What I said (and what I meant) about Carter's book

I was quoted twice this past weekend - once by a writer I know and respect and once by a writer I don't know in a publication I respect - and in both instances it was the same sentence that was taken from notes I wrote two months ago, about the new Jimmy Carter book "Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid."

I am forced to go back and explain this sentence, as it is one that might create the wrong impression if taken out of it's full context (And one must state at the beginning: the writers who quoted it - M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum and Bob Thompson of the Post - quoted me accurately).

The book

I didn't invest too much time writing about it. I did, though, manage to take a look at it and wrote that, "A quick and superficial scan of the book turns up no new or inflammatory disclosures, but it does contain some particularly harsh criticism."

I can also add this: It's quite boring.

For more details on why it is not worthy of your time I'll recommend the thoroughly argued piece by The New Yorker's Jeffery Goldberg (also in the Post today): "This is a cynical book," he writes, "Its cynicism embedded in its bait-and-switch title. Much of the book consists of an argument against the barrier that Israel is building to separate Israelis from the Palestinians on the West Bank. The 'imprisonment wall' is an early symptom of Israel's descent into apartheid, according to Carter. But late in the book, he concedes that 'the driving purpose for the forced separation of the two peoples is unlike that in South Africa - not racism, but the acquisition of land.'"

The quotes

And now to the reason for which I decided to delve, yet again, into the Carter swamp - the Rosner quotes. This should teach me a lesson: A blog might be a dangerously scrutinized zone.

The one in today's Washington Post is this:

Even some close to Carter have questioned his word choice. "I certainly raised it with him," historian [Steven] Hochman says. "I think with a less provocative title, people would have come to the book more open to the arguments he made." It can seem hard to argue with this point. To take just one example: If you Google "Jimmy Carter, go back to your peanut farm" you'll pull up an angry Jerusalem Post rebuttal of the apartheid charge. It's written by precisely the kind of Israeli you'd think might be sympathetic to Carter's views - human rights activist David Forman, who opposes the occupation. And yet ... In a blog entry otherwise quite critical of Carter, Shmuel Rosner, chief U.S. Correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, writes: "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." This reinforces a point Carter often makes: It's far more common to hear the behavior of the Israeli government debated in Israel than it is here.

The one from my friend M.J. says this:

The term apartheid is offensive to some, although not to everyone. The popular and provocative conservative Haaretz columnist, Shmuel Rosner, sees nothing wrong with the term. "Arguing about apartheid is pointless," he writes. "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."

The original

Now look at what I originally wrote:

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.

The complaints

1. The Post's writer uses my quote to draw this conclusion: "This reinforces a point Carter often makes: It's far more common to hear the behavior of the Israeli government debated in Israel than it is here."

Do I agree? No. Can the writer decide to draw such conclusion? I guess he just did. But it is his conclusion, not mine.

2. Thompson was careful enough to mention that my blog was "otherwise quite critical of Carter." This is only half true. It was not "otherwise" critical - but critical. The quoted sentence was part of my critique. I was not saying "he is right on this one, but wrong on some other issues" but rather "he is wrong."

3. M.J. writes that I see "nothing wrong with the term" apartheid. That's also not true. I think that in the context of Israel it's false and misleading. I also think, as Goldberg wrote, that it's Carter's cynical way to ignite debate and sell more books. Here's another sentence that I wrote in my initial remarks about Carter, two months ago: "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."

The lesson

My wife tells me it's my fault, and she probably knows what she's talking about. I was trying to make a nuanced argument in a world in which there's no such thing (well, that's the way I'd like to think about it, but one can also say that I was just being a smart-ass).

Seriously, what I was arguing is that quarrelling with Carter over this one "shocking" (as Israel's Vice Premier Shimon Peres described it) word is something that will only serve him well. This is exactly what he wanted. A debate on the question: "Israel - an apartheid regime?"

So now Carter got his debate, and I may have to sleep tonight on the sofa.