was about raising, and riding, and feeding, and grooming pretty horsies. The book actually only mentioned a horse exactly one time.

Hacks.

Mr. Kinsley is paid to attack Carters reasonable book because it makes Israel look bad.

It's because he thinks that "Palestine" means the same as "Israel", and so he just makes that substitution without really thinking about it, and then says "But Israel isn't an apartheid state!"

Jimminy is becoming the Ramsey Clark of ex-Presidents. I heard him on PBS obsfucating for Hamas in a way that would make Noam Chomsky blush, so I have to say I'm a little disappointed [though not surprised] to see Kevin defend him here.

My brother-in-law was traveling through Plains, GA with his family a few years back, and it happened to be a Sunday morning. Lo and behold, Jimmy Carter walked out of a small church where he was teaching Sunday school, as he has for 50+ years. He walked in front of their car. My brother and his family got out of the car, introduced themselves and they talked to Carter for a half hour, like he was family.

Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, when he stands before the Lord on Judgment Day, he will have done more good than 99.9% of the rest of us.

The check from AIPAC cleared.

‘Lil Mat Yglesias also joined the dump on Jimmy bandwagon here.

Why does Israel enjoy such blind support from members of both the right and left?

But why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?

Because he got the memo from the Israeli Lobby?

Why does Kevin think that by asking, "why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?" he is expecting anything other than a dogpile?

Kevin, you're a bigtime blogger with a phone, IM, and email, why write this post when you could just call up Kinsley and ask him?

Not all criticism of Carter comes from AIPAC, or even those that disagree with the general thrust of his argument on this matter. For a much better exposition of the argument I think Carter is trying to make read Gershom Gorenberg's "The Accidental Empire," by a liberal Israeli.

Michael closes his column: "Where is their [Palestinians'] Mandela?" I ask Michael: Where is the international support that was given Mandela for such a Palestinian? Where is the American support that was given Mandela for such a Palestinian? Roadmap? Unfold and learn how to get lost. Yes, Apartheid ended peacefully, but only after many, many years. If the situation with Israel/Palestine is less than Apartheid, then why can't it be resolved? Could it be that the US has a National Interest in maintaining the status quo in the Middle East?

I wonder whether knee-jerk defenders of Israel ever stop once in a while to ponder just how much they sound like our home-grown defenders of "the peculiar institution" before our Civil War. The condition of the Arabs under Israeli occupation and/or control is the proverbial elephant in the room.

If you've ever been to "Judaea and Samaria", it is not a pretty sight. It's simply disingenuous, at best, to argue that the Arab minority inside the concrete barrier has civil rights while ignoring the Arab majority on the outside of the barrier that has no civil rights -- indeed, those Arabs are told that they must renounce self-defense in order to be able to even commence negotiations with their occupier.

There is nothing new about Israel's inability to come to terms with the Palestinian Arabs (it was a major issue before 1967 as well as after) -- the irony is that each generation seems to think that it can defer the issue to a more propitious moment, but the demographics only get worse, not better. While one can argue that the Palestinians are less irredentist today than they were in 1956, there are many more of them and they are arguably more radicalized than they were 50 years ago.

Ben-Gurion and his colleagues rightly worried then that a comprehensive settlement would revert back to something like the 1947 partition plan. Even the Arabs have moved on from that, but what the other Arab nations have never done, and will never do, is take the Palestinian problem off Israel's hands. Ironic that Israeli leaders never seem to see the parallels between Palestinian aspirations and their own struggles in the '20s, '30s and '40s.

why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?

Sheesh, Kevin, you should know this -- because conservatives like Kinsley embrance dishonest argument, being utterly bereft of any honest ones. your own comment threads are proof of that.

I might also add that, once again, the WaPo editorial page lets a columnist get away with not just a lie, but an obvious lie.

I might also add that we're seeing the usual process of the Mighty Wurlitzer, as Joe Conason et al identified years ago -- a meme created in the wingnutosphere injected by chin-stroking columninsts like Kinsely into the mainstream media.

Soon it'll be "conventional wisdom" that Carter accused the Israelis of rascism. The fact that his own book proves that isn't so will somehow fail to be mentioned by the "balanced" media.

"'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;"
From the UN definition of apartheid.

Substitute religious for race and you have a pretty good discription of what is going on in Palestine today. The Israeli government is systematically suppressing Palestinians for for the benefit of a minority of Jewish settlers with the intent of securing their political support.

Carter isn't far off an almost textbook definition of aparthied.

A lot of Jewish intellectuals, who have been raised to believe that they are God's chosen people, are shocked by Carter's simple truth. They don't want to accept it because to accept it means they are no better than anybody else. They have supported visiting religious intolerance, prejudice and hatred on their neighbors. To accept Carter's simple truth means they have attempted to demonize their neigbors and to discount their humanity, a practice universal among oppressors. To accept it means they might have to deal with the Palestinians as equals and treat them with fairness as brothers and sisters. Shocking notions for people who have been raised to believe they are God's chosen people.

The truth is the Israelis are just people trying to surivive in a hostile world. Much of what they do is selfish and harmful to others. Some of what they do is downright counter productive.

Looks like Jimma is going have some splanen to do about lifting maps and paragraphs from other people's work.

Jimma probably needs to go read his own book to understand what Kinsley's point is as well.

For the record, a key component of the apartheid policy in South Africa was about land-grabbing (in parallel with separating racial groups).

The whites wanted the best land for farming, etc., and the apartheid policy enabled them to grab it; whole villages were forcibly removed from prime land and trucked off to the homeland areas.

Michael really, really, really didn't like the title to Carter's book and really, really really wanted to write an op-ed. Additional facts undermine his initial hypothesis? Who cares! Write the op-ed anyway! He's allowed to do that, I think its a pundit's law.

"Will" is Chuckles.

"The check from AIPAC cleared".
Yep. Might as well rent a billboard.

Will

If you define "race" as "religion" you might be right.

I don't know how you define "race," but you would have a hard time finding two groups of people more genetically similar than the Palestinians and the Israelis.

The predominant difference between the Palestinians and the Israelis is the Palestinians are mostly Muslim and the Israelis are mostly Jewish. Christians find membership in both camps and, of course, rarely recognized outside the Middle East, the Israelis include a fair number of Muslims in their population.

As to the only quote Kevin provided read the book. I have a hunch Carter, at his advanced age, still knows more about the Middle East than all the political appointee types currently occupying the White House, State Department, Department of Homeland Security, CIA and the Defense Department combined. That might be changing with the addition of Bob Gates to the Defense Department.

You try getting into that very scary place (the mind of a "reporter"/columnist/pundit)...why does Kinsley "pretend" indeed...but then, WHY in "H" does Jeff Greenfield think that an open shirt/no tie with a suit jacket equals the president of IRAN??? And, for way too many, these fools are the shapers of convential "wisdom"...no wonder we're screwed!

Never mind that Jews and Arabs are virtually the same race. Just consider that the Israelis would be doing what they're doing to whomever the current residents of Palestine were, whatever their race.

The real variable of interest is that the Palestinian Arabs are poor/weak enough to let the Israelis get away with it, so classism rather than racism would seem to be the applicable meme.

Kinsey's "criticism" has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the fact that commentators today cannot get published/recorded in the MSM unless they spout wingnut talking points.

Jimmy Carter, that quintessential conservative Democrat, has been labeled a far-left liberal, and DLC apologists like Kinsely have to marginalize him to maintain their reputations as centrists.

"A lot of Jewish intellectuals, who have been raised to believe that they are God's chosen people, are shocked by Carter's simple truth. They don't want to accept it because to accept it means they are no better than anybody else. Ron Byers"

Ron, respectfully, both of your sentences display your profound ignorance on the subject.

Any critic of Israel will be the target of an organized smear campaign. E.g. Mearsheimer and Walt, e.g. Juan Cole, e.g. Jimmy Carter. Anyone who notices this will be labeled an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist.

Laney

I think your use of the word “disingenuous” is correct Keven, just as Carter’s use of the word apartheid is correct. And those who want to quibble about the word “apartheid” should take a look at Webster’s and the link provided by NeoLotus above.

Apartheid involes forced separation and institutionalized discrimination. I witnessed it while growing up in Mississippi, especially during the 1960s. I lived in a town where white and black were absolutely separated and the black were discriminated against in many ways, some obviously institutionalized and some not so obvious. Plenty of people in those days argued (disingenuously) that there was nothing racial about the Jim Crow laws. But boy did they work.

Black folk could not live in my neighborhood, go to my school, or vote in my precinct. And it’s a huge understatement to say that their schools, roads, housing, and access to jobs and the political process were all inferior. Is it really necessary for me to elaborate? No.

The apartheid described by Carter also involves forced separation and discrimination. And I would quibble with Carter myself if he tries to imply that there in no racism involved here. Of course there is, but Carter wants to focus on the confiscation of the land. Golda Meir used to say “What Palestinians”, implying that they was no such legitimate ethnic group. The discrimination and derision has continue to this day. They are not able to control thier lives at all, not politically or economically. Israel controls their access to the outside world and their economy, openly harasses their political process (including when they try to have elections), and even their movements within the occupied territories (checkpoints glalore).

I would encourage Americans to read Carter’s book, and if you want to go a little further, read his first book on the subject, The Blood of Abraham . These books are short but good. Then compare them to what other long time observers have written about the area. Carter is not alone on this at all.

I believe that Jews are God's chosen people.

I believe that Jacob's wrestling with God and dislocating his hip is a metaphor for the Israelites limping around in circles. I think Jacob pulled the apartheid on his brother Esau, but maybe somebody else will define the approach a little differently.

I believe that anytime man interferes with God's plan it just gets more screwed up. If you think I am crazy, take a look at the Itinerary for the Christian-Zionist Mission to Israel. You really cannot make it up!

http://israellawcenter.org/article.php?id=126

I believe that the world made a mistake giving the Israelis a homeland based on a Title Search of the Bible.

I believe that only gentiles like Jimmy have the objectivity to speak truth to power.

I believe that the Jews are chosen to be sacraficed when the world starts to run out of oil.

I believe I like to stir the pot or am I a prophet?

The boys in Salt Lake got their panties in a bumch when I said I was a prophet during the Temple tour.

Aren't you worried about legal action, Chuckles? Why would you risk your job this way? Are you, you know...craaaaaazy?

I am reminded of the famous quote attributed to Ariel Sharon that Israel will take over land like a pastrami sandwich, taking over slice of land by slice of land by building Jewish settlements until it is impossible to remove Israelis.

Jimmy Carter is trying to help the Israelis understand that is actually very easy to remove them. He is a good man. To pretend not to understand him is disastrous.

But why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?

For the same reason you equated smoking bans with state terror?

"Apartheid: literally "apartness" in Afrikaans and Dutch." - wikipedia.org

Words evolve in meaning over time. Apartheid describes a seperation based on race. But there is no reason its definition cannot be extended to include seperation based on other things. On the ground it looks the same. I doubt anyone has a better word to describe the situation in Palestine today.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, then its a bit silly demand a discussion of why it is a duck before calling it one.

