Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






The Chain


Truthdig Bazaar
Intellectuals and Society

Intellectuals and Society

By Thomas Sowell
$19.77

more items

 
Report

Sheinbaum: Carter’s ‘Apartheid’ Mistake

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 22, 2006
Sheinbaum and Carter
Sheinbaum: Jewish Journal; Carter: Amazon.com

Stanley Sheinbaum and the cover of Jimmy Carter’s new book.

By Joshua Scheer

Truthdig speaks with the internationally renowned diplomat, peace activist and scholar Stanley Sheinbaum about Jimmy Carter’s controversial new book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”

Sheinbaum has long been active in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In 1988 he headed a nongovernmental delegation of five American Jews that succeeded in getting Yasser Arafat to recognize Israel and to disavow terrorism.

He has been a board member of the International Center for Peace in the Middle East in Tel Aviv since 1982 and a board member of Americans for Peace Now since 1988.

He was chairman of the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Southern California and a regent of the University of California.

Currently the publisher of New Perspectives Quarterly, Sheinbaum remains active in Mideast peace efforts, along with a host of other progressive issues. He speaks here with Truthdig research editor Joshua Scheer.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

Truthdig: What is your impression of the Jimmy Carter book?

Sheinbaum: Very serious, very intelligently written and laid out; putting in all sorts of components that were important to have included, such as the records of the various agreements that were made, starting way back in the first century and bringing it right up to date in about a dozen pages.

 
 

Truthdig: It’s called “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”  How does this come up?

Sheinbaum: My take on it was that Carter was trying to use the concept of apartheid as a way of creating an interest in the problem, but not making an accusation about it, [not] that this was an apartheid scheme as we understand it from South Africa, but rather that there were components that should lead to a discussion and have Jews everywhere thinking about what the implications of the policy were.  And the major component, as you probably know, is the occupation of Palestinian lands, especially in the West Bank, which is not considered part of Israel, or hasn’t been.  But a number of Israelis and hard-line American Jews have wanted to consider it [a part of Israel].

Truthdig: Is Carter critical of the Palestinians and their involvement in bombings and actions of that sort?

Sheinbaum: Yeah, he gets into the question. Especially of Hamas, which he practically calls a terrorist organization.

Truthdig: Would you call it a balanced book?

Sheinbaum: Yes.

Truthdig: Some have criticized the book [as] not being historically accurate, that it lacks some facts. Did you find that to be true?

Sheinbaum: No.  As I said, he has a chronology going way back to the first century, with the various components, and bringing it up to the 21st century; various agreements that were made, [and] when they were not adhered to, when they were adhered to, and he is very articulate about that.

Truthdig: Some of his other books have been about a less controversial subject matter; do you think he knew what he was getting into when he wrote this book?

Sheinbaum: I think he made a serious mistake, to answer that question, when he applied the term “apartheid.”  He was hoping to use the concept of apartheid as something that would create a dialogue or a debate.  But instead, it created accusations against him, that he was equating what was going on in the occupied lands with what went on in South Africa.

Truthdig: So in your mind his only mistake was using the term “apartheid”?

Sheinbaum: Yes.

Truthdig: Is it a good book?

Sheinbaum: It’s a good book.

Truthdig: Did he recognize his role in possibly contributing to the creation of Al Qaeda, and therefore increasing terrorism, through his actions in Afghanistan when he was president of the United States, or was that not in the book?

Sheinbaum: I don’t recall that being in the book.

Truthdig: It’s interesting because of [Zbigniew] Brzezinski [the architect of the strategy of supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets; the Afghan “freedom fighters” later formed the Taliban]... .

Sheinbaum: Yeah, the one thing that sort of startled me was that he talks about Bill Clinton as having been determined to bring about peace between Palestinians and the Israelis. But then under Bill Clinton’s tenure, the Israelis occupied much of the West Bank.  And it’s almost as if Clinton sanctioned that.

Truthdig: Do you think Clinton did that?  Do you think that was a mistake in the book not to mention it?

Sheinbaum: No, I think that was a mistake on Clinton’s part.

Truthdig: You were intimately involved in the peace process.  Can you explain what you did, and would that method perhaps work today?

Sheinbaum: No, it’s not as easy today.  The tensions are greater, the divisions are greater, and the self-interest is stronger than ever, on both sides. The Israelis are moving into large areas of the West Bank, and for the Palestinians this is a hostile thing to do; it keeps them further from coming to terms with the Israelis.

Truthdig: How did you help to create peace, if only temporarily?

Sheinbaum: Well what I did, as you may know, I organized a group of five American Jews including myself, to go deal with Arafat, who was then the leader in some vague way of the Palestinians.  [We tried] to get him to accept ... Israel as a national state, and to disavow terrorism, which he did ... and that was a significant thing to do, and then there was a lot of pressure on him from the hard-line Palestinian side to back off.

Truthdig: Is that why the peace did not last?

Sheinbaum: It didn’t last ... because the intensity from the hard-line Palestinian side was very strong.

Truthdig: When you went to meet with Arafat, what was the reaction in the Jewish community?

Sheinbaum: Very negative.

Truthdig: Why was that?

Sheinbaum: At one point, when I got back, there where dead pigs thrown in my driveway.

Truthdig: Is there any way to take action toward peace without having such hate directed at you?

Sheinbaum: Well, anyone who talks to an enemy is himself an enemy.

Truthdig: Was this worth it to you?

Sheinbaum: Well, I got Arafat to accept the concept [of an Israeli state], and to disavow terrorism.

Truthdig: In your estimation, is there any politician out there today with a plan, or at least the courage to take on this issue and risk being labeled an anti-Semite?

Sheinbaum: I’m really not aware of anyone.

Truthdig: I’m still having a hard time understanding why people would be so opposed to your efforts to foster peace. Why would they call you a Jew-hater and an anti-Semite, especially since you are Jewish?

Sheinbaum: In political conflict you get these kinds of reactions. If they’re not on your side and there are political things at stake, then the antipathies are really very strong. 

Truthdig: This is a quagmire, probably the worst situation in the world. 

Sheinbaum: Oh yeah, this cannot go on.

Truthdig: What could fix the problem?  As you said, the divisions are great, so the peace efforts that worked before will likely not work again.  So what could work now?

Sheinbaum: There are tensions in the Middle East that are now very strong and could lead to explosions of an undetermined nature, and everything must be done to stop that. 

Truthdig: Do you have a plan for that yet?

Sheinbaum: No.

Truthdig: Are you working on one?

Sheinbaum: No, I’m not. ... I’m not allowed to travel anymore.  I have had some physical problems. ... And to get involved in an active way ... [when] you can’t travel—it’s almost impossible. I should say that I’m trying to keep in touch with those American and international Jews who think similarly to myself.

Truthdig: So you are still as active as you can be without being able to travel?

Sheinbaum: Yeah.

Truthdig: Do you think Carter’s book is a good attempt to try to find a peaceful solution?

Sheinbaum: Yeah, and I think it’s unfortunate that provocative term “apartheid” was included, because it’s turning people against the book.  People like Alan Dershowitz and Marty Peretz of The New Republic are misinterpreting it.

Truthdig: Dershowitz wrote that he was upset by Carter’s unwillingness to engage in a public debate.  Would you like to see a debate?

Sheinbaum: Sure.

Truthdig: So the “apartheid” term is really the key point here?

Sheinbaum: It’s the trigger.

Truthdig: They probably intended to use it to sell books, with that powerful word, and now it seems to have blown up in their face.

Sheinbaum: No, I don’t want to impute that motivation to him [Carter].  I think he was sincere; I don’t know him that well.  They may have been hoping that the term would trigger a debate.

Truthdig: And it obviously did.

Sheinbaum: Yeah, but to an extent those who are using it are trying to invalidate the book itself.

Truthdig: Thanks so much for your time.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Ed, December 30, 2006 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to Comment #44527 by Elisabeth Luntz concerning the word ‘apartheid’:

“It is a French word…”, she says.

No, it isn’t, Ms. Luntz

“...meaning apartness or separateness.”

Ms Luntz: the origin, derivation, or etymology of a word is not the same thing as what it actually means.

Look, I’m on Carter’s side in this matter. He should be defended - but competently.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, December 30, 2006 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reply to Comment #44527 by Elisabeth Luntz on 12/30 at 12:19 pm

“Yes, the Israel Palestinian apartheid differs in many aspects from the South Afrincan Dutch colonist apartheid, but using the term of “separateness” applies.  Just like it applies to black white apartheid of American history.

We need to get back to the roots of our words.”

Having said that Israel is an apartheid state, a lot of sympathy is due Israeli people for the situation in which they find themselves. The intentions of the great majority of the people who have gone there have been honorable and often very idealistic. The Jewish separatist movement is the result of the historical persecution of Jews, mostly by Christians (not Muslims) and finally, of course, by Nazis. These historical circumstances made the idea of a separate state for Jews look reasonable and necessary. Unfortunately, what looks perfectly moral from the standpoint of a victim of persecution completely changes when the former victim acquires state power. The persecuted becomes the persecutor. This has now become very obvious, and it proves that separatism, however well-intentioned from a victim’s point of view, is fundamentally flawed. It is time for people of good will in Israel to understand this and to give up separatism in favor of democracy.

Report this

By Brion Lutz, December 30, 2006 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Considering the criticism directed at Carter, wouldn’t an accurate headline of Sheinbaum’s interview have been:

“Sheinbaum: Carter’s book accurate and balanced”.

That is what Sheinbaum says.

