Wednesday, December 13, 2006
You won't agree with every line in this Michael Kinsley piece, but overall, he gets it substantially correct:
I mean, what's the parallel? Apartheid had a philosophical component and a practical one, both quite bizarre. Philosophically, it was committed to the notion of racial superiority. No doubt many Israelis have racist attitudes toward Arabs, but the official philosophy of the government is quite the opposite, and sincere efforts are made to, for example, instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children. That is not true, of course, in Arab countries, where hatred of Jews is a standard part of the curriculum...
...There used to be Jews living in Arab nations, but they also fled, in 1948 and subsequent years -- in numbers roughly equivalent to the Arabs who fled Israel. Now there are virtually no Jews in Arab countries -- even in a moderate Arab country such as Jordan. How many Jews do you think there will be in the new state of Palestine when its flag flies over a sovereign nation?
And the most tragic difference: Apartheid ended peacefully. This is largely thanks to Nelson Mandela, who turned out to be miraculously forgiving. If Israel is white South Africa and the Palestinians are supposed to be the blacks, where is their Mandela?
If you can keep your food down, here's video of Carter talking about the book with Tim Russert, and lamenting that these truths can't be discussed for fear of the "Jewish and Israel lobbies" as though the walls of the studio are going to come crashing in at any moment. Well, I'll say one thing, there certainly was a time when you could expect to turn on your Sunday morning TV and not see someone sitting there discussing Jewish conspiracies as though sun spots had somehow tuned the cable to Tehran Public TV.
For the sake of those who may sincerely understand what all the outrage is, let me give the very basic 411 on the reason why the use of the term "apartheid" in the title of Carter's book has people so upset. That is an expression that is used in reference to Israel solely by those people who want to destroy the state -- not criticize some of its policies, not encourage it to move behind certain borders...it is part of the strategy to delegitimize and dismantle the state itself. There is NO other use for the word. It is too loaded, and anyone who's well-meaning that uses it anyway is a dupe, pure and simple.
I can understand an average, under-informed person being so duped, but not someone who arrogates himself an entire book to the subject. He should know the implications. You'd never walk into a room full of black people and say "Well, maybe if you didn't act like n______, you wouldn't get such a hard time." The use of the "N-word" is too loaded to ever be used in a positive way, and certainly not in a way designed to shame the people you're applying it to. It's too loaded, it's only used to hurt.
Does Jimmy Carter have any other purpose these days?
Jimmy Carter is a blight on America. He's never met a dictator he didn't love and he is blatantly Anti-Semetic. If he was saying such things about Blacks , Mexicans, or Gays/Lesbians - he'd be shunned by the entire world. But I guess, like White American Men, Israelis are fair game for any and all things in the name calling - joking - destruction - department.
The use of the term Apartheid is unfair for one main reason - that Israeli policy in the OT's is more extreme than anything the Apartheid regime ever managed.
And Kinsley is quite wrong about Israeli policy inside Israel - the offical policy is superior rights for Jews and continued efforts, even today, to relieve Palestinian-Israelis of their lands for the use of Jewish-Israelis, along with the usual range of discriminatory practices.
The family laws passed earlier this year, and upheld by the Supreme Court are more extreme than anything under Apatheid. In fact, The South African courts overturned a similiar attempt under Apartheid because it was seen to violate the right to a family.
How's that - Apartheid SA had higher standards than Israel.
Sniggering pouts and blowfish trumpetings, whether simply to get a rise out of someone or because they're actually believed from within the mental-like framework they occupy, directly reflect the credulous, simpleton-styled conceits popularized by the Jimmy Carters of the world. That Carter positively popularizes such vapid moral content will in turn be one of his enduring legacies. Coming to think of such as Carters or Carterisms - not entirely unlike Quislings - would represent a just and condign historical judgement upon Carter's incontinent flows and pronouncements.
V. Big Lies (small pdf) for one more factually based historical review and point of reference.