I am sure the Israel wing will move on from this argument pretty quickly anyway. Defending Israel by focusing by debating the meaning of the word Apartheid doesn't strike me as a great strategy.

>>Never mind that Jews and Arabs are virtually the same race.

On what planet do you reside?

THIS IS SO SIMPLE: ISRAEL IS AN APARTHEID STATE-DEAL WITH IT (THIS GOES TO BOTH GENTLEMEN-KINSLEY and CARTER AND OTHERS SKIRTING AROUND THE ISSUE).

kinsley understands perfectly well what carter is writing.

kinsley is part of the israeli pushback against carter's book. the adl had a page ad in the nyt yesterday denouncing the book.

Jimmy Carter: history's greatest monster . . .

Sadly, it looks like the ban on Charlie was only temporary, and he has now resurfaces posting as "Will."

At least, unlike "brian," "ex-liberal," and their ilk, Charlie tacitly admits how valueless his opinion is by changing his handle so many times.

MsNThrope:

I dunno ... aren't they both semites -- or does that refer to the common linguistic roots of Hebrew and Arabic only?

I'm not going to attempt to tell others what to do, but I kinda think it might be best at this point to just not feed the troll.

Bob

Simple un-refutable facts:

Zionism is racism.

Zionism - Creation of a nation and society dedicated to total domination by a single tribal group to the exclusion of all others.

Israel is an aparthied society.

Palestinians may not return to the homes and land that were taken from them at gunpoint. They are forced at gunpoint to live in concentration camps.

Why? It would 'pollute' the purity of a Jewish Israel. This notion is right out of Mein Kampf. Zionism is a holdover from the 1890's thinking that inspired the Third Reich.

Why does the US support this living nightmare?

Most of the population is ignorant and believe what is essentially a fairy tale spun by the media. See also invasion of Iraq, pending invasions of Iran, Syria.

Why has the media spun this story?
Follow the money.

Carter is wrong. The driving purpose for the separation of the two peoples is Israel's physical security.

It has always been so and will continue to be so until the Palestinians disavow the destruction of Israel and stop teaching their children to hate Jews.

Why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?

Because people of his generation of pundits made their contrarian bones by attacking Jimmy Carter. And Kinsley values his status as contrarian above all.

Jimmy Carter has become an embarassment to the Democratic Party. Some on this board share his anti-Israel bias. At some point, bias against Israel turns into anti-Semitism.

Eighty percent of American Jews still support the Democrats. I wonder if Jews will start leaving that party on account of the near-anti-Semitism of its leftist fringe.

Sorry, but defamation is defamation, even of one provides an idiosyncratic, "innocent" definition on page 189 of a book. One can't talk about non-racist apartheid, any more than non-racist Jim Crow. Carter is being inherently dishonest by using the label and then disclaiming its meaning.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

But why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?
—Kevin Drum 2:23 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

Because if he does understand it then he has to write an article justifying the treatment of West Bank Palestinians by the Isreali state. And that article isn't as much fun to write.

Added bonus by ignoring Carter's substance you get to attack him personally and attacking Democrats since 7/11 is the new "in thing" with the media. Part of their inherent double standard. After all you wouldn't want the Republican Aristocratic Party to look bad in the eyes of the plebs.

Ummm, maybe he didn't read the book? Just a guess.

Just to clarify: aside from the question of our pundit's sincerity, I believe Carter is correct. Obviously apartheid in the occupied territories isn't identical to South Africa, it's more about religion / nationalism than race, but it is apartheid. It's an excellent way to view the problem ie as two groups vying over the same land.

My own (unrealistic) hope would be a one state solution, a secular republic of Israel and Palestine with a right of return for Jews and Palestinians.

Will Rogers, IIRC, had a saying, 'It's hard to get a man to understand something if his paycheck depends on him not understanding it'. Kinsley's career is a nice illustration of that.

One would think those that are so enamored with the Palastinians would have a little more nuanced view if it were thier kids getting blown up on the bus. It also bears remembering that the terrorist group Hamas won an overwhelming victory in the 2006 Palastinian elections. The Palastinians have chosen their national identity as one of martyrdom and no quarter with Isreal. If I were living next to a bunch of nut jobs, who's hobbies were shooting rockets at my town and blowing themselves up on public transit, I'd want a big freakin wall between me and them too.

What a bunch of Kach and Kahane! Jimmy is probably just harping on those alleged military and economic ties that Israel had with South Africa through the early 1990's.

Israelis aren't racist or religiously intolerant.

Their laws specifically protect muslims from military service and the media circus that would surround their running for positions like Prime Minister. Muslims are specifically protected from the harsh desert climate in Israel by immigration laws that inhibit their accidental immigration to the state. In the West Bank they are specifically discouraged from the back breaking labour of planting and harvesting crops under the watchful eyes of their jewish benefactors. In east Jerusalem palestinians are protected from the stress of land ownership and the labour of home construction. In high crime areas they are lovingly, compasionately, and aggressively protected from themselves with checkpoints, buldozers, and helicopter gunships.

It can't be forgotten that much Israeli thought and concerted effort has gone into solving the Palestinian "demographic problem". Noted humanitarian, Avigdor Lieberman has recently been promoted to deputy prime minister where he will finally have the power to assist the Palestinians on this front.

The very first comment nails it. President Carter may explain that he means something other than what the title, alone, seems to imply. But then the title is misleading, and we are left with the question, why did he deliberately use an inflammatory title that he himself understands would be taken, on its own, in a misleading fashion?

A more accurate title would have been "Peace or Colonization." Something I believe almost everyone understands and pretty much agrees with, regardless of which side they prefer.

The term apartheid is an afront to the Hebrew language. The appropriate term is hafrada. It's pronounced with a smile and a tip of the kippah.

Apartheid without the racism is like Nazism without the antisemitism, communism without the collective ownership of capital, and heavy metal without a guitar.

I read Carter's text that Kevin quotes, and I still don't know what Carter means either. I know what he *says*, but I don't know what he *means*. What is apartheid if it isn't an institutionalized racist social system based on segregation and legal inequality, similar to what existed in South Africa?

I am assuming that Kevin quoted the parts of the book that come closest to a definition, and that definition leaves a lot to be desired.

"Apartheid" is an extremely loaded term, and Carter deserves the criticism he is getting for using it.

Sorry, but defamation is defamation, even of one provides an idiosyncratic, "innocent" definition on page 189 of a book. One can't talk about non-racist apartheid, any more than non-racist Jim Crow. Carter is being inherently dishonest by using the label and then disclaiming its meaning.

But the real problem is that what is going on in the occupied territories is evil no matter what the underlying motive is, or is claimed to be.

Does it truly matter, except to our PC sensibilities, whether the apartheid is based on racism or on classism or on religion? I don't see how, even though racism as an accusation happens to offend us most.

What is going on, almost incontestably, is the systematic, brutal oppression of one people by another people or nation.

And such evil deserves a name suffused with evil. "Apartheid" is perfect for that purpose.

I know what he *says*, but I don't know what he *means*.

I lot of idiots have the same problem.

Jimmy Carter is a solution looking for a problem. He has made many contributions to humanity. Israel, and the U.S., have indulged the "Greater Israel" crowd far too often. But the simple fact is that most Palestinians still dream of destroying all of Israel.

Arafat, the great hero of Palestinian nationalism, was a totalitarian thug who murdered Israelis and robbed Palestinians. Carter's use of the word "apartheid" is disingenuous, and his "explanation" of why he used it is doubly so. His obvious goal is to establish moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinian nationalists. It's not impressive to see so ponderously "moral" a man tell deliberate lies.

If Carter used an inflammatory word intentionally to get people talking, he was successful. And isn't discourse the first step in finding working solutions?

I think Kinsley's point about Mandela is an excellent one. There is a major chicken and egg problem with the Palestinian situation. Which needs to come first, the statesman or the state?

A symptom of the fundamental problem with Mideast peace peace has always been that statesmen seem to have short life expectancies. There are significant factions within both Israel and the Palestinians (although the faction is far more dominant among the Palestinians) who fundamentally reject the idea that peace based on coexistence and territorial concessions is possible.

As a practical fact, any supposed peace plan that ignores this, and has no solution or accomodation for it, is a non-starter.

Seems like the AIPAC trolls have started to turn up in, well, a pack.

"I lot of idiots have the same problem. "

Smart, serious writers are very good at saying what they mean, or explaining it. I notice you did neither.

President Carter is doing a book signing today in the Phoenix metro area. His critics protest plans were printed on the front page of the monopolist newspaper yesterday. I am very sorry I am not able to attend a counter protest.

It is US military and economic aid that allows the Israelis to treat the Palestinians in the way President Carter describes. It is US military and economic aid that makes all Americans complicit with the crimes Israel commits against the indigenous people of Palestine. Mr. Kinsley wants to prevent Americans from understanding their guilt, using the opinion making power of local monopoly newspapers to spread his message that President Carter is wrong. I suspect more people will read his editorial than will read the book, preventing the truth of Israel's treatment of Palestinians from being widely known.

here are two definitions from American Heritage--

-A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
-The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

Apparently the only people who are befuddled by Carter's book are the willfully ignorant who refuse to open a dictionary.

Ummm, maybe he didn't read the book? Just a guess.

Or at least, not all of it. What an asshat.

Smart, serious writers are very good at saying what they mean, or explaining it.

Which is exactly what Carter did, and you chose to play dumb. Why should anyone consider you to be smart or serious?

why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?

Because Kinsley, like so many other in the pundit class, prefers to argue against his version of your arguement rather than your actual arguement.

Beauty, Buzzard....

I like the way some people here act as spokespeople for Israel, as if they represent Israel. You get the same scam in Canada: the usual Francophone is willing to tell you what "Quebeckers" think, want, etc. Right -- they speak French, so they represent Quebec. In the US, I see you get the same thing with "Israel".

Meanwhile, about 40% of Israelis are more critical of Israeli policies than the Americans who are getting smeared in the US by those who are loudly declaiming what "Israel" wants, thinks, etc.

Now that is pretending at whole new level. At least Kinsley is pretending only about himself.

But why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?

Why indulge in intelligent analysis when you can fling poo?

Carter is wrong. The driving purpose for the separation of the two peoples is Israel's physical security. Rich

You would have an argument if there weren't settlements on the West Bank and a lot of crazy Israelis railing about expanding Israel to include Sumeria and Judea.

The greater Israel people cut you off at your knees.

It is US military and economic aid that allows the Israelis to treat the Palestinians in the way President Carter describes. It is US military and economic aid that makes all Americans complicit with the crimes Israel commits against the indigenous people of Palestine. Mr. Kinsley wants to prevent Americans from understanding their guilt

This is a very key point.