Report this

By Elisabeth Luntz, December 30, 2006 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The problem of using the word apartheid is not Carter’s fault.  The problem is that most Americans do not understand what the word means.  It is a French word meaning apartness or separateness.  It is an entirely accurate description of the Israeli Palestinian relationship.  Unfortunately, you have the same problem when you use the word holocaust.  The picture it conjures up for most is the WW2 Nazi Holocaust.  The word means great fire, so really, the word is fitting for any number of genocides including the Rwawandan holocaust of the 1980’s.  Our inability to understand these words apart from one initial application of the word reveals a linguistic ignorance that is probably best remedied by using the word for as many situations that apply rather than redefining the word for one single application.

Yes, the Israel Palestinian apartheid differs in many aspects from the South Afrincan Dutch colonist apartheid, but using the term of “separateness” applies.  Just like it applies to black white apartheid of American history.

We need to get back to the roots of our words.

Report this

By Doug, December 30, 2006 at 11:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Alan Dershowitz is the guy who thinks US courts should be able to issue “torture warrants”. He is not worthy to lick Carter’s boots.

Report this

By Thomas Green, December 30, 2006 at 10:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Mr Carter used “apartheid” correctly. Perhaps “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing” might even be more correct.
The Zionists in Israel and the United States are best personified by A. Sharon. When he was able to do so he inflicted death and destruction upon the Palestinians such as that which occurred at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon under his watch.
The wall erected by Israel attempting to separate the Palestinians in the West Bank and the siege of Gaza smack of apartheid and hint at what might occur in the future should the Zionists ever have a free hand to do as they please.
During the latest aggression against Lebanon by the Israelis there are sufficient examples, such as the use of cluster bombs on helpless villages and rocket attacks on helpless Palestinian refugee camps that indicate that Mr Carter, using the term “apartheid” was understating the situation.

Report this

By Lefty, December 30, 2006 at 9:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fadel,

You said:

“Even the Bible mentions the “Philistines” i.e. old for the natives of the land; known universally in modern times as Palestinians, which the Israelites came to conquer, kill and disposses, exactly as modern Israel did and continue doing to the natives of the land.

“The crimes of the Israelites against Palestinians happened twice; once in ancient times and the other in the middle of last century and continuing till this day.

“You Zionist distoters of history are willing, when it serves your lying propaganda, to go against your own Bible. You have no honor, sense of shame or honesty.”

Really, the so called Palestinians are the descendants of the Philistines, are they? YOU ARE NO PROFESSOR AND CERTAINLY NO INTELLECTUAL!  YOU ARE A FRAUD AND A JOKE!  YOU ARE A PETTY PROPAGANDIST AND PROVACATEUR!  BUT MOST, YOU ARE JUST A HYPOCRITE AND A LIAR!

Report this

By Gary A, December 30, 2006 at 1:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why wouldn’t Carter debate Dershowitz? Oh, phlueeze!

Interested readers should peek at Alexander Cockburn’s excellent site, “Counterpunch.”

Gary

Counterpunch
December 29, 2006
Slime Throwing as “Debate” -The Dershowitz Treatment

By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

Jimmy Carter’s book plainly threatens to ignite a serious mainstream discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict. To avert such a disaster he just as plainly must be reduced to ridicule and the debate turned into a circus. Enter Alan Dershowitz.

After Carter responded affirmatively to a provisional invitation that he speak at Brandeis University, Brandeis president (and Zionist historian) Jehuda Reinharz predicated a formal invitation on his willingness to debate Dershowitz. “I don’t want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz,” Carter replied. “There is no need for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.” (1)

Brandeis is a distinguished nonsectarian university founded by American Jews. Aside from the conventional social science departments its divisions include an International and Global Studies program, an Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies program, etc., etc. ... the Goodman Institute for the Study of Zionism and Israel, the Stoll Family Chair in Israel Studies, etc.

Yet Reinharz apparently couldn’t find anyone more qualified than Dershowitz to debate Carter. In a 2003 meeting of the United Jewish Appeal, Reinharz lamented: “Many of the dozens of centers for Middle East Studies in America are in sorry shape, and over the past 25 years these centers have been controlled by ideologically motivated forces or individuals, and very often produce biased and shoddy scholarship.Criteria of excellence must be applied to Middle East Studies, as they are applied to other areas of study.” (2) One indication of Reinharz’s “criteria of excellence” was his praise for Joan Peters’s From Time Immemorial hoax as a “valuable synthesis” and “new analysis”—just like the syntheses and analyses presented at Iran’s Holocaust Conference. (3)

After Carter’s demurral the Boston Globe editorialized that if he “can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen”—i.e., shut up on the Israel-Palestine conflict. In particular the Globe took Carter to task for allegedly fearing “genuine debate” with that “inveterate defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz.”

For argument’s sake let’s put to one side the extraordinary condition put on a former president that to receive an invitation he would have to debate a hostile critic (would such a condition be put on former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak?); and let’s put to one side Carter’s seemingly incontestable point that it’s hard to have genuine debate with someone who “knows nothing” about the designated topic (in fact, an overly generous appraisal of Dershowitz’s insight); and let’s put to one side whether the purpose of Reinharz’s challenge was to stimulate or to stifle genuine debate (Reinharz told a Haaretz reporter in 2002 that his mission as university president was “to promote the Jewish agenda in the world”). (4)

The principle that no one should be immune from criticism is undoubtedly valid. It becomes hypocritical, however, if selectively applied. Consider the case of that “inveterate defender” of Israel. In 2003 Dershowitz published a book entitled The Case for Israel that garnered plaudits in periodicals such as the New York Times Sunday Book Review and the Boston Globe and became a national bestseller. In 2005 this writer published a study, Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-Semitism and the abuse of history, copiously documenting that The Case for Israel was riddled with falsifications and fabrications, and that large swaths were plagiarized from Joan Peters’s hoax. Unlike the complaints about Carter the allegations leveled against Dershowitz possessed the merit of being true.

[google “Counterpunch” for the rest.]

Report this

By Jon B, December 29, 2006 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The land that the Jews have turned into the state of Israel is indeed their original homeland”

Philistine existed long before the arrival of Abraham. When Sara die, Abraham bought a plot of land from a local, to bury his wife.

The weak argument is “original homeland”. Assuming this argument holds, then all of us from the US should go back to where we came from, or to where our ancestral homeland once were. After all, this land belongs to natives whom we call indians and hawaiians.

Uhhhh, second thought, there aren’t any pure natives anymore. They had been wiped out by christian settlers long time ago.

Report this

By Robert, December 29, 2006 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #44338 by Tom on 12/29 @ 3:17pm

“Why won’t Carter debate Alan Dershowitz?”


Tom…here is Norman Finkelstein’s article of 12/29/06 on “counterpunch.org” regarding your question.


‘Slime Throwing as “Debate’”

The Dershowitz Treatment

By Norman Finkelstein


“Jimmy Carter’s book plainly threatens to ignite a serious mainstream discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict. To avert such a disaster he just as plainly must be reduced to ridicule and the debate turned into a circus. Enter Alan Dershowitz.”

Here is the link to today’s article by Finkelstein:


http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12292006.html

Report this

By Moe Hare, December 29, 2006 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tom #44338—Why should someone with Carter’s character debate someone as despicable as Dershowitz, only an ignorant person would view Dershowitz with any deference.  Why don’t you review Eleanore’s Comment #43516; you might learn something.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, December 29, 2006 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To # 44227 by Charles who says:
 
“The land that the Jews have turned into the state of Israel is indeed their original homeland.”
 
This is another Zionist distortion; and this time against your own Bible; which says that the Israelites came to Palestine as marauders and violent occupiers, who were ordered by their own Jehovah to kill, destroy, and leave nothing that breathed alive.

The following is just one direct quotation from the Bible, and there are many others that I can document for ignorant and evil people like you:

“Shout; for Jehovah has given you the city (Jericho) and the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to Jehovah for destruction… and they took the city, then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword.” (Joshua 6:15-21)
 
They did the same with the city of Hazor and you can read that in (Jashua 11:10-15) if you are a reader at all.
 
Even the Bible mentions the “Philistines” i.e. old for the natives of the land; known universally in modern times as Palestinians, which the Israelites came to conquer, kill and disposses, exactly as modern Israel did and continue doing to the natives of the land.

The crimes of the Israelites against Palestinians happened twice; once in ancient times and the other in the middle of last century and continuing till this day.
 
You Zionist distoters of history are willing, when it serves your lying propaganda, to go against your own Bible. You have no honor, sense of shame or honesty.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, December 29, 2006 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reply to Comment #44338 by Tom on 12/29 at 3:17 pm

“Why won’t Carter debate Alan Dershowitz?”

Dershowitz is slime. Talking to him is like stepping in a pile of shit. One should only talk to those in whom one can detect some kind of good will and honesty, however misguided. Deshowitz does not fit that description.

Report this

By Tom, December 29, 2006 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why won’t Carter debate Alan Dershowitz?  Was the book ghostwritten?  Does Carter not know the material well enough to stand up for it?  Or does Carter go too far and he knows he cannot defend the conjecture? 

The book is only getting attention because he was President.  If he cannot or will not stand up for what he writes then the material in the book becomes questionable and his own legacy is tarnished.

Report this

By Robert, December 29, 2006 at 10:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #44227 by Charles on 12/28 @ 7:35pm


Hey Charles…you commented/stated to following in your comment #44227:


“Israel allows all religions to practice their faiths. The Arabs states do not.”

CHARLES…THAT IS A BIG “ZIONIST” PROPAGANDA LIE OR YOU ARE JUST DISPLAYING YOUR IGNORANCE!

Are you saying that Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt,Bahrain,....and many other Arab states do NOT have a Christian population, any churches and any other faiths?

