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.