Israel apologists are always accusing critics of Israel of imposing a double standard. But the problem is that it is our totally unbalanced support of Israel -- on which these apologist insist -- that absolutely demands that we take Israel's offenses more seriously than that of other countries. We are responsible for what they do in a way that requires us to treat them uniquely.

If Israel apologists want us to back off the "double standard", all they have to do is to have us back off on our support of Israel, and treat it like all other nations.

But that, of course, they will never do. They demand that we treat Israel with a double standard when it comes to support.

"-A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
-The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

Apparently the only people who are befuddled by Carter's book are the willfully ignorant who refuse to open a dictionary."

I think that is a very poor definition, that doesn't reflect common usage. We have a perfectly good word to describe a system with that feature: segregation. If that is what he meant, I wonder why a good Georgian didn't bother to use it.

Mr. Kinsley knows perfectly well, apart just means seperate and anyone who claims Israelis and Palestinians are not separated in the occupied territories is a liar or fool. Mr. Kinsley is not a fool, he knows what he is saying is a lie.

Problem is Israel is loosing the PR war.

President Carter is a man with honor and integrity other than our politicians republicans or democrats, including Nancy Pelosi when it comes to Israel. Shame on them.

Here's the thing.

Everybody likes to dance around the subject, but the parallels to Apartheid are uncanny. Minority rule. Ethnic/racial division of the population, including completely arbitrary categories (Israeli Arabs and Palestinians.) The in-group seizing all the valuable land and receiving privileged protection for their expropriated property. The little Bantustan homelands with no right to self-defense or control of their own territory.

These policies ARE racist. They define an individual's role in society by his parents' cultural identity and accord or deny privileges based on that birth identity. People from the in-group can immigrate in from all over the world and become full citizens. People from the out group born in a local refugee camp are doomed to a second-class life. That the divisions are based on cultural identity rather than skin color is a trivial distinction.

To come right out and make the comparison to Apartheid is inflammatory, and probably unproductive. But to deny that racism plays a role, as even Carter tries to do, is folly.

BUT... and this is a really, really big but... a truly accurate analogy to South Africa would require a Palestinian leadership that could be trusted to govern a multi-ethnic state. It would require one to believe that majority rule would not only improveme life for most inhabitants of Israel and the Palestinian territories, but also improve the stability of the region. This would be pure fantasy. Israeli racism is a lesser evil than Islamic fundamentalism. To expect Hamas and Fatah to deliver a liberal democracy and justice for all would require naivete on par with the anticipated "flowers and sweets" in Iraq.

Israelis, at this point, NEED a sectarian state with minority rule, because the alternative is to be governed by terrorist organizations that would almost certainly treat them far worse than they themselves treat the Arabs in the occupied territories. To force a one-state solution would be an even worse atrocity than Apartheid.

But the Israelis DON'T need their network of settlements that continues to aggravate the situation and foster abuse. The willingness of many defenders of Israel to give them a blank check in these matters needs to be challenged. And it seems to me that Carter is at least, clumsily, trying to provide such a challenge.

If that is what he meant, I wonder why a good Georgian didn't bother to use it.

Um, because "segregation" most often applies to situations in which different peoples more or less reside in the same communities but, say, don't use the same schools or facilities, etc.?

Keeping an entire people inside of a geographical area is far more distinctive of apartheid.

So who's being dishonest in terminology here -- Carter or you?

frankly0 wrote: But the real problem is that what is going on in the occupied territories is evil no matter what the underlying motive is, or is claimed to be.

Which is exactrly what all this mock outrage at Carter's title is designed to distract from.

Speaking of which, I'd like to congratulation "ex-liberal" on what may be his/her/its most dishonest post ever -- and that's a bold statement.

No one is fooled by your bullshit, "ex-liberal," starting with your phony handle. Why do you bother?

"But why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?"

Because he's carrying water for a Zionist Israel where there is a demographic black hole that permits all sorts of depradations against the indigenous Arab population in order to tilt circumstances against them and for the benefit of Palestinian Jews. Apartheid, colonialism, Israel, Palestine, racism, exceptionalism. We're talking about the same thing. If there's going to be a peacful solution, it will only come with an end to partition, the ascendency of individual rights and obligations, and the rejection of communal rights and punishments.

"Israel apologists are always accusing critics of Israel of imposing a double standard. But the problem is that it is our totally unbalanced support of Israel -- on which these apologist insist -- that absolutely demands that we take Israel's offenses more seriously than that of other countries. We are responsible for what they do in a way that requires us to treat them uniquely."

I think Kinsley's point was to address this. Find us a Mandela or Gandhi among the Palestinians, and I think you will find that the US will be far more amenable to a balanced approach.

"Um, because "segregation" most often applies to situations in which different peoples more or less reside in the same communities but, say, don't use the same schools or facilities, etc.?

Keeping an entire people inside of a geographical area is far more distinctive of apartheid.

So who's being dishonest in terminology here -- Carter or you?"

You completely miss the point. The other poster listed a definition of apartheid that disagreed with the definition you are using here.

So it looks like Carter's supporters can't agree on Carter meant by "apartheid" either.

Eighty percent of American Jews still support the Democrats. I wonder if Jews will start leaving that party on account of the near-anti-Semitism of its leftist fringe.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 12, 2006 at 10:33 AM

OK, enough is enough. This is the exact kind of comment that makes it impossible for reasonable Americans to discuss Israel. There are some among us who are so afraid of really finding peace they play the anti-semitism card at the first opportunity.

Ex-liberal, you should be ashamed of yourself. Disagreement is not the same as anti-semitism. In fact respectfully expressed, disagreement is a sign of respect of the people on the other side. Playing the anti-semitism card for the purpose of stiffling discussion is a sign of disrespect

Now tell me just what has been said in this thread or by any member of liberal or even moderate left that is even remotely anti-semetic. Give examples. Otherwise, shut up and read what the grownups.

You completely miss the point. The other poster listed a definition of apartheid that disagreed with the definition you are using here.

I'm not concerned with your interpretation of what another poster may or may not have meant.

I'm concerned with what Carter meant, and why he chose the word "Apartheid", rather than, say, "segregation".

My point is, "segregation" is far too mild, and inept, as a term to capture the true phenomenon and evil of what is going on in the occupied territories. "Apartheid" is both denotatively and connotatively far more accurate.

Social scientists have struggled to define just what type of society has been created in Israel. These are quotes from a paper by Sammy Smooha from the European Centre for Minority Issues.

From the abstract:
The classical model of the liberal-democratic nation-state is on the decline in the West as a result of globalization, regionalization, multiculturalism, the institutionalization of universal minority rights and the rise of minority ethnonationalism. While western countries are decoupling the nation-state and slowly shifting toward multicultural democracy, some other countries are consolidating an alternative form of a democratic state that is identified with and subservient to a single ethnic nation.

The harshest critics of Israel have called it a herrenvolk democracy.

Herrenvolk democracy is a democracy for the master race, formally excluding other groups. This model was originally introduced by van den Berghe (1967) and applied first to apartheid South Africa and then to the ante-bellum United States.

Benvenisti (1987) classifies Israel in its post-1967 borders as a Herrenvolk democracy. He argues that the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza Strip were de facto annexed to Israel but are permanently disenfranchised. Jews rule Palestinian citizens and non-citizens and use the state as a vehicle of domination and exclusion. This classification is erroneous because Israel’s rule over the West Bank and Gaza Strip is internationally defined as a state of occupation and therefore the extension of political rights to their inhabitants is pointless. More importantly, the non-citizen Palestinians have always fought for liberation and sovereignty, not for becoming Israeli citizens. Hence, the analogy between Israel and South Africa is false.

Feeling disenchanted with “ethnic democracy” as a model for analyzing Israel, Yiftachel (1997) developed the existing term “ethnocracy” into a counter-model for studying Israel and some deeply divided societies. The main distinction between the two models lies in the nature of the regime: ethnocracy is construed to be a nondemocracy while ethnic democracy is conceptualized as a democracy. While Israel serves as a prime example, ethnocracy is also found in contemporary Malaysia, SriLanka, Estonia, Latvia and Serbia.

According to Yiftachel:
An ethnocracy is a non-democratic regime which attempts to extend or preserve disproportional ethnic control over a contested multiethnic territory. Ethnocracy develops chiefly when control over territory is challenged, and when a dominant group is powerful enough to determine unilaterally the nature of the state. Ethnocracy is thus an unstable regime, with opposite forces of expansionism and resistance in constant conflict (1999: 367-368). In ethnocracy, rights are determined by ethnonational descent, not by universal citizenship. The source of legitimacy of the regime is not the citizenry (“the demos”) but rather the dominant ethnic nation. Political boundaries are blurred by the state’s territorial expansion, the involvement of the ethnic Diaspora in state affairs and by exclusionary measures. The founding ethnic group appropriates the state apparatus and administers discriminatory policies toward other groups. A dichotomy separates the two ethno-nations of the settlers and indigenous, although both are at the same time internally divided into ethno-classes. Segregation is pervasive in all areas of life, including the economy, residence, politics and social classes. Three driving forces converge to create and to sustain ethnocracy: settler society, ethnonationalism and the ethnic logic of capital. They combine to discriminate and to exclude as well as to militate against democratization. Ethnocracy is non-democratic although it exhibits democratic features, like universal suffrage and democratic institutions.

If anything, President Carter is very gentle with any criticism of the Israelis. And yes, he needs to be provocative just to get attention. MSM would prefer not to talk about it.

Amazon.com has removed the book from Norman G. Finkelstein "Beyond Chutzpah" from its web site too.

It is not good to voice any critic of Israel, it will be called anti semitic no matter the facts.

"My point is, "segregation" is far too mild, and inept, as a term to capture the true phenomenon and evil of what is going on in the occupied territories. "Apartheid" is both denotatively and connotatively far more accurate."

Ok, so we have at least two different themes being pushed by different Carter defenders:

1)Carter meant something different than how Kinsley and Carter's other critics are interpreting him. He meant something more like segregation.

and

2) Carter meant exactly what his critics are interpreting him to mean, but Carter is right and his critics are wrong.

Point being that if his defenders can't agree, it ain't his critics fault if they don't know what Carter meant either.

But I still can't even make sense of what Carter means if all he meant was segregation, explicitly referring to the West Bank and Gaza, not Israel proper. I know what segregation means, but I don't see it in the West Bank. Or maybe I should rephrase and say that if the constitution of the West Bank is apartheid, than any national border based on ethno/nationalist/religious distinctions is Apartheid. But that is so far off from the common usage of the term that I can't believe it is what Carter meant, without an explicit quote where he defines his terms.

Actually Ron, I found your comments more than most here to be profoundly ignorant and borderline anti-semitic.

"A lot of Jewish intellectuals, who have been raised to believe that they are God's chosen people, are shocked by Carter's simple truth. They don't want to accept it because to accept it means they are no better than anybody else. ... Shocking notions for people who have been raised to believe they are God's chosen people"

a truly accurate analogy to South Africa would require a Palestinian leadership that could be trusted to govern a multi-ethnic state.