Go ahead and provide to this forum a list of the Arab states that do NOT have Christian populations, and churches for people to practice their faiths.

Go ahead and give us that information!!!

Report this

By Ed, December 29, 2006 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From Comment #44227 by Charles:

“The land that the Jews have turned into the state of Israel is indeed their original homeland.”

Oh, phooey.

We are surely all descended from people who lived somewhere else. Where’s the legitimacy in that?

Even if you want to take the Bible as history, it records that the ancient Israelites snatched and held territory by violent conquest. Well, so then they lost it by violent conquest. That was then, this is now.

There is no special, ancient-homeland-based “legitimacy” that ordains that a Jew from Brooklyn gets to go kick an Arab out of his house and move in.

I am astonished at how many Jews who consider themselves “non-religious” buy into this “ancient homeland” crap, which has no basis other than religion. Sorry, but if I don’t share your religion, it’s all crap that carries no weight in argument.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, December 29, 2006 at 12:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To # 44227 by Charles who says:

“The land that the Jews have turned into the state of Israel is indeed their original homeland.”

This is another Zionist distortion; and this time against your own Bible; which says that the Israelites came to Palestine as marauders and violent occupiers, who were ordered by their own Jehovah to kill, destroy, and leave nothing that breathed alive.

The following is just one direct quotation from the Bible, and there are many others that I can document for ignorant and evil people like you:

“Shout; for Jehovah has given you the city (Jericho) and the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to Jehovah for destruction… and they took the city, then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword.” (Joshua 6:15-21)

They did the same with the city of Hazor and you can read that in (Jashua 11:10-15)if you are a reader at all.

Even the Bible mentions the “Philistines” i.e. old for the natives of the land; known universally in modern times as Palestinians, which the Israelites came to conquer, kill and disposses, exactly as modern Israel did and continue doing to the natives of the land.

You fanatic Zionist distoters of history are willing, when it serves your lying propaganda, to go against your own Bible. You have no honor, sense of shame or honesty! Where and for how long are you going to hide from the facts of history and the modern images of the bloody violence you continue to practice?!

Report this

By Tony Wicher, December 28, 2006 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reply to Comment #44106 by Sebastian Pernice on 12/28 at 7:29 am

“Israel is no more a democracy than Afghanistan under the Taliban.  There can be no democracy in a theocracy just like there’s no democracy under capitalism.  At least the 350 million “Arabs” who live in Israel’s proximity are multi-ethnic and multi-religious and are not anti-semitic.  Isreal is a theological construct concocted by Eastern European non-semitic jews. 

Carter’s book is replete with lies regarding the state of Israel but on target in relating life under the occupation. 

As Mexico if it is willing to formally recognize the US occupation of more that half of its territory.”

My reply: Although we do agree that Israel is not a democracy, I think you are blurring over various important distinctions. First, Israel is indeed an apartheid state, as many of us have agreed, but Israel probably should not be described as a theocracy. Israeli leaders vehemently claim that Israel is secular. Just to prove it, they make devout Jews angry by allowing gay pride parades and gay marriage. In this way again Israel is like South Africa, which also was not a theocracy. Among the Afrikanners, South Africa was a democracy. It just did not include anybody else. Same thing with Israel, which is absolutely founded on the idea of Jewish separatism. Is this idea even coherent? Who is “Jewish” and who is not? Am I Jewish? I really have no idea. Are we talking about race, religion or ethnicity? If it’s race, the concept is very vague and almost entirely pernicious. In reality there is a human gene pool which everybody comes out of and it’s all mixed together if you go back far enough. Modern Jews have not much genetic similarity to Jews living thousands of years ago. Jews have gone all over the world and in the course of time various peoples (for example of Central Asia) have converted to Judaism. Is the connection then by religious tradition not genetics? Well, there are plenty of non-religious people who still practice many Jewish customs, just as many people who don’t think of themselves as “Christians” still give the kids Christmas presents and have Easter egg hunts (actually they are just reverting to their pagan ancestors, though they don’t know it). In the end who the hell cares? You can’t have a democracy based on religion, race or ethnicity. Americans are supposed to know that, even if Israelis have forgotten.

Unfortunately, you are right that America’s democracy is also very limited. Capitalists do have far too much power, and the worst of them, which is the military-industrial complex, is riding roughshod over the American people and the world. The war party is in the saddle here, and we better get them out quick, because as it is we’re headed to Strangelovian doom. Support for Israel is of course the cornerstone of a policy to guarantee endless war. Will the Democrats become a genuine party of peace or will they sell out? Will the American people let them sell out? Stay tuned.

Report this

By Charles, December 28, 2006 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tony Wicher:

Must disagree with you.
South Africa is totally different.
The land that the Jews have turned into the state of Israel is indeed their original homeland.
It was taken from them by the Romans in 70 AD and was conquered by successive powers until the Jews once again returned to their land.
This is factual history and not religious dogma.
Also, the Jews are in fact a nation of people.
The Israelites were not Jews. Judaism was formed later on when the nation of Israel split after King Solomon died.
King David and his descendents were Judaens.
Judaism comes from the name of the royal Israelite tribe of Judah which survived after the tribes in northern Israel were exiled by the Assyrians.
Judaism is simply the religion that the nation of Israel, now called Jews, follows.
Israel was created in 1948 by the United Nations as was Jordan.
Israel was to be a Jewish state and Jordan an Arab state.
The Arabs did not accept this partition and looked to destroy the new state of Israel.
They lost the 5 subsequent wars and this created a displaced arab population in the West Bank & Gaza.
That is factual history. Let us not distort this with the Muslim distortion of history.
According to them, the Jews never had a nation or Temple in present day Jerusalem.
This comment was made by Yasser Arafat in front of President Clinton & Prime Minister Ehud Barak when they were negotiating the creation of a Palestinian state.
Fact is, the 6,000,000 Israelis are now defending themseves against 240,000,000 arabs who wish to destroy them as a nation.
The Israelis are the minority in this region.
The Jews in Israel have every right to have their own nation and freely practice their religion.
The Arabs have 22 Islamic nations and I hear no one stating that they are theocratic states that need to be dismantled.
Israel allows all religions to practice their faiths. The Arab states do not.
South Africa was just the opposite and religion is not a factor.
South Africa was colonized by the English and thus ruled a land & people that was not theirs.
Thus, for people to compare the political situations in Israel with the South African case of Apartheid is nothing but a new way to distort the real fact of the Arab intention of genocide against Jews in Israel.
For Jews to allow millions of Arab muslims to immigrate back to Israel would be political & physical suicide.
Israel is gracious enough to be supporting a separate democratic Palestinian state.
This is being stopped by the Arab Muslim nations which believe Israel should be dismantled as a state.
This is the reality of the situation.
The solution is 2 democratic states living side by side in peace.
Only when the arab nations allow this will peace happen.

Report this

By Lefty, December 28, 2006 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fadel,

Since you cut and pasted your comments to me from the other apartheid thread, I’ve cut and pasted my response to you:

Fadel,

As I suspected, an intellectual like you has no serious solution.  You would be well advised to resign yourself to the fact that Arabs will never dispossess the Jews of Israel (Zionists or otherwise) of their land.  Or, you can continue to waste your life away whining about fanatical Zionists on your pathetic path to certain failure.

Further, your infantile tactic of hiding behind the arrogant, hateful knee jerk responses of the a handful of hysterics who attacked me because I challenge their primative belief systems is also just what I would expect from an intellectual such as you.

Moreover, I have no idea what filthy comments you are referring to.  I have certainly made no comments that even approach the vulgar putrifaction that oozes from your filthy, terrorist’s mouth on this and other threads.

Finally, despite what you may wish to be true, I am neither a Zionist nor your cousin.  Now, feel free to eat sand with the rest of your real cousins, Fadel.

Report this

By Robert, December 28, 2006 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hi Molly…thanks for responding to “Lefty’s” comment. You can also take out Turkey & Iran’s population because these 2 countries are NOT Arab countries. They are Moslem countries.

Population of Turkey = 73,000,000 (approx.)
Population of Iran = 69,000,000 (approx.)

One could put Egypt with a population of 69,000,000 (approx.).

So Polly, go ahead and subtract another 73,000,000 from LEFTY’S numbers.

And now you can say that “Idiot Lefty” is off by 173,000,000 million !!! 

LEFTY’s comment was “Israel is surrounded by all sides by 350 million Arab Mulims most of whom support the annihilation of Israel”

So “Lefty” really took a way off wrong turn to the LEFT. His stupid & ignorant exaggerations did NOT serve his “zionist” objectives. His zionist bosses are not going to be happy with his blunders & zionist propaganda figures.

Israel is practicing the worst kind of “NAZI RACISM” in the world against the Palestinian people.

A quote from Kathleen Christison:

“How can we Americans ignore this? How can we bear it? How can we bear to continue paying for Israel’s atrocities? How can we possibly allow this inhumanity to be perpetrated in our name without crying out in horror, without bringing down our own government that sits by doling out the money and the weapons to keep this horror going, without severing altogether any ties with Israel’s NAZI government?”

TRUTH & JUSTICE WILL ALWAYS BE ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPRESSED!

Report this

By Sebastian Pernice, December 28, 2006 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Nazis, as far as I can tell, were merely appropriating for themselves what the Jews used the bible in making themselves God’s Chosen Race.  The Jews of Europe were like to the people mentioned in the bible as the americans of today are the original tribal peoples of this hemisphere.  The US now thinks it’s God’s chosen, the Queen of England still thinks she’s god’s chosen.  The Romans thought they were God’s chosen.  When are we humans going to get over getting chosen?

