Yesterday's New York Times featured a story on controversy over Jimmy Carter's new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
[T]he bulk of outrage has come from his use of the word apartheid in the title, apparently equating the plight of today’s Palestinians to the former victims of government-mandated racial separation in South Africa. Jewish groups have responded angrily, saying that Mr. Carter’s claims are dangerous and anti-Semitic. But Mr. Carter is steadfastly defending the book, saying he believes there is a valid comparison between Israelis and the white South Africans who oppressed blacks.
“It was obviously going to be somewhat provocative,” Mr. Carter said of the title. “I could have said ‘A New Path to Peace’ or something like that.”
But Mr. Carter said he felt apartheid was the most pertinent word he could use, and in retrospect he would not change any of the book’s content.
...In the interview Mr. Carter defined apartheid as the “forced separation of two peoples in the same territory with one of the groups dominating or controlling the other.” Under that definition, he said, the United States practiced a form of apartheid during its “separate but equal” years of segregation.
Opposition to the book has appeared widely on newspaper editorial pages, including in The Washington Post and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
In an essay titled “It’s Not Apartheid,” Michael Kinsley lambasted the book in The Washington Post on Tuesday. “It’s not clear what he means by using the loaded word ‘apartheid,’ since the book makes no attempt to explain it, but the only reasonable interpretation is that Carter is comparing Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa,” Mr. Kinsley wrote.
By quoting from a post-publication interview with Carter explaining his use of the term and then presenting Kinsley's claim without contradiction, Bosman makes it seem as if Carter did not address the issue in the book. But as Kevin Drum pointed out, Carter does explain the distinction between Israel and South Africa in the book -- here's what he writes on page 189 (according to Drum):
The driving purpose for the forced separation of the two peoples is unlike that in South Africa — not racism, but the acquisition of land. There has been a determined and remarkably effective effort to isolate settlers from Palestinians, so that a Jewish family can commute from Jerusalem to their highly subsidized home deep in the West Bank on roads from which others are excluded, without ever coming in contact with any facet of Arab life.
Kinsley apparently didn't read the book very closely. Did Bosman?
Except it's about safety, not "acquisiton of land," Jimmy. We don't call it apartheid when we build a prison, or set up a riot fence, or lock our doors, or have a security fence around something valuable. The Palestinians aren't being cordoned off because of who they are, but because of what they do.
Carter used the word for its shock value. It is becoming a common tactic these days, to label something inaccurately because the new label might get more attention. In the old days, it was calling anyone to the left of you a Red. But for the last 40 years, it has been calling people fascists, or comparing them to tyrannical states. I prefer accuracy, myself.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | December 17, 2006 at 08:49 PM
Yes, it IS about safety and secruity...fences and "jews only" roads wouldn't be necessary if the Palestinians were actaully attempting to negotiate. What they've done instead is kill thousands of innocents...shame on you Mr Carter, you've finally shown your true face!
Posted by: R Vail | December 18, 2006 at 04:58 AM
But the problem is that Pres. Carter used the Afrikanns word apartheid. Which had a specific meaning to South Africa during that period and which does not resemble the segregated American South at all. But then using apartheid looks better on a book cover and resonates better with potential book buyers.
Posted by: Pat Patterson | December 18, 2006 at 08:46 AM