I think that is an accurate description of Palestine prior to 1947 and the creation of a Zionist state. Militant nationalist Zionism begat a militant Palestinian reaction, which should have been expected when their land, towns, cities and homes were stolen.

Find us a Mandela or Gandhi among the Palestinians...

...and Mossad will assasinate them.

This is the exact kind of comment that makes it impossible for reasonable Americans to discuss Israel.

With all due respect, Ron, "ex-liberal"'s track record indicates that he/she/it is not interested in reasonable discussion. Rather, the bullshit -- the transparently obvious bullshit, as in the example above -- is intended as a sign of disrespect to the participants in this forum.

And don't bother wasting your time asking "ex-liberal" to put up or shut up. He/she/it will do neither.

Ex-liberal, you should be ashamed of yourself.

On that, Ron, you and I agree. Sadlt, "ex-liberal" has yet too show he/she/it is capable of shame.

My first political activism was in the anti-apartheid movement of the late 70's and 80's.

I can absolutely see the parallels with South African apartheid (which literally translates to "apart" by the way) and the sequestering of the Palestinians.

I am not alone in finding criticism with Israel and how the country has conducted itself in relation to the Palestinian population. Many American Jews find fault with Israel on this regard.

I know what segregation means, but I don't see it in the West Bank. Or maybe I should rephrase and say that if the constitution of the West Bank is apartheid, than any national border based on ethno/nationalist/religious distinctions is Apartheid.

It's astonishing that "Raskolnikov" conveniently forgets to mention, oh, the Israeli settlements on occupied land in his little description there.

Carter doesn't say he doesn't really mean it. In fact, he very clearly says he does mean it. He just says that the "driving purpose" is different. Agree or disagree, he believes that the treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories amounts to apartheid.

The use of the word "apartheid" to describe what Carter says he is describing seems a bit odd (presuming, of course, you haven't, in presenting the distinguishing factors Carter lists that make it different from South African apartheid, left off the factors which justify using the term.)

Raskolnikov, you are splitting hair over a word, so it is not exactly like SA apartheid because the people are not black and white, and also where is the israeli Nelson Mandela or Ghandi?

The Israelis do not talk to Palestinians even if they had a Mandela to speak to.

I think its a brillant use of langauge by Carter. few in Amer can understand the Is/Pal problem. Its is complex and deeply historical, so Carter is offering a word, that most of us do understand, Aphthiad, and broadening the definition (correctly I beleive) to show the world what is going on there to bring pressure upon IS to solve this problem.

Raskolnikov: Do us all a favor and go look up the meaning of the word disingenuous before you post one more fucking word on these boards. Jesus H. chocolate-covered Christ you're annoying. The shit you offer up is a perfect reminder to me of why I only taught middle school one year.

As you can see from the above definitions the question of rights and the group’s relationship to the state are central to the comparision of Israel and South Africa under apartheid. I don't think it's helpful to force them in the same box, if for no other reason than the Palestinians don’t want to be Israelis. If anything, the situation of the Palestinians is even harsher than that of black South Africans.

I have read part of the book and Carter is just not rigorous. He is talking about a divided society where one group is unfairly oppressed.

RE: Raskolnikov @ 11:51 AM.

Wow, that's precisely the sort of feigned ignorance that Kinsley used, mixed with the classic Ari Fleischer tactic of responding to two distinct criticisms by pointing out that the critics disagree with each other, rather than addressing any of the criticisms. Impressive.

For the record, I do agree with you that the Apartheid analogy ultimately falls apart because it implies a generally sympathetic set of victims and a feasible one-state solution. But as far as the raw mechanics of the Occupation and the racial identity policies go, the similarities to Apartheid cannot be reasonably denied.

Enlighten me Jerry. Just what is wrong with anything I said. Point by point. Convince me that a lot of American supporters of Israel are any better than the American supporters of the IRA.

By the way I have read the bible, so I am familiar with all the stories of the chosen people. I have also met and talked with victims of the holocaust so I know the profound evil visited on European Jews in the 1940s.

I also know people who support Israel body and soul. Many of them are as uncritical of Israel as the Irish Americans who used to uncritically support the IRA.

All people want to believe their people are always right and good. Are supporters of Israel any different? All people are capable of visiting great evil on their neighbors when they refuse to take their neighbors individual rights into account. Are the supporters of Israel any different?

Jerry, is your definition of anti-semitism "any position that doesn't toe the Greater Israel Party line?" Otherwise, I have a hard time beliving my comments were even remotely anti-semetic. Prove to me I am wrong.

If there were no oil in the Middle East, the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" would be of little or no interest to the rest of the world. It would certainly not involve the Great Powers of the world.

Find us a Mandela or Gandhi among the Palestinians

Where is the Israeli Mandela or Gandhi? Mordecai Vanunu was imprisoned for telling the world about Israel's secret nuclear weapons. (Probably paid for by the US.) A militant Israeli Zionist assassinated Rabin for trying to make peace with Palestine.

Many US citizens populate the settlements outside of the 1947 UN Partition, carrying automatic weapons while expressing their righteousness to occupy other's land. Many of these Americans have dual citizenship and travel between the US and Israel easily. I cannot understand why they are not prosecuted like John Walker Lindh.

Find us a Mandela or Gandhi among the Palestinians, and I think you will find that the US will be far more amenable to a balanced approach.
Posted by: Raskolnikov

He was killed when 10 yrs old and chalked up as collateral damage.

I can absolutely see the parallels with South African apartheid (which literally translates to "apart" by the way) and the sequestering of the Palestinians

Can you see the same parrallels in Paris with the sequestering of Muslims in suburbs outside the city center?

It would suggest the Paris example, which is not uncomon in Europe, is far closer to South Africa than Israel. The Jewish motivation isn't separation but protection. We know this because muslims inside Israel are far better integrated into the jewish population than muslims in France are integrated into the French population.

Kinsley has been embarrased by Carter for quite same time and quite consistent in his assessments of his amny failures over time.

Find us a Mandela or Gandhi among the Palestinians

So let's see. If there's no Mandela or Gandhi among the Palestinians, then Israel is fully entitled to oppress the shit out of them, brutalize them, steal their land and resources, while claiming moral superiority at the very time?

I'm glad that concept works for you Israel apologists. It must feel good to know you've done right no matter what kind of evil takes place under your watch.

Kinsley is ill with a degenerative disease. I'd hate for that to be the explanation for why he didn't understand something, but it's not out of the question.

Take your weak shit elsewhere, Wooten. The social problems of the Paris suburbs are not mandated by policy. You know this. You are just being disingenuous.

Problem is Israel is loosing the PR war.

Israel always losses the PR war. That's why they are always prepared for the fight and that's why they always win. Islamic terrorist are skilled at manipulating the Western Press but that's about all. Unless you count killing little girls as a skill.

Isreal has time and technology on it's side. It has a much stronger economy with 1st rate security and intelligence forces. If you check out strategy page regularly you'd know they are working closely with India, Japan and of course the USA on constantly upgrading their defensive and offensive skills. The fence will significantly enhance their defensive capabilities and further aid economic growth.

At the same time Hamas and Fatal are killing each other in the West Bank while Hexbollah prepared to take over Lebanon. There's a good chance the next war won't be Isreali-Arb but Sunni -Shite. Western Europe and the UN will never support Israel but have little influence and shrink a little more each day.

Israel just gets wealthier and stronger every day. The PR war doesn't matter.

Really, we should take our hats off to President Carter for choosing this title for his book.

He knew perfectly well, I'm sure, that he would be smeared by the Israel lobby for doing so. Yet he chose to put his considerable reputation on the line in order to promote peace.

He could hardly be a more effective spokesman. Who is going to convince anybody that Jimmy Carter harbors racism of any kind in his soul?

The hatchet men have their work cut out for them, that's for sure.

The social problems of the Paris suburbs are not mandated by policy. You know this

Ok, I'll bite, so what is mandating them? And you still did not answer the question.

We do know what is mandating the 'apartied' in Palestine don't we? Suicide bombs. Ya think? Didn't have any apartied before Arafat set up shop did we? NO!!!!

Yet he chose to put his considerable reputation on the line in order to promote peace.

His 'considerable reputation' is up there with Neville Chamberlain. Which he knows. That's why he needed to create controversy. He needed the PR to sell the book.

I'd hate for that to be the explanation for why he didn't understand something, but it's not out of the question.

It's pure cheap shot.

Who is going to convince anybody that Jimmy Carter harbors racism of any kind in his soul?

Who cares if he's racist? Isn't it enough to focus on the fact he's a moron? This is the simple bastard who created the current Iranian theocracy and then let the mullahs beat the crap out of him for 444 days. The man is an embarrasment. He makes Neville Chamberlain look shrewd.

His 'considerable reputation' is up there with Neville Chamberlain.

rdw, it's kind of too bad for you that the whole of America doesn't believe what you Powerline boys do.

In America, Carter has developed quite a reputation for his dogged pursuit of peace. A few wingnuts like you aren't going to be able to tear that down.

Isn't it enough to focus on the fact he's a moron? This is the simple bastard who created the current Iranian theocracy

BZZZTTT!!! Thanks for playing. That would be John Foster Dulles. You simple bastard.

Global Citizen to rdw: "You are just being disingenuous."

"Disingenuous" is far too kind a word for rdw.

He is just being an asshole, as he always is, always has been, and always will be.

He's just another brain-dead dittohead who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

rdw,
If the Israelis are winning why then do they have to build a wall 24 feet tall even 40feet tall in Jerusalem?
40 years of brutal occupation and look where they are.

You don't believe the Palestinan people hate the Israelis because they are so kind to the Palestinians?
Would you say Israelis don't kill little girls? Who has the military power and has nuclear weapons? Who is using missiles to assasinate government officials?

I recommend you start doing some reading so you can have an INFORMED OPINION.

rdw wrote: "The man is an embarrasment."

Well, at least embarrassment is something you can write about from first-hand knowledge, since you embarrass yourself with your stupidity and ignorance every time you post one of your drooling idiocies here.

Carter was wrong to pretend that there is a non-racist connotation to the word apartheid.

But he is also wrong when he asserts that the apartheid in the occupied territories is not related to race. Of course it is, even if the driving purpose is the taking of land from Palestinians by the settlers, it is still a segregation based on race, ethnicity and religion.

And Kinsely's piece reads as if he did not read the book. He completely ignores the argument that the apartheid relates to the occupied territories, and the policies that support appropriation of land from Palestinians.

looks like Hillel sent out the benchwarmers.

Find us a Mandela or Gandhi among the Palestinians

Even Gandhi recognized that pacifism and non-violent civil disobedience do not work against a foe intent on murder and annihilation. The Nazis were that kind of foe, and the European Jews' historical defenses of pacifism and non-violence were met with death camps.

The problem the Palestinians have with emulating the European Jews in their confrontation with Zionism is the product of the Nazi death camps: the Kapo. The Kapos have hijacked Zionism and used their extrordinary survival skills to create a militant nation. The Kapos have defined Israeli nationalism, making it immune to the morality that non-violent protest appeals to.