Report this

By Sebastian Pernice, December 28, 2006 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I just don’t understand you idiot bigoted racists.  One country, (who cares what it’s called) with democracy and freedom of religion.  It just so happens that jews are a minority world population.  So F….. what?  It’s certainly their choice to be whatever they deem for themselves.  Just get over yourselves!  Talk about self-hating jews!  They’re making themselves hated throughout the world.  And I wouldn’t put it past Israel, given the present mood in that god-forsaken country for them to start lobbing nukes around.

Report this

By Robert, December 28, 2006 at 10:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“CARTER’S REAL SIN IS CUTTING TO THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM”


THE LUDICROUS ATTACKS ON JIMMY CARTER’S BOOK

By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

“As Jimmy Carter’s new book ‘Palestine Peace Not Apartheid’ climbs the bestseller list, the reaction of Israel’s apologists scales new peaks of lunacy. I will examine a pair of typical examples and then look at the latest weapon to silence Carter.”


Here is the link to the rest of Finkelstein’s article on “counterpunch.org”:


http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12282006.html

Report this

By Sebastian Pernice, December 28, 2006 at 8:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Israel is no more a democracy than Afghanistan under the Taliban.  There can be no democracy in a theocracy just like there’s no democracy under capitalism.  At least the 350 million “Arabs” who live in Israel’s proximity are multi-ethnic and multi-religious and are not anti-semitic.  Isreal is a theological construct concocted by Eastern European non-semitic jews. 

Carter’s book is replete with lies regarding the state of Israel but on target in relating life under the occupation. 

As Mexico if it is willing to formally recognize the US occupation of more that half of its territory.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, December 27, 2006 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #43721 by Charles on 12/25 at 5:27 pm

Tony Wicher:

Nice speech, won’t work.
Israel would be overrun by million of arabs who would claim the right of return.
A democratic state based on, one man one vote, would elect an Arab Moslem government.
The Jews would lose their country and become an oppressed minority.
Bottom line, Just won’t work.
Nice try but not smart for Israelis to do.
Only chance is 2 democratic states living side by side in peace.”

———————————

The “we shall be overrun” argument is insufficient. In South Africa, whites were a small minority. Somehow, when apartheid ended, and black government took power, all the whites didn’t get “overrun” by all those hordes of blacks and popped into a pot and eaten or something. No doubt they have had their difficulties, but they appear to be learning how to live together in the same country as equals. So must Israelis. If they will accept this in principle, they can negotiate a secure transition to a real democracy, and they can do so with the help of the United States, the United Nations and the world.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, December 27, 2006 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reply to Comment #43704 by Peacenow on 12/25 at 2:05 pm

“I’m not sure if the people on this site have read the President’s book. 

In case you have not, the President only uses the word apartheid three times in the entire book, and never compares Israeli practices with those of South Africa.  Actually, on page 189, near the end he states: “The driving force for the forced separtation of the two peoples(Jews and Palestinians) is unlike that in South Africa - not racism but the aquisition of land.”

        ——————————
Yes, I did read this, and I disagree. The very essence of Israel as a “Jewish state” involves discrimination between Jews and non-Jews. It is antidemocratic in essence. Moreover, this idea we are supposed to accept unquestioningly that there should be such a thing as a “Jewish state” provides a wonderful ideological and moral justification for the acquisition of land and all the brutal repression that goes with it.

The very idea of Israel is a crackpot nineteenth-century idea, and it would never have been anything else without the cooperation of British and American imperialism. It has nothing to do with Judaism , which is an important part of world culture, but is not a nationality.

Report this

By Polly Ester, December 27, 2006 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“To answer your question, I am not a spiritual person.  Nor is spirituality required or even desirable in order to know fairness, equity, justice and compassion.  Your implied inference to the contrary is another false premise.  In fact, in my experience, spirituality is a major source of tribalistic bigotry and hatred”

Farbissener Lefty,

From your response it is clear that you are incapable of discussing this issue, because your ideological point of view has been too tainted by bitter emotionalism.

When I mentioned “spiritualism,” it was not meant to be interpreted in theological terms, which you have so “literally” done; it was meant to symbolically represent how one views humanity, and you have demonstrated your utter disgust, rage and hatred towards all Arabs in the Middle East—-that’s a hell-uv-a lot of people to hate! 

You say: “Israel is surrounded on all sides by 350 million Arab Muslims most of whom support the annihilation of Israel.” 

Actually, the total population of the Middle East is 230,000,000 which include:Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.  This figure includes 4,680,000 Jews, so you were only off by more than 100,000,000 people—I guess you’ll never be a census collector.

But is demographics really an issue, if Israel possess a ton of nuclear weapons—-Israel’s stockpile includes warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, bombs for Israeli aircraft, and other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates claim that Israel might have more than 200 nuclear weapons.

So Lefty, with an arsenal like that, one would think that it should be the 200,000,000 Muslims that need to be apprehensive and not Israel.

Report this

By TJ, December 27, 2006 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

President Carter’s comments are appropriate in this day when we give unconditional support to Israel foreign policy even in the face of Israeli actions that make our foreign policy more difficult.  Repaying US generosity in supporting its moves in Lebanon with an announcement of more West Bank settlements, throws gas on the fire of our middle east foreign policy.  President Carter is an unapologetic supporter of negotiations and peaceful resolution of disagreements.  It is amunsing that Israel only objects to his efforts, from which Israel has received invaluable gain over the years, when they are applied to Israel’s own case.

Report this

By mi shi, December 27, 2006 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Truman started these messes around the world by
violating Separation of State &
Religion and creating the paranoid National Security State, CIA, & NSA, etc. No action of these covert agencies has worked out . Flat out Treason. The loss of secular govt.‘s in Moslem countries has been the worst. No thanks, CIA in Iran, Afghanistan, & now lost Secular Iraq. Truman’s biases for Israel, Christian Taiwan, Catholic Viet-Nam, Christian South Korea (if we are still at war with North Korea it’s Lost!). All lost wars of the US. With the end of the USSR, we lost all the Southern Soviet states to non-secular govt.‘s.  In hindsight promoting Secular States to modulate religions is the most important process…No, thanks to Brzezinski & Carter’s policies using Islamist terrorists to terrorize Soviet secular socialists? Secularism is more important than anti-communism in the long run.

Report this

By Ed, December 27, 2006 at 11:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Of course, some American Jews don’t care passionately about Israel as their primary political concern and national loyalty.

But a great many do.

Well, you know what? They could solve Israel’s “demographic problem” overnight by moving there.

But no: before they can bless Israel with their exalted presences, they seem to want America - destroying ourselves in the process - to remake the entire Middle East for them, with Israel as a fabulously rich, greatly expanded, totally dominant regional or even world superpower.

Only THEN will Israel finally be good enough for her American “friends” to live there.

Report this

By Sebastian Pernice, December 27, 2006 at 10:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Too bad Mr. Sheinbaum wasn’t successful in trying to get the Israelis to recognize the Palestinians as a people, leaving aside the outrageousness of seeking state recognition (who ever heard of that?)

Report this

By Robert, December 27, 2006 at 10:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #43868 by Lefty on 12/26 at 10:39pm

Lefty…you stated the following to Polly Ester in comment #43868:


YOUR NUMBERS ARE INTERESTING…HMMMM!

“Israel is surrounded by 350 million Arab Muslims most of whom support the annihilation of Israel.”


Lefty…where did you get the # for the “350 million” Arab Muslims who surround Israel?

Provide your sources & references to this forum for the above figures.

Also…would you provide to the people of this forum the list & names of each Arab country with its Arab Muslim population numbers. I sure would like to see if your 350 million adds up!

Go ahead and list the Arab countries and their Arab Muslim population.

Are you sure that your figure for the 350 million Arab Muslims who surround your “zionist Nazi state” of Israel is correct?


Since you are placing a lot of emphasis on population numbers…what is the population of the U.S. when compared to the populations of India and China?

Does larger numbers mean greater force & annihilation between the population of India & China VS the population of the U.S.?

Report this

By Quannah, December 27, 2006 at 9:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have read the book in question. It’s a very good book, and President Carter should be given the respect of at least reading the book before anyone slings mud in his direction. It is a fair and balanced book, and the most important thing he points out is the fact that in this country and most of the world, the plight of the Palestinians is not discussed, and that there is an unfair bias toward Israel in our media reports about the conflict there. I also appreciate his candid and truthful remarks about the fact that one cannot criticize the policies of the Israeli government without being labeled an anti-semite. It’s ludicrous to say the least. People who cannot separate out the difference between Israeli government policies and the Jewish religious dogma are obviously lacking in the capacity to reason. I understand Israel is a Zionist state, but many Israelis are secularists and also disagree with the government policies. To paint everyone who disagrees with the foreign policy of Israel as anti-semitic is to weaken what that word really means. I’m grateful to President Carter for a most thoughtful and illuminating book at a time when we need it the most.

Report this

By Robert, December 27, 2006 at 8:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

WATCH & HEAR WHAT “RABBI YISROEL WEISS” SAYS ABOUT ZIONISM & ISRAEL.

RABBI WEISS IS FROM “JEWS UNITED AGAINST ZIONISM”.

...“ZIONISM PRODUCES ANTI-SEMITISM…AND MUCH MORE”...


HERE IS THE LINK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUTRjQSihk&mode=related&search;=

Report this

By Alve, December 27, 2006 at 5:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have never seen a jew, no more that in films. However, I have been in touch with Arabs, and yes, religion is an issue with them. However, they are as good persons as any. And I think Israel/Palestine conflict is far more dangerous than religion, opinions or politics for persons involved or begin victims in it. And let’s be true, the hate between Arabs and jews it’s just a vehicle, a kind of tool that somebody is using for “geopolitic” (does anybody knows this word?) business.

