Notes on Carter's 'apartheid' analogy

October 19, 2006
1. First, the facts: Former President Jimmy Carter's new book Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid published by Simon & Schuster is due to be released on November 14. The book's back cover includes the following sentence: "A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights."

2. Are you surprised by Carter's argument? - I wouldn't think so. He has been critical of Israel for many years now. Last week he told Newsweek "the Camp David accords made some very substantial demands on Israel. That is, Israel agreed to withdraw its political and military forces from the West Bank and Gaza. And it agreed for the Palestinians to have full autonomy, and so forth. Begin also agreed at Camp David to forgo the building of further settlements. Those agreements have obviously not been honored." But when one writes a book he needs to take the argument to a new level, as to make some noise. Carter got it by using two things: the right word and the right time.

3. Apartheid is the worst word one can use against Israel and stay within the boundaries of legitimacy. Using analogies to Nazi Germany - as some anti-Israel activists have done in the past - is unacceptable. Using words like Occupation is not strong enough to earn any attention. Carter pushed the envelope just a little bit futher, but got the effect he wished to have: Anger, controversy, political turmoil, hurt feelings.

4. Arguing about Apartheid is pointless. There is enough material evidence to prove that apartheid exists in the occupied territories in one form or another. If you argue about the use of this word, you lose. If you argue that Israel is blameless you also lose. The only argument you can make against Carter is about context and the bigger picture. But those who support the apartheid accusation aren't interested in nuance - they chose the word not because of its meaning but rather because of its history. It is a way to de-legitimize Israel's behavior in the West Bank and Gaza, and to turn it into South Africa of the 21st century. This is a false argument.

5. But timing played an even more important role in enhancing the visibility of this book. It will be published right after the election, but its content was leaked two weeks before the election. The Republican Jewish Coalition, that in recent weeks has run a series of ads charging that Democrats are weaker on Israel, will have a field day with this new book. It has already used one of Carter's statement in an add - the one claiming that Israel has no "legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon."

6. Will this convince Jewish voters to turn to the Republican party in the coming election? That's doubtful. However, these claims do have some corrosive effect on the alliance between Jewish voters and their party. In the RJC's ad, Carter is quoted as saying that he represents "the vast majority of the Democrats." This is untrue - according to most polls Democrats supported Israel, and were not critical over the war in Lebanon. Nevertheless, the trend in the Democratic Party is troubling to some. According to recent Quinnipiac University poll "Israel's support in the United States is stronger among Republicans (70.9) and independents (68.1) than among Democrats (60), and among men (71.9) than women ( 60.5)." Carter is just another reminder that within the Democratic Party there's a wing that's very critical of Israel - and some see signs that it is growing.

7. Carter is not in a position to exert influence over policy - well, not directly anyway. This view - somewhat pushed aside in previous years of the Bush administration - is becoming, yet again, the common view among some policy makers and many scholars. People don't have to buy the moral claims made by Carter, but can still agree with the strategic advice for Israel: Solve your conflict with the Palestinians and ease somewhat the grief in the Middle East.

8. But one should also say this: If Israel had to choose one former President with which to have publicly debated differences of opinion, I guess Carter is a reasonable choice. "Thinking about the United States Presidents we have had since World War II", asked another QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY poll, "which one would you consider the best president?" - Carter ranked low even among Democrats who preferred Clinton (48%), Kennedy (26%), Truman (7%) and even Reagan (7%). If he is claiming that the majority of his party supports his view on Israel, he remains with the burden of proof.