Would you say Israelis don't kill little girls

I would say the israeli's don't aim for little girls. Palestinians asolutely aium for little girls.

rdw: This is the simple bastard who created the current Iranian theocracy and then let the mullahs beat the crap out of him for 444 days.

On the bright side, he didn't sell them any weapons.

If the Israelis are winning why then do they have to build a wall 24 feet tall even 40feet tall in Jerusalem?

To end the suicide bombing. Duh!!

In addition the drop in security costs is highly beneficial for the Israeli economy. It's imperative Israel continue to create wealth to invest in defense infrastruture. One of the things missed in the post 9/11 world and GWBs suberb efforts in drawing out India from it's socialist cocoon is that Israel and India are natural trading partners and their series of defense agreements are highly beneficial to each as they battle a common enemy. The fact India is growing at 10% and will continue to do so is very beneficial for Isreal.

If Palestinians cannot get into Israel they cannot slaughter little girls and the economic pressure on them and their supporters in the EU becomes daunting. What's happened on the West Bank since Oslo is a disgrace and will probably get worse. But it will never get better until the people realize they crated their own problems and only they can fix them. They are going to have to create an economy on their own.

Meanwhile the fence allows Israel to prosper.

"Ayatollah in Iran, Soviets in Afghanistan..." and gas lines, 20% inflation, 20% mortgage rates, Sandanistas running wild in Central America, "misery" index...the list goes on and on. What a nightmare.

In the early and mid-80s, Michael Kinsley was a bit of hero to me (Washington Monthly, Harpers, New Republic) -- writing what I was thinking but never could articulate as lucidly and compellingly as he did.

I don't know what has happened to him (aside from his Parkinson's disease, which is a sad affliction for him to suffer). Paul Krugman, who was basically on the same page as Kinsley in the 1980s (actually, maybe, a little more to the right) has wondered the same thing since 2000 -- "Where is Mike?".

I would say the israeli's don't aim for little girls.

Wrong again. Here's some whistleblower testimony from an Israeli soldier:

After Moshe returned to his paratroop unit, he said there were several incidents when children and teenagers were killed after bullets aimed at their legs hit their chests. The attitude was, he said, "so kids got killed. For a soldier it means nothing. An officer can get a 100 or 200 shekel [£12.50-£25] fine for such a thing."

http://tinyurl.com/bkk2e

I post this knowing full well that facts don't even register in your cereberal cortex and that you'll either just happily ignore it and talk about something else or simply say you don't believe it.

There's a phrase to describe that behavior. "Mental mast..."

Escapes me at the moment.

Hostile: Even Gandhi recognized that pacifism and non-violent civil disobedience do not work against a foe intent on murder and annihilation. The Nazis were that kind of foe, and the European Jews' historical defenses of pacifism and non-violence were met with death camps.

No, Gandhi didn't recognize any limits to non-violence. In 1940 he gave the following advice to the British people:

I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

While I certainly don't agree with him, I do give him credit for not being a hypocrite. I believe that he would have followed his own advice.

Where is Mike?".

He's the same guy he always was. He's just as liberal and just as corrosive. He's not the hater Paul Krugman has become. Some people can't take losing and become permanently embittered.

In Paul's case he's been on the outside looking in for a long time. He's an old time Keynsian and he's lived to see his religion become defunct. He expected a spot in the Clinton administration but Bill wasn't on the same page either. He's become a lightening rod at the NYTs for a series of factual errors and bad economci forecasts. He's a cool aid drinker and as such has seen any shot at a high government position disappear. He'll never be at the Fed or in the Cabinet.

Quick answer without reading the thread. Kinsley "pretends he doesn't understand it" because he's a sellout to the Zionists, maybe?

I have seen a few interviews with Carter about this book, and each and every time he has to point out that the apartheid he's talking about is not taking place IN ISRAEL, but in PALESTINE.

Of course, if you think that Israel "won" the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the '67 war, it follows that these areas of (supposedly) Palestinian rule ARE Israel, and so Carter's distinction is a false one.

My predictions that the Democratic Party has become such an embarrassment to America that in the November elections the Republicans would greatly increase their majorities in both houses of Congress and gain control of state legislatures and governorships all across the country leaving the Democrats in permanent irrelevant minority status surely demonstrate to every one here that I am the smartest of the smart and you are all stupid.

You should take all my pronouncements and predictions about what's going on in the world -- especially those about what a great success George W. Bush is in all things -- just as seriously as my predictions of a great Republican victory in the 2004 elections.

I guess it was too much to hope that we might have a sensible dialogue on this topic -- at least the debate in Israel itself is more open.

In Israel, for example, they are at least willing to discuss the notion of Marwan Barghouti as a potential Mandela with whom a deal might be made. It would be useful in this connection if we all could bear in mind that Mandela is not a Mahatma Gandhi -- the African National Congress was not entirely dedicated to nonviolent change in South Africa.

I am puzzled, to say the least, that some people appear to be incapable of making the simple and rather self-evident distinction between the condition of Arabs living inside the concrete barrier and those living under Israeli military occupation outside the barrier. The West Bank, of course, remains entirely under Israeli control, as it has been since 1967, so blaming the residents for their lot is something like us blaming Baghdadis for the poor state of their city. While Israel "withdrew" from Gaza, the Israelis still control all ingress and egress from that miserable place.

On the other hand, if Israel is thriving so nicely behind the concrete barrier and with scant regard to public opinion elsewhere, perhaps another policy option suggests itself -- stop trying to persuade Israel to reach a settlement with the Palestinians and stop all financial and military assistance to Israel (other than on a strictly cash and carry basis).

After Moshe returned to his paratroop unit, he said there were several incidents when children and teenagers were killed after bullets aimed at their legs hit their chests. The attitude was, he said, "so kids got killed. For a soldier it means nothing. An officer can get a 100 or 200 shekel [£12.50-£25] fine for such a thing."

I know you don't mean to be ironic but you give me an example of a whistle-blower reporting a war crime and point out there's at last a fine involved. have no idea if this is true or the context but just taking it as fact value there's a set of standards that kids are not to be shot. You even mention they shot low.

Yet you compare this with a Palestinian with a bomb strapped to themselves and then walks up to a baby carriage (s) ti kill as many little girls as possible. Then his mother gets honored and he gets his picture on a wall of honor.

Quite a difference don't you think?

We can at least agree Palestine society is sick. This celebration of such acts is pure evil and fully explains why Israel must build a security wall to keep those sick people away from Israeli's. Which is in fact what most of the arab world does. Palestinian refugee camps are fenced in and borders guarded to keep them isolated.

BTW: I accept none of your claim at face value.

Israel has no partner for peace.
The Palestinians LOST their land when they attacked Israel.

If I were Israel I would be booting these people out, just as all the Arab nations did before.

I am supremely confident in everything I say, because it all comes directly from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and the right-wing websites that I read every day. Those places are where the Truth is to be found, and I know that everything I say is true because it is all there. Only stupid liberals believe in "facts" and "the real world". True conservatives like me know that the only thing that matters is what we say to ourselves and each other over and over and over again. That's the true reality.

That's why I can feel superior to and confidently sneer at good-for-nothing worthless people like Paul Krugman and Jimmy Carter, even though I don't really know what I'm talking about when I put them down. I don't need to know what I'm talking about; that's what it means to be a true conservative.

Ignorance is strength. Democrats and liberals believe in "facts" and "reality" and "knowledge" and "history" -- that's what makes you weak. That's why you never win elections. That's why the Republicans won the last election. Of course you liberals believe the liberal media lies that the Democrat Party won, but you are all irrelevant. Only the true reality of true conservative propaganda is relevant.

"'Apartheid' is an extremely loaded term, and Carter deserves the criticism he is getting for using it."

I agree with the first part of this statement, "apartheid" IS an extremely loaded term, but I think Carter deserves CREDIT for using it, as it is finally getting the media to focus on what's happening in the West Bank and Gaza. (Where the "food security" is as bad as in sub-Saharan Africa, according to Carter.)

A wall around the place, keeping Palestinians in and without access to the outside (Gaza), confiscating the good land, tearing out the olive orchards that were the Palestinians' living on the West Bank, these are actions of aparthied, and Carter has been clear that he thinks the treatment of Muslims WITHIN Israel is just fine, thank you. But those Muslims are Israelis, not Palestinians.

I'm pretty sure the South Africans justified apartheid on the basis of security, too, but that didn't mean it wasn't apartheid.

The man is a saint.

with scant regard to public opinion elsewhere,

Having scant regard for public opinion in Europe and in the UN doesn't mean they ignore other opinions. The EU is a rapidly diminishing entity that has never been a positive factor for Israel.

I should say Western Europe rather than the EU. Israel has been developing strong trade relations with Eastern Europe as well as India and a number of other states. This is a big reason their economy has been so strong and will continue to excel.

Israel has very strong support in the USA that will continue for a very long time. They are the only free democracy in the region and merit our continued support. Listen to Hillary.

Ron Byers: Now tell me just what has been said in this thread or by any member of liberal or even moderate left that is even remotely anti-semetic. Give examples.

Happy to. The first one is to unfairly accuse Israel of apartheit, while ignoring the much worse treatment of Jews in Arab countries. Arabs in Israel have full rights as citizens - voting, owning property, free speech, serving in the Knesset, etc. Jews in many Arab countries don't even have the right to live. Hundreds of thousands have been driven out.

Perhaps this is just ignorance. Still, at what point does ignorance of wrongs done to Jews equal antisemitism?

Ron Byers wrote: The Israeli government is systematically suppressing Palestinians for for the benefit of a minority of Jewish settlers with the intent of securing their political support.

I wonder what sort of "suppression" Ron is referring to. Israel hasn't prevented Palestinians from getting work, or education or health care. In fact, Israel has gone out of its way to provide jobs and health care for Palestinians. They have been repaid with mass murder and terrorism.

From 1948 on, Israel's Arab neighbors have worked for Israel's destruction. Yet, many believe Israel is "the problem". No. Hatred of Jews and hatred of Israel is the problem. Those on this board who want to acquiesce to the haters meet Ron Byers standard of being at least "remotely antisemitic"

"...why does Kinsley pretend he doesn't understand it?"

Believe me, there's no pretense involved.

And

"That's an idiosyncratic definition of "apartheid", which indeed was based on race. Since when does an Afrikans[sic] (of Dutch origin) word specifically meaning racial segregation in South Africa have an "everyday" meaning in American English?"

"Apartheit" literally means "separation," and race is not part of the word. Though the Afrikaaners used race as the dividing principle, it is not necessary to use race as the ONLY dividing principle. You could have sexual (gender) apartheit, even intelligence apartheit (though there'd have to be some outward insignia to identify the dummies -- little elephant lapel pins, perhaps?). I "got" Carter's meaning immediately, so, yes, the use of the word to imply a government-backed separation that works against the majority of people in a country is perfectly fine with me.