Report this

By Dedicated hosting, December 27, 2006 at 5:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, if you ask me, i would not support or rather favour any of the plitical communites, it rather does not help anyone and in the results are the same,there are losses who are practically “us” and if we win it is “us” who defeat themselves that is “us”, democratism does not define this in any situtation.We need to put in efforts to change the system in order to make our brother hood even more stronger all over the world irrespective of religion,caste etc.

Report this

By Lefty, December 26, 2006 at 11:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Polly Ester [sic],

You employ the false premise like a true conservative.  Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you.  No, I do not see everyone as a Jew hater.  I only see Jew haters, who openly declaim their Jew hatred, as Jew haters.

To answer your question, I am not a spiritual person.  Nor is spirituality required or even desirable in order to know fairness, equity, justice and compassion.  Your implied inference to the contrary is another false premise.  In fact, in my experience, spirituality is a major source of tribalistic bigotry and hatred.

As for who is the little guy - Israel consist of about 5.5 million Jews and about 2 million Arabs. Israel is surrounded on all sides by 350 million Arab Muslims most of whom support the annihilation of Israel.

My eyes are open Polly!  Israel is the littlest of little guys.  They happen to have big guns.  Good for Israel.  Without them they would have been annihilated by their Arab neighbors long ago.

Report this

By Lefty, December 26, 2006 at 11:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Spinoza,

After the holocaust, there could be no bigger fool in the world than a right wing, fascist Jew.  I am neither.  And neither is a Jew who defends his homeland with deadly force when justified.  And if it isn’t justified now, it never could be.

And BTW, clearly, you are a bigot.

Report this

By John, December 26, 2006 at 10:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Spinoza is a troll.
Ignore him.
He will be having an orgasm on New Years day.

Report this

By Robert, December 26, 2006 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HEY LEFTY…Which ‘zionist’ organization are you working for? You must be one of their internet work/guard dogs!

Your are foaming excessively at the mouth which is NOT helping your zionist cause at all.

You are spewing a lot of your zionist poison & hoping that the following tactics that zionists use to quiet anyone who attempts to expose any of Israel’s, AIPAC & zionism’s deceptive & subversive acts:

1) If the person is a gentile, zionists cry “antisemitism” which is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide their intentions & actions.

2)If the above doesn’t work, they ignore the charges, hoping the information will not be given widespread distribution.

3) If the information starts reaching too many people, they ridicule the information.

4)If that doesn’t work, their next step is character assassination. If the author or speaker hasn’t been involved in sufficient scandal, they are crafty at fabricating scandal against the person or persons.

5) If none of these are effective, they are known to resort to physical attacks & harm.

But, NEVER do they try to prove the information to be wrong!

So “LEFTY”...Just keep spewing your “zionist” vile on this forum because it is exposing your the evilness of your “Nazi Zionism”.

Let the people of TRUTH, FAIRNESS & JUSTICE see the representatives of zionism spew their evil propaganda.

LEFTY…You are helping our cause. Keep that frothy infected foam flowing on truthdig !!!

Check out Norman Finkelstein’s link for excellent information:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com

Report this

By Spinoza, December 26, 2006 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why it is crucial to condemn Israel and the Jewish Lobby.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15989.htm

Report this

By Polly Ester, December 26, 2006 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The knee jerk reactions, bigotry and hate are stocks in trade of Arabs and their ignorant, bigoted supports in the U.S. and Europe, you apparently being among them.”

Lefty,
You see everyone as a Jew hater; if I was eating borsht with sour cream and wanted to chew on a piece of flanken, you would call me a Jew hater.

The Arabs are not responsible for Auschwitz, they are not the Nazis’ who ran slave labor camps or did medical experimentation on Jews.  You say that you usually take the side of the “little guy” well if that’s the case, open your eyes to some statistics about Palestine:

-60% of the population lives on less than $2 a day.
-In the last 2 years the numbers of poor have tripled, to around 2 million.
-50% of the population relies on food aid for survival. (OCHA)
-Acute malnutrition rates are comparable to Zimbabwe and the Congo. (World Bank)

If you are a spiritual person, or person that is sensitive to injustice, then you would have to acknowledge that nothing will be accomplished by humiliating, torturing or starving your supposed enemy, it will only create more enemies who will be more strident in their opposition—shall we exterminate the entire population of Palestine—we would then have to call you “Herr Lefty.”

Report this

By ajrau, December 26, 2006 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Lefty,

We don’t have to look any further than world opinion of America to see what happens when a nation is judged by its worst actions.

I wonder what would be the opinion of your neighbor if he witnessed the fruit of your justice. Would it miraculously fall on the heads of your enemies only? Or is your sense of moral righteousness expansive enough to include the children of your enemies? How much blood would you spill to satisfy the courage of your convictions? Surely the region on which you fixed your attention would merely suffer differently, but in no way less.

The brush you use to paint the color of hatred and bigotry on people you’ve never personally interacted with is wide enough to include yourself. The painting and the painter are always one.

Ignorance is a whore who turns none away for the pleasure of their company. Take comfort knowing you’ll never be alone.

And no doubt “they” would get more from you in retributive violence than they would give, if you could dispense it.  As is obvious, you can barely contain the vitriol of your words, betraying the kind of leader you would be if you actually had the power to move men.

Report this

By Spinoza, December 26, 2006 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

> No, it really is Lefty.

No it is really Fascist as many Jews now profess to be.

Report this

By Bert, December 26, 2006 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am sick of having my government funding Israel’s ethnic cleansing, blessing Israel’s murderous aggressions, and fighting wars for Israel’s strategic, expansionist goals - wars that are bankrupting and corrupting our nation, and bringing hatred and terrorism against us. Let’s drop Israel like the pig turd it is, NOW.

Report this

By Lefty, December 26, 2006 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Polly Ester [sic],

No, it really is Lefty.  And as such, I usually take up the side of the little guy, in this case, Israel.  A nation of refugees surrounded on all sides by a ignorant, brainwashed, bloodthirsty, tribalistic, religious, fundimentalist enemy which openly declaims its intent for the annihilation of Israel.
 
The knee jerk reactions, bigotry and hate are stocks in trade of Arabs and their ignorant, bigoted supports in the U.S. and Europe, you apparently being among them.

If the Arabs really wanted peace with Israel, they could easily have it.  Until then, they will get from Israel a lot less than they would give, if they could.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, December 26, 2006 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Lefty # 43610
1. I wish you had the courage to use your real name, so I could feel I am addressing a real human being, with blood and flesh, rather than a programmed robot.
2. I am writing and addressing you directly for the first and last time because you brought my name up several times, and because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your level of fanatic thinking does not merit the time and effort of an intellectual like my-self. Enough reasonable people have already commented on your irrationality and fanaticism; the last of which was Robert # 43728.
3. After all the filthy language you used in your comments, you address me saying: “Now, Professor, what is your solution for the Arabs in Ghaza and the West Bank?” My simple answer to this is that they should continue their legitimate and just struggle, by all means possible, till they liberate their lands from the foreign and evil occupation of colonial Zionism. Then they should forge an alliance with their “cousins” the decent Jews, who are legitimate dwellers of Palestine, to bring peace, stability and prosperity to the land. One democratic state, two demilitarized democratic states living side by side in peace, or even a confederation of two people with one future could be a formula for coexistence and lasting peace. You know that the Palestinians love Palestine so much and no force in the world will take that from them.
4. Having said this, I know that this might not solve the long-term problem of insecure fanatic Zionists like your-self. Knowing that fanatic Zionism is our Jewish cousins worst enemy, I am suggesting the following long-term solution; this solution is based on the concept that the Jews of the world should not only have one homeland for their ingathering, but at least five.
Since the historical wrongs against the Jews were most pronounced in the Spanish Inquisition, Spain should empty one of its provinces to the Jews as a compensation for the historical wrongs Spain did against Jews.
Then Germany should also vacate another part of their land and give it to the Jews to establish their exclusive Jewish state as a compensation for the wrongs Germany committed against the Jews during the Nazi era.
Then Britain that was kind enough to offer the Zionist movement the Balfour Declaration, giving the Zionists the right to colonize a land that did not belong to them, thus initiating all the troubles that the area is facing, should set aside part of Britain’s land for Jews to establish another exclusive Jewish state.
Further more, since the United States loves Israel so much and continues to support its wrongs with treasure, policies and fanatic settlers, she should be kind enough to offer part of its expansive land for an exclusively Jewish states. New York state is a good candidate since Jews are already there in large numbers.
The Jews in Palestine can have their demilitarized symbolic state, on the model of the Vatican, to serve the Jews spiritual ties to Palestine. This is the ideal and fair solution to all the historical Western injustices that the Palestinians were singled out to pay for it.
Finally, Lefty cousin, I pray that you will be cured from your Zionist fanaticism, so per chance you might see the light.
Shalom!

Report this

By Polly Ester, December 26, 2006 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Wall them off, isolate them and let them eat their own the way all far right, religious fundimentalist fascists are doomed to do.”

Lefty or is it really Righty,

It would seem from your comments, that you are the “fundamentalist fascist.”

Such rage and hatred; it is very sad, it would be better for you and your psyche if you learned more about the issues, rather than responding with an angry knee jerk reaction; I personally think we don’t need more irrational emotionalism.

Report this

By Lefty, December 25, 2006 at 7:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Brenda,

I agree with you about the ridiculous Prof. Abdallah.  He is a petty provacateur, a would be suicide bomber, if he only had the courage. In other words, an Arab neo-con.  As for the Palestinian government controlling terrorism, don’t hold your breath.  The so called Palestinian government are comprised of terrorists and support the terrorist acts of anyone they can recruit.

