Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Israeli MK: Jews "indebted" to Carter; Israelis yawn...

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 6:36 AM on January 26, 2007.


"Apartheid" is metaphorical
39596819beilinap230
Beilin

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Distinguished Israeli politician and peacemaker Yossi Beilin weighed in on the Carter affair in The Forward today, noting, with a touch of envy, that the Carter book has barely warranted a wince in the Israeli discourse.

Claiming that the Israeli threshold for criticism is much higher than ours, Beilin writes:

what Carter says in his book about the Israeli occupation and our treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories — and perhaps no less important, how he says it — is entirely harmonious with the kind of criticism that Israelis themselves voice about their own country. There is nothing in the criticism that Carter has for Israel that has not been said by Israelis themselves.

Of Carter himself, Beilin echoes Michael Lerner's contention that he's "the best friend the Jews ever had as president of the United States," writing of the historic -- and lasting -- peace treaty brokered with Egypt in 1978 that: "Every Israeli, and every Jew to whom the destiny of Israel is important, is indebted to Carter for breaking the ring of hostility that had choked Israel for more than 30 years."

In a heartfelt passage Beilin is forced to "painfully" agree with much of the former president's analysis, disagreeing only with "the choice of language," namely: Apartheid.

But Beilin gives him credit nevertheless for using an imprecise term where no existing term would do. "Occupation," he says, "is too antiseptic a term, and does not capture the social, cultural and humanitarian dimensions of our actions."

American critics have tended to read "Apartheid" in the most literal possible sense (sensing a tender spot), as opposed to the more general comparisons to a South Africa with a significant number of second-class citizens which ultimately became a pariah.

Digg!

Tagged as: israel, palestine, jimmy carter, apartheid

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


Blago: It Just Keeps Getting Stranger
Have you noticed that Blagojevich appears to be stark raving mad?
Post by Steve Benen. January 9, 2009.
Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The luxuries of life
Posted by: maxloen on Jan 26, 2007 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ironically, considering they are "at war" in their own corner of the world, Israelis have the real luxury of having a press that it's far more free than the U.S. media when it comes to issues of Israel, Judaism, Semitic, Hebrew matters, Zionism, or anti-semitic, content. I'd like to note that more often than not these are interchangeable terms as is deemed convenient to the writer and the bias intended.
In North America, public opinion has to be kept within narrow boundaries because it is here where resides the power to make or break Israel's welfare, and any unmoderated critique on subjects that are considered too essential for the conservation of the status quo (power/money) have to be controlled or quashed at it's inception either by condoning what gets published, or by means of political or economic pressure -as the campaign against the Berkeley Daily Planet shows- such as having money withheld from, or used against, the subject in question. Besides the ads from corporations like Federated Stores or Home Depot, a large portion of the power over the media is in the boards of directors of foundations who award funds or have strong influence over what gets selected for endowment. The Boards of these gigantic money bags of not-for-profit-but-for-power institutions are greatly in the pocket of the pro-Israel lobbies.

The big problem these days is the Internet with its Alternet, DailyKos, Indymedia, Truthout, MoveOn, and many others like it in many countries, so they are pushing, and will keep pushing and impelling and bearing until "control of the gates," or whatever clever euphemism is concocted to convince our Representatives in Washington on the benefits of suppressing uncontrolled public discourse for the sake of some (donor) business.
Because only about 20-percent of the U.S. population have to vote for, say, Bush or Clinton, to have him be Mr. POTUS, with unwarranted power over the rest of the 99-percent of the world at large who did not vote them in, we are constantly being fine-tuned within a narrow bandwidth with, for instance, gas prices that are uniquely low considering the huge demand we put on supply with our unrestrained usage. AIPAC is well aware of this game and plays as if it knew beforehand the order in which the cards are being dealt. Or do they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just Metaphorical?
Posted by: lessbread on Jan 26, 2007 7:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]