If the shoe fits....

Ed

A wall around the place, keeping Palestinians in

The wall is not around the West Bank. Nor is the wall designed to keep Palestinains in Palestine. The wall is between Israel and the West Bank and it is designed to keep Palestinains out of Isreal.

rdw,
Israel recieves lots of AID from the US as well as the EU, Israel would be bankrupt just like any other nation at war for generations. The fence is a prison for the people in Gaza just as the Warsaw Ghetto was for the jewish people in Poland. Maybe you don't know about it, look it up, it is history.
Israelis do kill palestinian children, boys and girls all the time. Even our TV has shown the pathetic fight of palestinian boys throwing stones at israeli tanks and getting killed for it. Children are in Israeli prisons, no one has denied that. If you think President Carter is lying,proof it. If the Palestinians had tanks and missiles they would not need suizide bombers, it is all they have and just so pathetic.

The fence is a symbol of failure.

rdw,
did the Israelis abide by the Oslo Agreement?
The did not, they go on stealing land and build more settlements and keep on abusing the Palestinians. Again, do some reading, inform yourself, what Mr. Carter says is true, it is even worse.

alex, when I wrote, "Gandhi recognized that pacifism and non-violent civil disobedience do not work against a foe intent on murder and annihilation," I did not mean that Gandhi reputiated non-violence when faced with such an implacable foe. I meant non-violence cannot succeed in preventing mass murder by persons and movements not bound by morality, which your quote seems to indicate Gandhi understood.

Oh, rdw, you dear idiot.

You've got a funny idea of what's "Israel" and what's the "West Bank." Take a look at a map of the wall, honey, and tell us again it's "between" Israel and the West Bank.

Unless, of course, you're using a tautology, and defining anything INSIDE the wall as "Israel."

Wow...it's a cage match between "ex-liberal"'s dishonesty (ably assisted in a tag team by "Raskolnikov") -- I'm especially impressed by his defending one bogus straw man, when called on it, not by ponying up examples, but by erecting another bogus straw man! -- and rdw's one-man show of frothing delusion.

This post by Wooten, though, may take the cake:

Israel always losses the PR war. That's why they are always prepared for the fight and that's why they always win.

Wooten claims Israel "won" against Hezbollah this summer? Good Ford, the man is deluded. I guess the sinking fortunes of Bush and the GOP have snapped his widdle mind once and for all.

Irony alert! Wooten wrote: Some people can't take losing and become permanently embittered.

You remind us every time you post here, Wooten.

Take a look at a map of the wall, honey, and tell us again it's "between" Israel and the West Bank.

Why don't you tell me.

The security fence I am talking about does not exist between the West bank and Jordan.

Unless, of course, you're using a tautology, and defining anything INSIDE the wall as "Israel."

No, One side is israel, th other Palestine.

You remind us every time you post here,

I'm happy. Life is good.

After the election, the doctors felt it was best to increase my thorazine dosage. I drool more now, but I'm much happier.

I wonder whether knee-jerk defenders of Israel ever stop once in a while to ponder just how much they sound like our home-grown defenders of "the peculiar institution" before our Civil War.

two details. (1) when the battle was raging in Jenin, an Arab Israeli took the IDF to court, and the Isreali Supreme Court ruled that the IDF had to permit journalists to view the battle scene, and the IDF complied with the court order. In what other middle eastern country can an Arab take the army to court during wartime and prevail? (2) More Arabs have voted in regularly scheduled, fair and contested elections, and have won political office in those elections, in Israel than in all the other Arab countries combined.

Israel has its flaws, but "apartheid" is a grossly inappropriate word for denoting those flaws.

The fence is a prison for the people in Gaza just as the Warsaw Ghetto was for the jewish people in Poland.

Dumb comparison.

The Nazi's fenced Warsaw in and they slaughtered everyone they could. The fence in Gaza is intended to keep them out of Israel (successfully). Missles flying over the fence are coming from Gaza into Israel.

You are why those people are screwed. They are simply incapable of living a civilized life and thus will remain isolated from Israel. This has resulted in an economic boom in Israel and a collapse in Gaza and the West Bank.

The fact is they just can't win. The fence was needed. Israel can't negotiate since there's no one to negotiate with. They need isolation from Palestine. They need to maintain focus on economic growth and continued expansion of trade especially with India. Israel has been progressively liberalizing their economy and with their highly educated workforce can easily get to and maintain a 10% growth path.

They need to continue to get stronger while Palestine becomes even more dependent on welfare payments. The fact is the EU cannot continue to support them.

Time is on their side as long as they continue to invest in their economy and infrastructure.

I can't believe someone feels the need to spoof rdw. He's ridiculous enough as it is.

Please, folks, no posting with someone else's handle.

ex-liberal

In response, about 50 years ago my grandmother taught me two wrongs never equal a right.

Just because the Arabs in other lands have treated Jews badly does not give the Israelis the right to treat Arabs in Palestine badly.

I don't know if you ever look at the other side of the equation, but the Israelis have a policy of collective punishment. Any time any Palestinian does anything wrong, all Palestinians are denied jobs, heath care and education. Collective punishment is an old evil Arabs visit on Jews and Jews visit on Arabs. It isn't right, ever. More to the point, militant Zionist Israeli nut cases have machine gunned Palestinians. I don't see Israelis collectively punishing entire settlments. Instead they find the perpetrator, give him a mild slap on the wrist and return his machine gun.

Again, regardless of how many times Israelis claim the bad acts of the Arabs justify punishing innocent Palestinians, two wrongs never make a right. Maybe you didn't have a grandmother.

When the Israeli government starts punishing murderous zionist settler terrorists the same way it punishes murderous Palestinian terrorists, I will reconsider my argument, until then Americans who defend Israel's excesses are just defending the indefensible.

Ron Byers: Just because the Arabs in other lands have treated Jews badly does not give the Israelis the right to treat Arabs in Palestine badly.

I agree.

I don't know if you ever look at the other side of the equation, but the Israelis have a policy of collective punishment. Any time any Palestinian does anything wrong, all Palestinians are denied jobs, heath care and education.

Huh? First of all, it's not Israel's responsibility to give Palestinians jobs, health care, and education. Second, Israel was forced to curtail their program of inviting Palestinians to work in Israel, because of the mass murders commited under the name of intifada.

More to the point, militant Zionist Israeli nut cases have machine gunned Palestinians. I don't see Israelis collectively punishing entire settlments. Instead they find the perpetrator, give him a mild slap on the wrist and return his machine gun.

Yes, a few Israelis murdered Palestinians in what they conceived of as revenge. Israel treated these people as murderers, AFAIK. On the other hand, Palestinians who murder Israeli civilians have never been punished by the Palestinian government AFAIK.

When the Israeli government starts punishing murderous zionist settler terrorists the same way it punishes murderous Palestinian terrorists, I will reconsider my argument

Ron, Israel has done so all along, whereas Palestinians who murdered Israelis were seldom if ever punished by their government.

I will reconsider my argument, until then Americans who defend Israel's excesses are just defending the indefensible

No one is defending Israels excesses. The fence is smart policy. It keeps suicide bombers out and significantly improves Israeli security. Eventually they'll negotiate the positioning of the fence and have peace but that's decades away. In the meantime Israel is safer and more prosperous.

No one is defending Israels excesses. The fence is smart policy. It keeps suicide bombers out and significantly improves Israeli security. Eventually they'll negotiate the positioning of the fence and have peace but that's decades away. In the meantime Israel is safer and more prosperous.

Posted by: rdw on December 12, 2006 at 3:50 PM

First, ex-liberal is defending Israeli excesses.

Second, I haven't said a word about the fence.

Third, I have talked about the Greater Israel Settlement that constitute an annexation of Palestinian terroritory and probably have done as much as anything to lower Israel's standing the rest of the world as anything. Those settlements seem to be occupied by people who are filled with themselves and with hate of Palestinians.

To ex-liberal, name one zionest settler murderer who has ever received more than a slap on the wrist from an Israeli court.

Atain two wrongs don't make a right. Either you believe the rule of law applies to everybody or you don't. If you don't, just like the Israelis you can blame the unarmed protester when you run over her with a bulldozer.

Unless you are a Greater Israel apologist, it's hard to claim the moral high ground when you are rolling in the sewer.

Yes, Ron. I blame the unarmed "protestor" who was run over with a bulldozer. For two reasons:

1. It was an accident, caused by Rachel Corrie's carelessness.

2. Corrie was blocking Israeli authorities from investigating a tunnel which was being used to smuggle arms into Israel and kill people. She was interfering with prevention of terrorism. Unwittingly (I presume), she was helping terrorists to commit more murders.

Let's try an analogy, Ron. Suppose authorities were trying to stop Timothy McVeigh from bringing in a truck full of explosives to blow up a building in Oklahoma City. Suppose some "unarmed person" was trying to prevent the government from stopping that truck. This unarmed person's interference was designed to let McVeigh blow up the building.

I think you would have no sympathy for that meddler. I think you would have great sympathy for McVeigh's victims.

However, when Rachel Corrie tried to prevent police from stopping terrorism against Jews, you found her a sympathetic person. You expressed no concern about all the dead and maimed Jews.

You appear to be either antisemitic or misinformed.

rdw, I would reluctantly agree with you contention that the Israelis and Palestinians probably need to be separated for the foreseeable future -- not unlike the NATO's separation of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims, Croats and Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.

However, that so-called security fence, for which you advocate and which is currently being constructed, is not being built along the 1967 borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Vast portions of it are being built well within Palestinian territory. It is blatantly designed to allow a minority of militant right-wing Israelis to encroach upon and then usurp what are prime Palestinian agricultural lands, first by denying Palestinians access to these lands for security reasons, and then by allowing settlers to appropriate it by a virtual eminent domain.

I would venture to say that a majority of Israelis themselves don't necessarily approve of a national policy that caters to their country's most extreme elements. There was a good reason Likud was voted out of power in the last election. Hopefully, the Israeli government will rethink its policy of allowing continued Israeli settlement on Palestinian lands.

I speak from direct knowledge, because I've been there and seen exactly what they are doing in the West Bank. Have you?

Stealing others' property is not a recipe for securing the peace -- and this IS stealing.

Greater Israel Settlement that constitute an annexation of Palestinian terroritory and probably have done as much as anything to lower Israel's standing the rest of the world as anything

Israels standing with the EU and UN was in the toilet long before the settlements. The EU and UN just don't matter. There's nothing the EU or UN can do to help Israel. There's nothing the UN or EU will do with the Islamic population in the Middle East. They're non-factors.

Israel has to focus on it's economy and military. As long as their economy remains strong they will become more powerful and able to defend themselves.

I would say the israeli's don't aim for little girls…rdw 1:16 PM

Meanwhile the fence allows Israel to prosper. rdw 1:25 PM

…Israel hasn't prevented Palestinians from getting work, or education or health care…. ex-liberal1:57 PM

...Israel has done so all along,… ex-liberal 3:33 PM

The ghost of Rachel Corrie is going to haunt you forever, ex-liberal. However, when someone you love is violently killed she will offer you solace and compassion because she was a real human being.