Wall them off, isolate them and let them eat their own the way all far right, religious fundimentalist fascists are doomed to do.

Report this

By Chris, December 25, 2006 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I really love the Jew bashing on this forum and on Truthdig in general.
This is the site for all the Jew haters to express their unreasonable hatred and get support from other demented persons who think the same.
I pity the lot of you.
Long live Israel and the United States.
Down with Arab Moslem dictatorships who have caused the violence in the world we now see and pay for.

Report this

By Charles, December 25, 2006 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tony Wicher:

Nice speech, won’t work.
Israel would be overrun by million of arabs who would claim the right of return.
A democratic state based on, one man one vote, would elect an Arab Moslem government.
The Jews would lose their country and become an oppressed minority.
Bottom line, Just won’t work.
Nice try but not smart for Israelis to do.
Only chance is 2 democratic states living side by side in peace.

Report this

By George, December 25, 2006 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Don

Your sister goes to Israel and she is now an expert on Palestinian poverty & oppression ?
Did she go into the West Bank & Gaza ?  Did she speak with Hamas & Hezbollah ?
Did she speak with Palestinians about their problems and how to solve them ?
Did she speak to Israelis about the situation and how to solve them ?
I guess not.
Give us all a break.
There are also many other third world countries that have populations that look like the West Bank & Gaza. It is estimated that nearly 3 billion people in the world live under severe poverty.
I am sure she would find the same poverty and oppression in all these places.
Stop blaming Israel for their self made problems.
The Palestinians and Arab nations caused their own problem by trying to destroy Israel.
They lost the 5 wars they started against Israel and the Palestinians thus became homeless and made to live in poverty by their oil rich Arab brothers.
I am sick and tired of the world blaming Israel for everything that goes wrong in that part of the world.
Time to hold the Arabs responsible for most of the problems by the use of radical Islam, terrorism and the blackmail ability to control oil prices & production for those countries who don’t agree with them.
The Arab Moslem countries must reform from being religious dictatorships.
They must accept Israel as a people who have every right to have a country of their own.
They must become tolerant of other religions and allow their own people free and uncoerced elections to vote, as they please, without fear of reprisals.
Only then will the Palestinians be able to have their own country and peace come to that region and the world.
The old blame the Jew game is over.

Report this

By Frank Goodman, Sr., December 25, 2006 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

‘Apartheid’ is a very accurate term for both the South African theme and Palestine. It is also a theme for the separation of men and women, blacks and whites, Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, young and old, and any other perceived basis for discrimination in an inequality to the extent that ‘separation’ is perceived to be advisable. That is all ‘apartheid’ means—‘separation’. It would be perfectly understood when you say separate the pigs from the cows, or the chickens from the foxes. A policy of apartheid make good sense when a greater evil is avoided, but when human rights are violated, it is not acceptable. It is the policy of separateness rather than nit-picking bickering over exact comparability.

If you question the application to Jew vs. non-Jew, you must also question the application to black & white. It is not the fine point distinction in terms, but the wrong and the right of the situation. I have never known whether it was Hitler who separated Jews from non-Jews, or Jews who chose to be separate. It is a matter of fact of the state of Israel, that there is a policy of separateness, ‘Apartheid’ if you will. Stay away from the mealy mouth apologies to escape the epithet—anti-Semitic. Call a spade a spade. Separateness is separateness. You cannot clean up Israel by refusing to call it ‘Apartheid’ any more than cleaning up Israel by not calling it Israel.

Report this

By Peacenow, December 25, 2006 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m not sure if the people on this site have read the President’s book. 

In case you have not, the President only uses the word apartheid three times in the entire book, and never compares Israeli practices with those of South Africa.  Actually, on page 189, near the end he states: “The driving force for the forced separtation of the two peoples(Jews and Palestinians) is unlike that in South Africa - not racism but the aquisition of land.”

In interviews, President Carter repeats the obvious - the title says “..Not Apartheid”.  His intent, in my opinion, is that he doesn’t want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to excalate further to approach unilaterally hatred of a race.  In his interview with Larry King, The President admonished Mr. King for his reference to statements by Dershowitz, a man who has little sense of objectivity and no sense of right and wrong.

Also, the people on this site who wish to look at injury and death statistics in Palestine, please turn to the Israeli human rights organization B’tselem web site, http://www.btselem.org.  Since the beginning of the second infitada in September of 2000, Israel’s IDF have murdered 3930 Palestinians in the illegally occupied territories while the Palestinians have killed(legally according to US military doctrine - collateral damage) 701 Israeli citizens in the Palestinian defense of their homeland.

Report this

By Eleanore Kjellberg, December 25, 2006 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What is disconcerting is the lack of attention given to those Israelis who ideologically oppose the policies of their own government—our lack of knowledge about these “other voices”  is consciously fostered by military extremists in both the Pentagon and AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). 

Myopic ideologues dominate the discussion, so that Americans rarely see visual evidence of the poverty in Palestine and all conditions which provoke ceaseless violence.  The dominance of the pro-Israel pro-military position is so “almighty,” that Americans are intimated to express any untoward sentiments against Israel in fear of being labeled an anti-Semite. 


By Steve Rosenthal
PalestineChronicle.com
I write this letter as a non-Zionist Jew who has been an activist against war and racism for the past 40 years. “Israel’s Quest for Peace,” the letter from the Community Relations Council of the United Jewish Federation of Tidewater (Free Speech, August 29), is an unfortunate attempt to defend the indefensible: Israel’s assault in Lebanon; Israel’s decades long occupation of Palestinian lands; and the U.S./Israeli aggressive wars launched under the propaganda smokescreen of the “war on terror” to control the Middle East. The letter ignores inconvenient and indisputable facts and repeatedly distorts history. The letter appeals to the same myths and falsehoods that U.S. politicians have used to manipulate us into accepting their invasion of Iraq and the horrific war crimes that have been its inevitable result. Worse still, the letter attempts to exonerate Israeli and U.S. leaders of all war crimes and crimes against humanity by invoking the morally bankrupt argument that Arabs are responsible for “forcing us to kill their children.” http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-122006114511.htm

http://otherisrael.home.igc.org/

Report this

By Don, December 25, 2006 at 10:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think you have tried to present a fair discussion of Carter’s book. My sister recently returned from Israel and witnessed what President Carter described in his book. My sister was appalled at the treatment of the Palestinians. Two wrongs will never make a right and until both sides are able to admit and accept their complicity in the problem there will never be peace.

Report this

By Sick of Israel, December 25, 2006 at 8:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Apartheid” is a relatively mild term for Israel’s regime.

Was South Africa constantly invading its neighbors, threatening them with nuclear weapons, and grabbing territory?

Was South Africa relying on its agents in a foreign country to manipulate that country’s government into fighting self-destructive wars of aggression on South Africa’s behalf?

And was South Africa, with nauseating hypocrisy, all the while proposing itself as THE moral beacon to the world, a “light unto the nations”?

There are many evils of the Israeli regime that even the ugly word apartheid fails to encompass.

Report this

By harsaru, December 25, 2006 at 6:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

people like Brenda and Stanley make me sick to the stomach. And Fadel is also way out of line for reading too much into the ‘Not allowed to travel’ comment.Wake up guys and get some compassion and understanding of history.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, December 24, 2006 at 11:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reply to Comment #43625 by Brenda on 12/24 at 3:31 pm

“The Jews are simply not going to allow another genocide to happen to them.
They are and will defend themselves against people like you who wish to destroy them.
NEVER AGAIN, NEVER AGAIN, NEVER AGAIN !

Hiel mien fuhrer”

Seig Heil yourself, Brenda. Take a look in the mirror, and meet your enemy.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, December 24, 2006 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I hope you will be successful in hearing the song and watching the terrible images of the children victims of Israeli apartheid and terrorism!


Anthem for Someone’s Child
Part of Haitham’s adventure in Palestine, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Human Rights, War, Music, Middle East, Video, War Crimes
24. December 2006
“Anthem for Someone’s Child” (written and recorded in memory of all the children killed in the Middle-East conflicts and forming the centrepiece of the http://www.forsomeoneschild.com/ website) has received the “Best Songwriter” award (France) in the national category in the 2006 Music Aid International Music Awards Contest.

The song brought tears to my eyes and I could not resist but to make the following clip (hard to watch). Selected photos of Israeli, Palestinian, Iraqi and Lebanese children (in no particular order), victims of war crimes.

Visit the site, listen to the song (will open External Media Player) and include ALL those children that have needlessly been killed (on both sides of this Apartheid Wall and the region at large) in your prayers this holiday season. Copy the code and republish the clip from here: http://tinyurl.com/y5oktl

Anthem for Someone’s Child (Lyrics):

Report this

By CJ, December 24, 2006 at 10:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Apartheid” is exactly the right term, with all due respect to Mr. Sheinbaum (who I hold in some esteem as product of his efforts), and however Carter meant it. That Dershowitz is forever throwing about accusations serves to prove the point. Dershowitz was badly beaten in a debate with Chomsky, such that he was forced to resort to name-calling—“Planet Chomsky,” etc. Chomsky, of course, never stooped to such tactics. He didn’t have to, what with having facts on his side. (All might bear in mind that Dershowitz is also a proponent of torture under the “ticking time-bomb” scenario, a fact that reveals something of his character.) Dershowitz has been, for some time, disgracing himself in his sad attempts to justify the Israeli government’s apartheid policy toward the Palestinians, albeit he occasionally acknowledges the plight of the Palestinians.

