Carter on Israeli "Apartheid"

**120mm** · 12-12-2006

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

On the contrary, the Arab states surrounding Israel the issues of Palestinian camps, rights, and poiltical/military activism are NOT factors that promote stability or in your terms divert the attention of the "Arab street." Begin with Lebanon as a case study and work south.

So, would you say the idea that Arab national leaders do not use the "plight of the Palestinians" as a unification tool for their populations? And as a distractor from their own corruption and abuses? I would think that Arab states are not upset with <some> instability in the ME, as long as it's bad for the Israelis

Secondly I would love to have you define "Arab street"; is that a linguistic definition or a quasi-ethnic definition? The "street" in Damascus is not the same as the "street" in Amman or anywhere else. There are common threads however and the issue of the Palestinians is one of them.

Perhaps a better phrase would be public opinion?

On the issue of Palestinian land in Arab states, depending on the state picked and how you define Palestine, you could make that case--the most common areas would be Jordan (especially the West Bank) and to a lesser degree Gaza. And that goes back to your theory about the Arab states wanting to keep the Palestinian issue bubbling. In the case of Jordan, look at September 1970.

Best

Tom

For some reason I can't post unless I type something down here.

**Steve Blair** · 12-12-2006

Tom,

My fault for bad wording. You said regarding Jordan more or less what I meant (in terms of them kicking the Palestinians out and starting lots of stuff as a result).

**Tom Odom** · 12-12-2006

Reference Arab nation's use of the Palestinian issue as a distractor/unifier:

This was the trend in the 1950s through 1967 in the height of the Pan Arab movement and the creation and sustainment of secular parties in the Arab world--the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq and at one stage the long distance unification of Egypt with Syria (a short term Vegas marriage) if there ever was one. 1967 was a watershed event in the Middle East because itr exposed the Arab regimes in Syria and Egypt as paper tigers and set lose radical Palestinian militancy and terrorism.

1975 was the next watershed year with the eruption of the Lebanese civil war; it was the most serious sectarian and civil struggle the region had seen. The spark that ignited this war was the Palestinian issue; as I said earlier Sep 1970 in Jordan was a precursor event. And although the palestinian issue was in 1975 largely non-sectarian within Arab circles, it set off what became a sectarian conflict and a larger infiltration/conquest/alignment of radical forces in the Middle East. The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and occupation set the stage for the development of Hizballah--a religious based Shia militia--in competition with Amal--a political based Shia militia (yes that is a contradiction) more aligned with Syria and the Syrian Baath party. Amal ultimately lost and we have the current tinder box in Lebanon as a result.

After the sectarian violence on Lebanon, the spread of radical Islam into the Palestinian struggle with Hamas as a Sunni clone of Shia Hizballah drew strength from the lack of results of the 1st Intifahda. The 2nd Intifadah was and is much more radicallly Islamic and the surrounding Arab states and their leaders all know it. What could be used in your terms as a distractor in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and the early 1980s got very dangerous in the 1990s and leaders in those states see it as such.

On the other hand reverse your analysis. It has long been the policy of Israel to export unrest among its enemies. Israeli missions with the Kurds in the 1960s, Israeli support to southern Sudanese rebels in the 1960s, and their once close relations with Idi Amin in Uganda all supported that goal. The creation and sustainment of the South Lebanese Army during the occupation of Lebanon was perhaps the most blatant expression of this policy.

As for corruption of Arab regimes etc etc., that is quite true in that all have shall we say "integrity issues". Name me a region that is corruption free.

On Arab street versus population--what I was getting at is the issue of who is an Arab and who is not. Modern defintions limit Arab to Arabic-speakers rather than try and identify "ethnic Arabs". On commonalities between such populations' opinions regional differences certainly play a role; proximity to an issue like the Palestinian issue tends to increase intensity of those opinions. And in lesser educated or uneducated people those opinions become tied to what their respective governments say. Unless of course and that is the shift I tried to lay out above the issue is reframed in a purely religious sense; then those same lesser or uneducated populations inflamed through religious zealots make such issues as the Palestiinians very dangerous for Arab leaders to manipulate.

Best

Tom

**120mm** · 12-13-2006

That makes incredible sense. If the Palestinian issue can be used to threaten Israel, why isn't it in Israel's best interest to resolve it.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

**Tom Odom** · 12-13-2006

The short answer is that it is and it has been in Israel's interest to resolve or at least lessen the issue.

The longer answer is complex involving political. military, economic, and ultimately psychological issues that press key nerves. Internal Israeli politics are whirlwind and cuthroat; Israeli culture has morphed over the years. And it is not a monolith; there are significant voices for change inside the country and outside in the greater Jewish community.

But basic social and physical laws apply here and we the US are a factor; by that I mean when our position in the equation is carved in stone, that same stone works against any movement on this issue.

Good discussion

Best
Tom

**Merv Benson** · 12-13-2006

The main reason there is not peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians have nothing of value to offer the Israelis. The Palestinian Authority does not control all the various death cults bent on a genocidal war with Israel and thus cannot stop attacks even if it agreed to do so. The passions of the death cults is based more on Israel's existence than its conduct or its negotiating posture. Existence is not a subject of negotiation.