Israel has to focus on it's economy and military… rdw 6:08 PM

...However, when Rachel Corrie tried to prevent police from stopping terrorism against Jews…ex-liberal 5:54 PM

Kinsley also claims that Arab states all indoctrinate their children with anti-semitic falsehoods. This is a pretty sloppy generalization. Conflating nations like Morocco and Iran is pretty awful.

rdw wrote: "The EU and UN just don't matter."

No, you don't matter. The American people overwhelmingly rejected your right-wing extremist bullshit on November 7th. You are an irrelevant dead-ender. No one cares about your lies, your stupidity and your ignorance but you.

rdw, if Israel is doing so well economically they don't need any more money from us.
We should disarm Israel making them equal to the Palestinians and place international forces there to keep the peace.
If we would also place an embargo on Israel they could proof to have top notch economy even with the handicap of an embargo and show the Palesstinians how to do it.

Mike Israeli may be fined for killing Palestinian children

Yes, Israelis may be fined for killing Palestinians by negligence, just as they may be fined for negligently killing other Israelis. The US has a similar punishment for negligent homicide.

or they may not

Mike, you're implying that Israelis can murder Palestinians with a fine or no punishment at all. That's baloney. All you have is one example where the death was ruled negligence, rather than murder.

In fact there are a few examples of Israelis going berserk and killing Palestinians, but not that many. AFAIK in cases where intent was shown, the punishment was severe

OTOH there really is no punishment meted out by the Palestinian government for the thousands of Israeli civilians killed and maimed.

rdw has absolutely no empathy with the suffering of Palestinians, their children.
We understand the post traumatic stress syndrom of our soldiers.
Palestinian children have traumatic stress syndroms, rdw can't comprehend the suffering of the people in Palistine.
If the Israelis had suffered as much maybe they would be willing to work for peace. They have it too good.

The Israeli right wingers would kill all the palestinians if they could. Read Ha'arez and read the hate coming from them. Israeli children did write greatings on missiles during the Lebanon war. Without world opinon things would be even worse for the Palestinians.

I speak from direct knowledge, because I've been there and seen exactly what they are doing in the West Bank. Have you?

No I have not. Point being? I have an opinion about Iraq, Paris, China and other places I have never been.

I'm not a fan of the settlements but then I'm not a fan of the 67 borders either. Lose a war and borders change. Suggesting the Palestinains problems began in 1967 is absurd as is any suggestion a return to 1967 wars would end the Palestinian effort to remove Israel from the map. The only successful Palestinians living in Freedom are those living inside Israel. It will be that way for at least the next 60 years.

You know as well as I Palestinian kids are raised to be terrorists. They are taught to hate the jews in Kindergarden and every grade there after.

If the Israelis had suffered as much maybe they would be willing to work for peace. They have it too good.

Every Israeli has been at war every day of their life. I have no empathy for anyone who supports terrorism. Nor will I ever have empathy for such evil people.

If the Israeli's have it too good, which is an absurd statement I'll accept only for arguments sake, it because they worked for it. The Palestinains are a failed society. They are a depentent welfare state incapable of effective economic and civil management. The reason their per capita income is 1,000 is because they are so pathetic.

How is it the Palestinains inside Israel are so successful and the ones outside such failures?

No, you don't matter

Just my one vote which is the same as everyone else. But ideas and the truth do matter.

Western Europe is mostly irrelevent for a great many reasons most of which are pretty obvious.

We all know they've been under-performing economically for a long time. We also know innovation is not their strong suit. We also know they've been pretty well protected by others. The end result of this can only be a military that is under funded, under equipped, under trained and with very little experience. We can at last agree they were unable to do anything in Bosnia against what was a 3rd rate thug and even during Tsumami relief the nations of Western Europe were invisible while the armed services of the USA, Japan and Australia were very active.

We have Asia growing almost 4x's as fast as Europe for over a decade with the USA 2x' as fast and even now South America is outpacing Western Europe. It's share of global GDP is dropping rapidly and with much influence.

That's not opinion. That's just how it is. Can't blame me for that. There's simply no reason for Israel to pay attention to Western Europe.

Because he's a Jew? And therefore unable, and unwilling to face any 'truth' spoken about Israel.
C'mon, when do you start with the 'tough' questions?

"No one is defending Israels excesses."

Whoever wrote this needs his/her head examined for leaks.

How is it the Palestinains inside Israel are so successful and the ones outside such failures?

Let's start with this link.

Then try this one.

,a href="http://screwsubwalls.blogspot.com/2006/12/4-months-into-aid-cutoff-gazans-barely.html">And finally, I reproduced this Times article so you wouldn't have to buy it.

Lemme know if you need more homework, Wooten.

Oops. Here's the link to that last one.

Meanwhile the fence allows Israel to prosper. rdw 1:25 PM

That, too, is a lie.

Actually, it's true. The Israeli economy is tracking the path of the US and Australian economies rather well. They cut taxes, tariffs and deregulated and the supply side incentives set off a boom. 9/11 had the counterintuitive economic advanage of making Israeli intelligence and security skills high demand items and Israel has built very significant trade contacts especially with India and Eastern Europe.

With a highly educated technology oriented, defense oriented population it only makes sense. This free market capitalist democracy does exactly what one would predict. It dramatically outperforms it's islamic neighbors. Israel will most certainly continue to do so and continue to widen the wealth gap. If you know anything about compound interest you know wealth compounds.

GC,

read the 1st one and all you do is point out that Gaza under Palestinain rule is hell. We knew that. Gaza is not surrounded by Israel anymore than the West Bank is. Gaza shares a border with Eqypt. They don't have an economy because they're terroists. All they can do is kills. It's not Israels responsibility to provide them jobs. If they focused on taking car of their kids rathr than teaching them to become terrorists they might have an economy.

They are a welfare state because they chose to become a welfare state.

BTW: One of the more interesting clips from when Israel left Gaza was of a large business devoted to growing and selling flowers. It employed as many a 300. The jews left it intact. Irrigation system and all. There was a film crew to record the Palestinain takeover. The morons destroyed it entirely within an hour. It remains a wreck. There were also clips of former employees begging to go with the jews back to Israel. They were terrified their leadership wold kill them for collaborating. Nice people.

GC,

read thru the BBC and it stuns me even more that people can be so pathetic for so long. The average palestinian is a victim of losers like Arafar and nuts like you. People have to choose to live this way. Why is it only in the middle east? Why do the Palestinains inside Israel have it all?

This is entirely 100% the result of their own rotten choices.

Israels standing with the EU and UN was in the toilet long before the settlements. The EU and UN just don't matter. There's nothing the EU or UN can do to help Israel. There's nothing the UN or EU will do with the Islamic population in the Middle East. They're non-factors.

Israel has to focus on it's economy and military. As long as their economy remains strong they will become more powerful and able to defend themselves.

Posted by: rdw on December 12, 2006 at 6:08 PM

You better hope like hell the American population doesn't lose patience with Israeli arrogance. Without American protection over the long hall Israel can't possibly survive alone.

Shit they are widely perceived to have lost the last war to Hezbollah. Why? Well the Israeli Defense Force has changed over the last years. It has become an army of occupation instead of an army of attack. Different skills are required to field an army of occupation troops.

Maybe the best thing you Israeli apologists could do for your cause would be to suggest to Israel that it is just about time for them to start cutting deals with their neighbors. Otherwise they are simply screwed.

rdw, if Israel is doing so well economically they don't need any more money from us.

We are investing in modern liberal democracies. We are also getting a terrific test bed for our military hardware and a partner in military innovation. We help make Israel stronger and they help make the USA stronger.

I will again call your attention to Strategy Page. It's a great military web site tracking issues all over the globe including trade deals. Israel, India, Japan and the USA have become quite chubby under GWB investing together in the R&D effort on a wide range of military projects. These are the most mature and innovative of the worlds democracies. We have common enemies and shared needs. it's just another example og how GWB has sharply and shrewdly moved the USA away from Western Europe toward better allies.

Rachel Corrie will offer you solace and compassion because she was a person we can all aspire to become.

We are all human beings and we can all learn from Rachel's violent death about daily life for Palestinians.

Donald from Hawaii: However, that so-called security fence, for which you advocate and which is currently being constructed, is not being built along the 1967 borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Vast portions of it are being built well within Palestinian territory.

The 1967 border was the border between Jordan and Israel, not the border between the Palestinians and Israel. Israel conquered the West bank as a military response to the invasion from Jordan (planned invasion, anyway), and Jordan ceded the territory in a subsequent treaty with Israel.

Without American protection over the long hall Israel can't possibly survive alone.

That may have been true 25 years ago but not today. Israels mastery of technology makes their soldiers incredibly lethal. They would destroy any 3 arab armies in a war. It's just as important Israel's economy is far better developed, diversified, and open to trade.

Ron I think you are reading this wrong. I think Israel is holding the aces. Islam is headed toward a great civil war. Palestine is destitute. Their only access to money from arab nations is for weapons and terrorism. They simply don't have the capacity to build a civilized society. That's why many educated Palestinians have been leaving. Israel will increase per capita income by $2,000 this year. Palestine won't add $50. Palestine itself is having a civil war between Hamas and Fatah.

Israel's per capita income will probably reach $37,000 in 2010 and they'll probably spend an incremental $20B on new technology upgrades. Palestine is likely to be poorer.

It's possible Israel will have in place by 2010 radar technology being developed by the USA and Japan now for star wars that can detect, track and locate launched rockets from outside Israel. They'll be able to launch both an anti-missle rocket and transmit the instructions to an overhead drone in say, Gaza, to destroy the launch site within as little as 15 seconds. At a minimum identify the launchers in order to kill them at a more opportune time.

In fact American support is as deep as ever if not deeper. There's still a large and dedicated Jewish population in America and they have great support among conservatives.

I don't agree with your assertion Israel lost to Hezbollah but clearly they don't want to fight on hezbollah turf. I'm not sure what the next move by Hezbollah will be but I suspect they want to take over lebanon. At this point there's more tension between Sunni and Shite factions within Islam than with Israel. But if Hezbollah were to take over lebanon and then attack Israel the advantage will swing to Israel. Israel could easily destroy lebanon. The problem last year for Israel was a lack of targets. If hezbollah takes Lebanon that problem will be solved. The entire Hezbolah leadership will be targeted with no locations off limits.

I can't believe someone feels the need to spoof rdw. He's ridiculous enough as it is.

Lemme know if you need more homework, Wooten.

I trust that some of you are merely engaging in a little exercise and/or your real intended audience is not the specific troll to whom you are responding.

