What did Jimmy Carter Mean?
Israel's Minister of Education, Yuli Tamir, has gotten herself into hot water
with the far right by declaring that maps in Israeli textbooks will, from now
on, show the Green Line, the armistice line that separated Israel from the
West Bank and Gaza Strip before 1967. In other words, the West Bank will not
be depicted as part of Israel but rather as territories whose final status
remains in dispute which is, of course, nothing more than a reflection of
This seems like no big deal. But, of course, the extremists are fuming. A
group of rabbis from "Headquarters to Save the State of Israel" went so far as
to threaten Tamir's life. "The Education Minister has joined the enemies of
Israel. She should remember what happened to Ariel Sharon, after he damaged
settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza."
The reference to Ariel Sharon reflects the view among Israel's religious
radicals that Sharon, like Yitzhak Rabin, suffered divine retribution for
endorsing territorial compromise. Likud Chair Binyamin Netanyahu did not go
that far. He merely said that putting the West Bank behind a dotted line on a
map is "scandalous."
Scandalous? I guess scandals in Israel are not what they used to be!
One could argue, I suppose, that this map controversy is of no significance
and can safely be ignored. But I don't see it that way. Hysteria over a map
is symptomatic of the larger hysteria about the territories that is not
limited to extremists.
The hysteria results from the dangerous conflation of the State of Israel and
the West Bank. For some people in Israel and here in the United States,
criticism of the occupation is an attack on Israel's right to exist.
But conflating the legitimacy of the occupation with the legitimacy of the
Jewish state is dangerous. The simple fact is that most people in the world
want the occupation to end and believe that the West Bank does not belong to
Israel. Most believe that ultimately a Palestinian state will govern the West
Bank and Gaza, with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. It is not only
Arabs and Europeans who believe this but a clear majority of Americans and
The last thing friends of Israel should suggest is that the West Bank has the
same status in our eyes as Israel. That idea serves not to advance Israel's
hold on the territory, which cannot be sustained anyway, but to weaken the
Jewish claim to Israel itself. It should stop. The West Bank is not Israel.
Nablus is not Tel Aviv. Israelis who demand that maps show Israel controlling
the entire area of historic Palestine are no different than Arabs whose maps
do not show Israel at all. Worse than that, they fuel anti-Zionism by
perpetuating the lie that Israel is imperialistic, with designs well beyond
The map controversy is odd, but not radically different from the arguments
taking place now over Jimmy Carter's use of the loaded term apartheid to
describe conditions on the West Bank.
Carter does not say that Israel is an apartheid state. He says explicitly that
it is not and that, when he uses the term apartheid, he is not referring to
Israel. "I am," he says, "referring to Palestine and not to IsraelS.Arabs
living in Israel are citizens of Israel and have full citizenship, voting, and
legal rights, and so forth. "
David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, correctly
points out in a column that Carter's use of the term apartheid is "false
advertising" because Carter "never claims that Israel is engaging in racially
motivated policies and rightly argues for a two-state solution to the
conflict." Harris recognizes that Carter's apartheid indictment is not about
Israel but about the occupation.
Others are not as careful. Martin Peretz and Alan Dershowitz both say that
Carter specifically calls Israel an "apartheid state," which Carter does not
do. Alan Dershowitz says Carter is "simply wrong." In Israel, Dershowitz
says, "majority rules; it is a vibrant secular democracy, which just
recognized gay marriages performed abroad. Arabs serve in the Knesset, on the
Supreme Court and get to vote for their representatives, many of whom strongly
oppose Israeli policies."
All that is absolutely correct. And Carter agrees with every word. His
argument is that Arabs in the West Bank do not have those rights. That isn't
so much an argument as a fact. West Bank Palestinians are not citizens of any
country and do not have the rights of citizenship anywhere.
And that is why most Israelis are eager to divest themselves of the West Bank.
They understand that precisely because Israel is not an apartheid state, if it
holds on to the territories, it must eventually grant Palestinians the same
rights Israelis enjoy. But that, if it does, Israel would be transformed from
a Jewish state to a bi-national one in which an Arab majority could outvote
the Jewish minority. The term apartheid is offensive to me, although not to
everyone. The popular and provocative conservative Ha'aretz 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."
Rosner is exactly right. Argue the facts. Argue the context. Argue the big
One last point. There is a disturbing trend in the pro-Israel community in
which the usual suspects react to any and all criticism of Israeli policies by
assaulting the critics, demanding that they either shut up or be prohibited
from speaking at a particular venue. This has to stop.
Americans should be free to discuss any subject they choose without being
subjected to hit jobs from self-appointed monitors of Middle Eastern political
A former President of the United States is immune to those attacks.
But other writers, professors, and journalists are not immune to pressure.
And that pressure stifles discussion.
If the Iraq Study Group is free to dissect the conduct of a war while it is
going on, any American should feel free to criticize any aspect of foreign
policy including US policy toward Israel. That should go without saying.
In Israel, not an apartheid state but a beleaguered democracy, everyone from
Knesset members, to journalists, to cab drivers feel free to express views on
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would cause conniption fits here.
It makes no sense. You should not have to take a 10 hour flight just so you
can watch an open and free-wheeling debate about the Middle East. You should
be able to do it here.
It's a free country. Right?
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors. Originally posted at http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2006/12/what-did-jimmy-carter-mean.html. Please do link to these articles, quote from them and forward them by email to friends with this notice. Other uses require written permission of the author.