**SSG Rock** · 12-13-2006

That two peoples have been tossed into this situation through no real fault of their own demands concentrated and genuine international assistance in bringing involved parties to the negotiating table. We'll never get anywhere if either side claims the moral high ground and digs in. There is plenty of blame to go around, this is true, all the way around the world that is. While Israel has been heavy handed of late, I for the life of me can't understand why anyone would actually demand that Israel participate in anymore land for peace deals. Someone from the Palestinian side always manages to sabatoge the treaty and vice versa. And, so the world must get involved, there is simply no way these two entities will come to terms unless they are forced to. I can't place all the blame on one side or the other, so much has transpired that it is moot now anyway. All that is important is finding a way for them to live with each other equitably, that will never happen without strong intervention. And in that endeavour, Carter's book doesn't help the situation at all.

I am also very concerned that this talk eminating from Ahmadinejad casting doubt as to the historical facts of the holacaust is incredibly starting to gain traction. With the recent conference over the last couple of days on that exact topic, I'm beginning to get concerned that a wave of anitsemitism might actually resurface. Let that happen and then see what follows. I tell you, it's shaping up to be a real throw down over there all things considerd.

**Bill Moore** · 12-13-2006

Rock I couldn't agree with you more. This clown Ahmadinejad, to the dismay of most us, knows how to sell used cars in the Middle East. I don't know if we'll ever truly understand how hateful messages like this, completely based on falsehoods, gains traction in the region. I can think of two contributing reasons. First, he represents religious zealots, and regardless of which religion the zealots disregard cause and effect reasoning, because in their view everything happens because God directs it. We can't wage a war of ideas based on reason against zealots. Second, Israel has taken several heavy handed actions over the years, not just recently, so there is plenty of propaganda material that can be employed against them. I don't think there is a ready solution waiting to be pulled of the shelf, since the conflict seems to benefit to many players on the side line. The West could go in with a large peace enforcement force and force both sides to comply, and then park there long enough (years) to establish a lasting peace, but the political will to undertake such a venture is simply not there. We can't even get peace enforcement forces for Sudan, so how will we get forces for the even tougher problem with Israel? This is why I caution tying ourselves too closely to Israel if it doesn't support our national interests. However, if it ever comes down to religion zealots attacking Israel with the purpose of wiping Israel off the map (instead of perhaps a limited goal of regaining the Golan Heights), then we would be definitely obligated to respond. What a mess. Maybe if we close our eyes and click our heels three times we could wish it away?

**Tom Odom** · 12-14-2006

Bill and Rock,

I would simply say that if you are seeing the complexity of this issue, you are seeing it with greater clarity than most.

Best

Tom

**jcustis** · 12-15-2006

Are Hamas and Fatah going to duke it out (reference an alleged assasination attempt on Haniya yesterday) ?

**Tom Odom** · 12-15-2006

JC

It is looking that way at least locally in Gaza as a strong possibility. And I have serious doubts that Fatah would win while Hamas must simply not lose.

Coupled with the same struggle in Lebanon between Hizballah and the others, the region as a sectarian tinder box is certainly smoking.

Tom

**SWJED** · 12-16-2006

16 December Boston Globe editorial - Jimmy Carter vs. Jimmy Carter.

Harry Truman famously said that if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. By refusing Brandeis's invitation to take part in a debate about his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," former president Jimmy Carter is saying that he can't take the heat -- after giving his book a controversial title and boasting of a desire to be provocative.

Some of the fury Carter has provoked is so overwrought that it appears to confirm his own overstated contention that any criticism of Israel is treated like heresy by the mainstream media. But it is precisely because of the hyperbole of his critics, and the seriousness of the issues he wants to raise, that Carter should agree to debate that inveterate defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz.

At the least, Carter should welcome a chance to defend his deliberate choice of the emotionally charged word, "apartheid," in his title. In one of the text's three references to apartheid, Carter quotes an unnamed "prominent Israeli" saying, "I am afraid that we are moving toward a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship. The West Bank is not worth it."...

If he were to accept a genuine debate about his use of the word "apartheid," Carter would probably have to admit he was being irresponsibly provocative. The rest of his brief for Mideast peace hardly differs from the consensus of rational Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans. Carter is an orthodox peacenik posing as a heretic. Maybe that's the real reason he has declined to debate.

**tequila** · 12-20-2006

The Palestinians look like they are really trending toward civil war. Interestingly many in the region now look at Fatah as an American puppet due to items like this:

U.S. Training Fatah in Anti-Terror Tactics.

U.S. preparing Abbas guard to take on Hamas.

So is the U.S. now taking sides in a Palestinian civil war? Should it?

Slightly off topic of this, but Israeli spying on the U.S. still goes on, according to Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly. I wonder why this is still necessary given that we provide so much of their defense budget.

**jcustis** · 12-20-2006

Perhaps it is because they have a fear that we are always one breath away from breaking our ties with the state.

**tequila** · 12-20-2006

Originally Posted by jcustis

Perhaps it is because they have a fear that we are always one breath away from breaking our ties with the state.

I doubt the Israelis view the relationship as that precarious. I think it's much more likely that they feel the relationship is so strong that they can get away with things like this with impunity. Indeed, I'd say that they were 100% right about that.