All you Jew-haters listen up: the day U.S. aid to Israel stops is the day all your beloved Palestinians will get it but good from a new Israeli government headed ny Bibi Netanhyu who will make Sharon look like a peacenik. An Israel led by those who care nothing for how they are viewed in Washington will be a lot more ruthless toward your beloved Hamas members than it is now.

One more thing, as Nancy Pelosi said, Carter does not speak for Democrats who matter. If he did, you all better get used to the sound of President McCain.

How heroic, with all the military might of the US and Israel against the Palestinian people, and they don't even have a single tank or airplane, no army or air force. I am impressed. And the victims are the poor defenseless Israelis with all the military technology.
rdw, just get real, it is so stupid what you say.

renate,

I speak truth to power.

In all the columns critiquing the book and knee-jerking the Israeli line, one of Carter’s main points is never mentioned: the power of the Jewish lobby and their ability to throttle debate by labeling anyone who tries to write anything honest about Israel an anti-Semite. It is downright un-American. I feel like the whole political-religious establishment is stifling my freedom of speech and I hate it.

Carter says the points he raised are commonly debated in Europe and even in Israel, but never, never, never in America.

Look, the Jews HAVE hijacked our foreign policy. Who do you think most of those NEOCONS, so gung-ho to go at it with Iraq, were? Even Richard Cohen admitted it. Highly placed Jews wanted the Iraq war because they thought it would benefit Israel. Of course they had plenty of help from the religious right and 9-11, but that perfect storm has sent this country down the toilet.

Today most journalists still refuse to go anywhere near the subject, so afraid are they of the power of the Jewish lobby. Yes, the same folks who proclaim they have no power and to even hint that they do marks you as a big A.S.!

There is hope that things are changing. A couple of days ago Charlie Rose asked Lou Dobbs, “Do you think the Jewish lobby has too much power?” I almost fell off my chair. Dobbs was so taken aback he hemmed and hawed for 10-15 seconds before saying he...uh..um...guessed they probably did.

Jimmy Carter may not be right on some aspects of Israeli-Palestinian history, which the established types love to point out to try to torpedo his whole argument, but overall, he is a courageous truth teller and my hero.

rdw,

You don't speak truth to power. On this issue you carry Lukid water.

How many Israelis are there? How many Arabs? What is the industrial potential of the Jewish state? What is the industrial potential of its neighbors?

You might be right, Islam does seem to be headed for a regional war. What happens when the religious war ends? Do you think the survivors will be anxious to do business with Israel. Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on who wins. The United States is an ocean away. The EU is large and in charge in Europe. Israel is just hanging out there. Israel needs friends. Those friends are secular Muslims and Christians. It is going to have to do all it can to make sure those secular Muslims beat the Fundamentalists. If they don't Israel is toast. I don't care how many advanced weapons they possess. In a war of attrition, a lot of junk used well beats a little quality every time. Think I am wrong, ask the Germans. Ask the Russians after Afganistan. Ask the US Army after Vietnam. I don't give a rats ass what Don Rumsfeld has been sold by American defense contractors.

Don't cite the gulf wars. In both cases we had overwelming firepower. Don't rely on previous Israeli wars as examples. In all of them the Israelis were aided by suprise attack and foes who folded at nearly the first shot. In some of them the Israelis were surprised and success was a near run thing.

The recent war in Lebanon was a warning for the Israelis. Their enemies are learning. They only have to win once. It is time for Israel to give up its daydreams of regional empire and start cutting deals.

"A lot of Jewish intellectuals, who have been raised to believe that they are God's chosen people, are shocked by Carter's simple truth. They don't want to accept it because to accept it means they are no better than anybody else. Ron Byers"

You have no idea what the many things Jews are taught about what "chosen people" means. You attribute to it much arrogance and superiority that does not exist. Most Jews and Jewish intellectuals I know are not shocked at all by Carter's simple truth. Jews are not all of a kind as you would have us. Jews are very concerned about peace in the middle east, and Jews have differing beliefs about what Israel should be doing. Jews do not believe they are superior to others.

"Jerry, is your definition of anti-semitism "any position that doesn't toe the Greater Israel Party line?""

If you have been reading here for any length of time you would know that was not true. If you had any notion that you could be wrong and not realize that and would like to be educated you would not have claimed that I make anti-semitism out to be anything that does not toe the party line. If you thought of people that disagreed with you as potential equals to you, you would not so quickly decide I was just saying you were not towing the line so I must be just reacting in knee jerk fashion. If you had seen who I had not responded to and asked yourself, why is he responding only to me, you would not automatically reach for the "jerry is just claiming that anyone that does not tow the party line is an anti-semite".

No Ron, you show yourself to be ignorant and arrogant and believe yourself to be superior. That's okay and about average, most stupid people don't realize they are stupid.

"By the way I have read the bible, so I am familiar with all the stories of the chosen people. I have also met and talked with victims of the holocaust so I know the profound evil visited on European Jews in the 1940s."

Ron: you don't know jack shit about Judaism. You don't know jack shit about the Holocaust.

Now me, I have read a few Christmas Cards in the Target, and I've seen the Charlie Brown Christmas Special and the Grinch who stole Christmas, so yes, yes, I am an expert on Christianity, Catholicism and the Baptists.

Oh I forgot, I have also taken quite a few drives down Candy Cane Lane.

Kinsley is like most other Jewish liberals. They completely lose it when there is criticism of Israel. Say something about the United States, and you'll get rah-rahs from these guys. Say the same thing against Israel, and suddenly, you're an anti-Semite and truly don't understand anything.

You don't speak truth to power. On this issue you carry Lukid water.

Not very good with sarcasm are you? We are speaking to other political geeks on a left wing blog. Power? I think not. Bless you all but let's not blow too much smoke up our own asses.

How many Israelis are there? How many Arabs? What is the industrial potential of the Jewish state? What is the industrial potential of its neighbors?

Potential just means you haven't done it. We have a clear record of total failure in the Islamic world. They are an economic and intellectual backweater. If they didn't have oil they'd have nothing. The exceptions are the Kurds and just a few others.

In fact the middle east, outside Israel, has little potential. It's telling that in 50 years this nation sets up and after repeated wars and attacks, whereby they consistently defeat their dramatically larger neighbors, they are also dominant economically. Per Capita GDP tells it all.

And, It's going to get worse. Palestinains schools are a wreck. They spend most of their time teaching religion. That'll make them competitive in the job market. Wosre is they have liberal attidudes regarding jobs. Like you fools they think it's someone else's responsibiity to get them a job. Like that's gonna happen. In 2050 they'll still be waiting.

Thus we sit here with Israeli per capita GDP at $25K on a pace to hit $50K by 2015. Palestinian per capita GDP is $1K and if they're lucky in 2015 it'll still be $1K. Let's take it a step further to 2025. Israeli $100K, Palestine $1K. 2035 Israeli $200K, Palestine $1K.

Since Israel has cut taxes they've been consistently growing over 7% and may reach a trend of 10%. With 7% growth per capital GDP doubles over 10 years. At 10% it's 7 years.

Liberals just don't get it. Wealth compounds. You twits focus on Bill Gates and other hyper-successful people for having too much money. That's pure envy. What happens when nations have 'too much' money? What happens when the Palestinians inside Israel have 100x's as much as those outside. What happens when Americans have 2x's as much as Europeans? 3x's?

I'll tell you how much potential the islamic world has. The answer to that question is the same as the answer to this one. How many scientifc or technical breakthroughs has the islamic world produced in the last 500 years?

It is going to have to do all it can to make sure those secular Muslims beat the

Fundamentalists. If they don't Israel is toast.

There are no islamic fundmentalists inside Israel. The danger is having them inside. Islamic fundamentalisn is Western Europes problem. The islamic fundamentalist outside Israel have been there for 2,000 years. Nothing has changed. Israel isn't less safe. Western Europe is less safe.

Israel is safer and getting safer every day. The key is to get stronger economically to generate the wealth to make the investment in security possible. In addition, unlike muslims, the jews are very innovative. Rather then spend classroom time teaching their kids to hate and kill they teach science.

The EU meanwhile has been getting less safe everyday. They've managed to strangle their economies and ability to innovate with it. Once upon a time Western Europe was a growth area. Now they trail North Anerica, Central America, South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, Australia and South Africa. They've reduced military spending as a percent of GDP and will continue to do so as their welfare state demands kick in. They have large, unassimilated, unhappy islamic minorities growing rapidly while their native populations shrink.

The trends are absolutely horrible. By 2015 Israeli per capital income will shoot past Western Europe and gain a substantial lead. Even today if polled 95% of americans, if asked, how would you prefer to cover you back in a war, France or Israel, Germany or Israel, All of Western europe or Israel, the answer would be Israel. In a heartbeat, without thinking, the answer would be Israel.

The interesting thing is the fundamentalist aren't even interested in Israel for now. It's finally dawning on the sunni's the whackjobs in Iran are far more dangerous to Sunnn muslims than israel is to Sunni's. Iran now is focused on lebanon. There's no way Iran and Hezbollah could defeat Israel. They know no combination of 3 arab armies could do so. But they can get lebanon.

And then next up is Western Europe. They know if Israel has their backs to the wall and they have to kill 1,000,000,000 muslims to survive they'll kill 1,000,000,000 muslims in a heartbeat. As Israel has proven, this waiting to be attacked stuff is for morons. Poke a finger in the jewish eye and you'll lose your arm. There's no such danger from Western Europe. They merely need to wait and not all that long.

Israel is safe. Western Europe is all but defeated.

The recent war in Lebanon was a warning for the Israelis. Their enemies are learning

They're not learning as much as getting more aggressive and better armed. Israels problem in lebanon were in treating terrorists as if they were under the geneva convention. This was merely a skirmish not a war. In a real war with Israel threstened the rules change. Hezbollah will start out by hiding among civilians when launching their rockets. They'll be expectng the jews will not lauch back. They will quickly find out they're dead and the neighborhood is rubble unusable for further launches.

Hezbollah knows this. They're not about to try to invade Israel. They'd get slaughtered. So does Iran. The bomb isn't intended for Israel. They attack Israel with the bomb they know Tehran will be a parking lot within 15 minutes.

Israel knows they can't fight these types of limited excursions. Just like any army that hasn't seen battle in a generation they didn't perform at peak efficiency on the ground. Just like all smart armies they learn from their mistakes. If there is a next time there will be fewer tanks and many more drones.

If you've been reading Strategy Page you know Israel the USA and India has been spending considerable amounts on drone warfare developing smaller, lighter, but more lethal missles designed for drones. You are obviously aware of the vast improvements in visual technology whereby it's easy to flood a region with drones carrying HDTV cameras and a small payload of missles on search and destroy missions. The drones can be controlled from the battle field, from Tel Aviv, or from Langley for that matter.

This is why wealth and education is so critical. That's where all of this is heading and it's not too far away.

Deranged as ever.

I feel like the whole political-religious establishment is stifling my freedom of speech and I hate it.

Go to the hospital and see if they can provide you with a spine. You'v got to be liberal to be that big a wimp. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism. If you are afraid of debate then go away.