Chomsky asked recently, and rhetorically, whether or not Israel recognizes the state of Palestine? Seems to me a reasonable, though startling (as Chomsky tends to be) question. Bush has spoken of two states but doesn’t mean it. Blair remains a lapdog, though I suspect he has a genuine interest in a two-state solution, unlike the “theo-cons” manning the center of power.

Why is the term “apartheid” accurate? Because Palestinians have served Israel as a cheap source of labor while being allowed a miserable subsistence living. This circumstance is no different than that which was the case for black South Africans under white masters. No doubt, there are technical differences, but none for all practical purposes. The term, “Bantustan” is also applicable given “peace” proposals—under Clinton AND Carter. Palestinians, both “within” the state and outside the state within the Diaspora, reside in desperate, abject poverty (economic reality), ignored by the world’s powers—super- and otherwise, including Arab powers. And under such dismal conditions are also forced to suffer the effects of Israeli state terror, and perhaps worse, Israeli propaganda, as disseminated—largely in the U.S.—by AIPAC via media and members of Congress.

There are no excuses, no justifications, just the naked facts: The government of Israel, in collusion with that of the United States, has for decades pursued a “useful” intentional policy of economic, effectively racist, discrimination, involving exploitation of Palestinian Arabs, by means of colonization of land—thus people—in violation of Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions. I say the government of Israel so as to exclude those citizens of Israel who rightly object to state policy—far more so than U.S. citizens. Here in the states, Alan Dershowitz and his ilk prefer to stifle opinion by means of obscurantism that serves to perpetuate myth.

Why in the world, then, would Jimmy Carter bother to debate the likes of Prof. Dershowitz, I would have asked Mr. Sheinbaum? Not to overstate the case, but a rational person debating Dershowitz would be no different than the pointless debates to which we seem eternally subject in mainstream media. The ones wherein a more or less reasonable person attempts to counter some loud-mouthed, crackpot, reactionary rightwing radio or TV talk-show host, as though the latter are in possession of any rational argument whatsoever. That Chomsky agreed to debate Dershowitz remains a mystery to me, however badly he whooped Al. Well, I suppose that was the idea, along with the fact Chomsky hoped to air some actual facts, which he did. Otherwise, why beat ones head against a stonewall of immoral—intentional or unintentional—ignorance, if not out-and-out bigotry? Given that Dershowitz seems also to be so very fond of throwing about the term, “anti-Semite,” just as he now strenuously objects to use of the at-last accurate term, “apartheid.” Carter, whatever his intention, is in any case not wrong to employ the term, “apartheid.”

Report this

By Ed Watters, December 24, 2006 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m surprized to read such rubbish on Truthdig! The words ‘aparthied’ and ‘bantustan’ are entirely appropriate.When middle-of-the-road plodders like Carter start using these terms, how much more obvious can it be that the actions and policies of the Israelis are morally reprehensible.

Report this

By Brenda, December 24, 2006 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Elaine:

You must be a Nazi.
Your hate of Jews is OBVIOUS.
Are you a supporter of the Hitler youth.
The Jews are simply not going to allow another genocide to happen to them.
They are and will defend themselves against people like you who wish to destroy them.
NEVER AGAIN, NEVER AGAIN, NEVER AGAIN !

Hiel mien fuhrer

Report this

By Stanley, December 24, 2006 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is not nearly as clear as Carter and TruthDig would have us believe.  Please read this from the Washington Post Book World review.  I think it puts into contexzt some of the Israeli action - a context that seems sorely (and, I hope, not purposefully) missing from the TruthDig Cioverage:

Here is Carter’s anti-historical understanding of the conflict. He writes:

“There are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East:

“1. Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and

“2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.”

In other words, Palestinian violence is simply an understandable reaction to the building of Israeli settlements. The settlement movement has been a tragedy, of course. Settlements, and the expansionist ideology they represent, have done great damage to the Zionist dream of a Jewish and democratic state; many Palestinians, and many Israelis, have died on the altar of settlement. The good news is that the people of Israel have fallen out of love with the settlers, who themselves now know that they have no future. After all, when Ariel Sharon abandoned the settlement dream—as the former prime minister did when he forcibly removed some 8,000 settlers from the Gaza Strip during Israel’s unilateral pullout in July 2005—even the most myopic among the settlement movement’s leaders came to understand that the end is near.

Carter does not recognize the fact that Israel, tired of the burdens of occupation, also dearly wants to give up the bulk of its West Bank settlements (the current prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was elected on exactly this platform) because to do so would fatally undermine the thesis of his book. Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is being marketed as a work of history, but an honest book would, when assessing the reasons why the conflict festers, blame not only the settlements but also take substantial note of the fact that the Arabs who surround Israel have launched numerous wars against it, all meant to snuff it out of existence.

Report this

By Lefty, December 24, 2006 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fadel Abdallah wrote:

“3. It is obvious from the words of Mr. Sheinbaum that no Israeli or even any Jew, no matter how much he advocates peace, can initiate a balanced and successful effort towards piece, since the radical and fanatical Zionists, who are a majority, will stand in his way. Remember that Mr. Sheinbaum says, “I’m not. ... I’m not allowed to travel anymore.”

“4. If the radical and fanatic Zionists don’t like that noble Jimmy Carter used the word “apartheid,” then tough luck for them; let them go and drink the salty water of the sea (as an Arabic maxim puts it) so per chance they might cool down.”

Even more obvious is that the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank have no peace, no land, no country, no food is because they are - each and all - radical, fanatical, Islamist, fundimentalist, terrorists.

And if the radical, fanatical, Islamist, fundimentalist, terrorist, Arabs don’t like living in squalor, let them eat sand . . . or pound sand.  Under the circumstances, apartheid is better than they deserve.

Report this

By Brenda, December 24, 2006 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fadel Abdullah:

You are now on this forum spreading your anti-Jewish garbage.
You need to stop your lies.
Shienbaum said he could not travel due to health problems, can’t you read or are you only saying what serves your own political cause.
You are a liar and someone who speaks out of both sides of their mouth.
Go back to the Palestinian people and tell them that the only way to peace is to accept that Israel is here to stay.
The terrorists in the West Bank & Gaza must be dismantled by the Palestinian Government and recognize that Israel has the right to exist on its own land.
Yes, that is the same land that is documented in the Holy Bible.
The land was stolen from the Jews by the Romans in 70 AD., who exiled many of them to the four corners of the Earth, & was taken back in 1948.
Justice has finally been done and all those who still try to deny it will come to their own self made doom.

Report this

By felicity, December 24, 2006 at 10:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The dominant political power wielded by the ruling cliques in America and Israel indicates that both democracies - assuming they ever actually existed - have deteriorated into oligarchies. Until the peoples of these two countries wrest control of their lives from the oligarchs, no peaceful solutions to real or manufactured hostilities will ever be reached.

Report this

By Hank Van den Berg, December 24, 2006 at 8:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” was a necessary provocation.  Unfortunately, it takes a lot of controversy to overcome the massive assault on the press continually carried out by the pro-Isael lobby and PR machine.  Anyone telling the truth about the disastrous Isaeli policies and our even more disatrous support of those policies will be painted depicted as “controversial.” 
Thank you, Jimmy.  Just keep on talking and writing.

Report this

By Jaded Prole, December 24, 2006 at 4:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Stanley Sheinbaum’s well meant attempts were hollow at best because the Zionist leadership had no intent on peace. Blaming Palestinians for continuing the conflict shows the weakness of Sheinbaum’s perpective just as denouncing the term “apartheid” when in rality the situation is far worse for Palestinains. Genocide would be a more ralistic term. As for the reaction of zionist mainstream Jews, they would have condemned Carter no matter what term he used if his book involved any criticism of Israel just as they attacked Sheinbaum. More Jews are beginning to come to terms with the monstrosity that Israel has become but the majority here in the US still prefer a more comfortable delusional denial.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, December 23, 2006 at 11:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As I see it, Carter does correctly describe Israel as an apartheid state. He still tries to be political by finessing the description. He says it does not involve racism and that he it only applies to the occupied territories. Well, excuse me. The concept of a Jewish state is racist to begin with, and you can’t get around it. So let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? It is like South Africa. And, as in South Africa, the solution is not to partition the country but to integrate. Unfortunately, that means that the state of Israel as a Jewish state is indeed illegitimate from the standpoint of universal rights. Sorry. The Jewish state, including the West Bank and Gaza must be transformed into a secular democracy where all religions and ethnicities are indeed equal as they are in the United States or other democracies. Palestinian refugees must be repatriated, which means that they must be given equal treatment to any Jew arriving from elsewhere in the world. This means that the whole conflict must be treated as a struggle for Palestinian civil rights - not a struggle for a nation of their own. I believe that conditions are right for such a non-violent civil rights movement, and that Palestinan leadership will emerge to lead it. I also believe there are many Jews living within and outside of Israel who will join with them. There is just one thing needed. The United States must cease to support Israeli militarism and colonialism and announce support for the objective of a democratic state to replace Israel in its current form. The U.S. claims it wants to spread freedom and democracy. Well, it should try Israel, seeing as Iraq won’t be getting there for a while.

Report this

By zainab, December 23, 2006 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sheinbaum says:

“I think he made a serious mistake, to answer that question, when he applied the term “apartheid.” He was hoping to use the concept of apartheid as something that would create a dialogue or a debate.  But instead, it created accusations against him, that he was equating what was going on in the occupied lands with what went on in South Africa.”

Carter, in an interview with Judy Woodruff says:

And let me get to the word “apartheid.” Apartheid doesn’t apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel to the nation. It doesn’t imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis—we’re not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land. ...the whole system is designed to separate through a ferocious system Israelis who live on Palestine territory and Palestinians who want to live on their own territory.” 
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/carter_11-28.html

Desmond Tutu said the same thing and used the word Apartheid to describe the situation in the Occupied Territories. It’s not a mistake to call it apartheid and Carter, to his credit, doesn’t back down from making the comparison.

