In Perspective: Redefining 'apartheid'

One of the Washington Post's leading headlines is about a Middle Eastern scholar at the Carter Center, created by former President Jimmy Carter in his home state of Georgia, stepping down over the row created by Carter's recent book on the Israel-Palestine issue. He is stepping down because he does not believe in Carter's books or its supporting 'facts' and accuses Carter of plagiarism — although offers no evidence of the allegations.

A veteran Middle East scholar affiliated with the Carter Center in Atlanta resigned his position there Monday in an escalating controversy over former president Jimmy Carter's bestselling book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," traces the ups and downs of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process beginning with Carter's 1977-1980 presidency and the historic peace accord he negotiated between Israel and Egypt and continuing to the present. Although it apportions blame to Israel, the Palestinians and outside parties -- including the United States -- for the failure of decades of peace efforts, it is sharply critical of Israeli policy and concludes that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land."

...

While acknowledging that the word "apartheid" refers to the system of legal racial separation once used in South Africa, Carter says in his book that it is an appropriate term for Israeli policies devoted to "the acquisition of land" in Palestinian territories through Jewish settlements and Israel's incorporation of Palestinian land on its side of a separating wall it is erecting.

He criticizes suicide bombers and those who "consider the killing of Israelis as victories" but also notes that "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."

Well, basically what Israel is doing is apartheid (though more half-justified in security as South Africa's was not justified at all). People are just too afraid to admit it in the US, as I talked about in this post. I guess speaking the truth if it isn't pretty, and the truth is often not what we want to hear, has become near a crime in the 'free' American society. Intelligence discourse and true debate are at at a minimum. At least we have non-FCC/US government regulated free speech on the Internet... for now. The article also mentions that both Republicans and Democrats, seeking votes not issues or true democratic principles, are on the Israeli side, hoping to receive more Jewish votes or even increase turnout of the conservative and moderate Jewish demographic.