In an interview for Newsweek International Carter said:

“Q: The word apartheid—did you agonize about that?

A: Not really, I didn’t agonize because I knew that’s an accurate description of what’s going on in Palestine. I would say that the plight of the Palestinians now—the confiscation of their land, that they’re being suppressed completely against voicing their disapproval of what’s happening, the building of the wall that intrudes deep within their territory, the complete separation of Israelis from the Palestinians—all of those things in many ways are worse than some of the aspects of apartheid in South Africa. There is no doubt about it, and no one can go there and visit the different cities in Palestine without agreeing with what I have said.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16240761/site/newsweek/

Sheinbaum seems misinformed when he says that Carter didn’t mean to imply that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are under an apartheid system. In fact, Carter told the BBC that some of the things that are happenign in the West Bank are WORSE than Apartheid was in South Africa: “Former US President Jimmy Carter says some Israeli restrictions imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank are worse than apartheid-era South Africa.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6169107.stm

Report this

By Celeste, December 23, 2006 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a contrived article by truthdig.
Trying to get Sheinbaum to agree with this anti-Israel view in Carter’s book.
Bottom line, Sheinbaum does not approve of the way the book has compared the conflict in the Middle East as an Apartheid situation created by Israel.
As Sheinbaum says, “He really does not know Carter”.
Therefore, he does not know his true intentions for giving the Apartheid theme to his book.
Carter is unable to get over his poor Presidency and his Iranian crisis failure.
His one success was brokering the peace agreement by Israel & Egypt.
That was only achieved because two leaders, Menachem Begin & Anwar Sadaat wanted peace.
That is not the case with the Palestinians.
This is a fight over the same land and totally different than the Israeli/Egypt situation.
Carter is trying to relive his one success but has no real answer in this situation.
Carter need to keep his thoughts to himself and not continue to show his poor skills as a leader.

Report this

By Elaine Meinel Supkis, December 23, 2006 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Good grief.  Not only is Israel an apartheid state, it is a Nazi-style state!  It is a complete mirror of the world Hitler dreamed of with a ‘master race’ of Jews, other people as second class citizens and then outsiders to be conquered or killed.


The mental rot Israeli fascists are inflicting on America is very serious.  The more fascist Israel becomes, the worse it gets here, they are in tandem!  The Democrats better denounce ethnic/religious cleansing in Israel and better cut funds to that state which is totally at odds with our own!


Anyone, ANYONE can emigrate to America.  NO ONE but JEWS may emigrate into ‘Israel.’  Period.  If anyone marries a man or woman from Gaza or the West Bank, their CHILDREN ARE DEPORTED at 12 years of age as aliens!  The spouse may never become a ‘citizen’ of that fascistic state! 


Gads.  I can’t understand why Jews who are supposedly ‘liberal’ can’t see this?  Apartheid: Israel is that 100% and more.

Report this

By darby1936, December 23, 2006 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s sad that Shienbaum is one of the few Jews or Jewish organizations that has not smeared and slimed Carter for writing this book. Carter is one of the few “real friends” the state of Isreal has. The state of Isreal is marching to the Likkud party’s tune. They should see that the policy of Isreal and the U.S. cannot be sustained in the middle east.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, December 23, 2006 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gentlemen: Don’t you think that portraying the Palestinians as the only terrorists in this conflict is disingenuous?

Whenever peace settles in for awhile to be disrupted by another terrorist incident, it’s always hung on the Palestinians, just as the Zionists did at the King David Hotel in 1946. Is there any reason to think they would abandon such a successful tactic?

Prime Minister Rabin admitted to Arafat at a summit, in the presence of Mubarak even (as reported in Corriere della Sera, 11 Dec., 2001), that it was true that Israel had funded Hamas and built schools and mosques for them. Is there any reason to believe Hamas is not completely infiltrated by Mossad. And of course, Mossad is substantially implicated in numerous terrorist operations, not a few of which are false flag incidents.

Until the issue of false flag terror is seriously dealt with, any peace initiative is in danger of being distorted and spun out of control.

Mr. Scheer brought up Brzerzinski’s Grand Chessboard. It really surprises me to hear well-informed discussions let a point like this slide so easily out of focus. Everything that’s happened in the Middle East in the last 20 years fits this plan of destabilization and the failing of state after state, leaving them easily manipulated and controlled. The point is this: none of the major players want any modern democracy anywhere in the Middle East. Puppet monarchs, military strong men or plutocrats are the only leaders they are willing to allow and only if they follow orders to the T.

Isn’t the solution to rid the world of these cynical, Straussian hegemons, itching with Nietzchien craving for war and implement foreign policy that finally respects the genuine self-determination of the peoples of this region? The first step is admitting the failure and the source of the failure: imperialistic hegemony at its worst, and Israel, for all the wonderful things it means to Jewish people the world over, is, unfortunately a serious proxy agent in the implementation of this policy.

Ultimately, the golbal oligarchs must be forced to find a peaceful solution to the salvation of their collapsing peto-arms-drugs-dollar.

Report this

By Eleanore Kjellberg, December 23, 2006 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So there we have it, peace activist,  Stanley Sheinbaum agrees with Jimmy Carter’s assessment only taking issue with the word “apartheid.”  But one does not have to be a scholar to know, that the horrendous treatment of those living behind the wall in Palestine is nothing other than morally unacceptable. 

So for someone with Dershowitz’s character, or shall we say lack of, to question Jimmy Carter’s ethics is ludicrous.  And for Dershowitz to write that he is upset by Carter’s unwillingness to engage in a public debate is laughable—-Carter does not have to be interrogated by a hired gun that philosophically possesses the morals of a huckster.

Alan Dershowitz, an apologist of torture is not quite the person to pick as a moral beacon, is swarthy avariciousness has become limitless in the despicable issues he loquaciously defends; he has even emerged as a defender of pornography and has enthusiastically been an opinion writer for Penthouse magazine—-so now we know what this haughty intellect thinks not only about the mistreatment of Arabs but the objectification of women.

And yes, let us not forget—we also know what Dershowitz thinks about murderers, didn’t he defend OJ, knowing that he was guilty of murdering two people:

“Do you think OJ was guilty?
Alan Dershowitz: The code of Professional Responsibility precludes a lawyer from stating his opinions about the guilt or innocence of a client. I probably know no more about the facts of the case than most observers. I can say this: had I been on the jury in the civil case, based on the evidence submitted in that case, I probably would have voted the way the jury voted.”

Oh, and let’s not forget about Alan’s indefatigable defense of “almost murderer,”  Claus Von Bulow who made several unsuccessful attempts to kill his multi-millionaire wife, Sunny, an heiress who lost her physical appeal but whose monetary assets were still a lustful attraction to Claus.

And so let’s be thankful for Jimmy Carter and for his humanitarian work, since he is the only politician who is tirelessly speaking the truth about issues in the Middle East, and is unfortunately, being slandered as an Anti-Semite by those afraid of his message and his power to convey it.

Report this

By Spinoza, December 23, 2006 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Continued:

We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?

My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: “I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro-freedom. I am anti-injustice, anti-oppression.”

But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful—very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.

We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.

Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. A longer version appears in the current edition of Church Times.

Report this

By SPINOZA, December 23, 2006 at 10:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Carter did not make a mistake.  What is needed is a different voice that says no Justice, no peace.


ZNet | Israel/Palestine

Apartheid in the Holy Land

by Desmond Tutu; The Guardian; December 20, 2006

In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: “Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.”

My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.

The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or—I hope—to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.

Will be continued:

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, December 22, 2006 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would like to make the following points in relation to the Truthdig interview with Mr. Stanley Sheinbaum:

1. Though Mr. Sheinbaum should be commended for his past effort to reach Arafat and get from him recognition of the state of Israel, one cannot call him a serious peace-maker since he had no comprehensive plan for peace; he only served the interests of Israel and his limited efforts bore no real fruits.

2. On the other hand, President Jimmy Carter is a real warrior for peace. He understands the problem and exposes it in a learned, even-handed and balanced way, calling a spade a spade, and not beating around the bush. All these are necessary ingredients that should be laid openly on the table as prerequisite for any serious peace initiative. It is because of this that Jimmy Carter is the only relevant person in the history of the United States who is qualified to lead a new effort of peace.

3. It is obvious from the words of Mr. Sheinbaum that no Israeli or even any Jew, no matter how much he advocates peace, can initiate a balanced and successful effort towards piece, since the radical and fanatical Zionists, who are a majority, will stand in his way. Remember that Mr. Sheinbaum says, “I’m not. ... I’m not allowed to travel anymore.”
 
4. If the radical and fanatic Zionists don’t like that noble Jimmy Carter used the word “apartheid,” then tough luck for them; let them go and drink the salty water of the sea (as an Arabic maxim puts it) so per chance they might cool down.

5. In fact the word “apartheid” is a relatively mild world to describe the reality of the Zionist entity. It is more suiting to use the phrase, “worse than apartheid” as Chris Hedges rightly puts it in a piece published on Truthdig. I would use the phrase “state-sponsored terrorism” to describe what the Israelis been doing in Palestine. And I would further describe it as, “Israeli state-sponsored terrorism, sanctioned and supported by the United States.”

Report this

By Spinoza, December 22, 2006 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Without a revolution in this country prospects for the world looks dim.  The chances of another world war are good.

The center of this war will be Israel

Report this

Page 9 of 9 pages « First  <  7 8 9

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook