When Amnesty International earlier this month joined the chorus of human rights groups accusing Israel of practicing apartheid, my mind wandered to Jimmy Carter. America’s 39th president wasn’t the first person to affix the Scarlet A to the Jewish state. Palestinian intellectuals have been
The accusation of apartheid isn't new. It really started after the Durban conference in 2001, in which an impressive collection of anti-Semites got together and decided that the new smear of choice going forward would be "apartheid". That makes it over twenty years old at this point. Carter got a large reaction when he published his book because most people hadn't heard that libel yet. Now it's just one in a Rolodex of talking points that people like Beinart cycle through when they want to smear Israel and undermine its legitimacy.
Anti-Semites and Israel haters have been accusing Jews of racism for wanting their rights and a state of their own since before Israel existed, for example in the "Zionism is racism" UN resolution. Some on this very Substack argue that exact point to this day. Likewise, Israel's treatment and relationship with the Palestinians hasn't changed much in the past twenty years either, if anything it's gotten better. There are no large scale pitched battles on the streets of the West Bank for example and thousands of Palestinians work in Israel every day.
The only thing that has changed is the media outlets that Beinart identifies have shifted to pushing more extreme points of view and their views on Israel followed suit. They have made it clear their journalism is based on the extreme left's politics so of course their treatment of Israel will be following in lockstep. Again, Israel hasn't changed, it's the positions of these ivory tower American leftists that have.
If you need evidence that their views are ideological and not impartial, look at their lack of coverage of the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon. In December, the Lebanese government passed a law that Palestinians were banned from numerous professions including law, engineering and medicine. In addition, Palestinians in Lebanon cannot buy land and have no path to citizenship. By any real definition of apartheid, Lebanon fits it to a tee. So where's the accusations from HRW and AI and the New York Times and Slate and Peter Beinart that Lebanon is an apartheid state? I certainly can't find any, and actually no one can, because they don't exist, which is odd since Beinart claims the accusations of Israel's apartheid is because of "pro-Palestinian sentiment." You would think impartial media outlets and NGOs that care about truth and accuracy and are so "pro-Palestinian" would treat all countries equally and hold all countries to an equal standard. But they don't, because they're not impartial, they're ideological, and Beinart pretty much admits that above. That's why the accusation is not being taken seriously, and just being ignored.
Certainly the Apartheid claim isn’t new and the recent debate tends to get bogged down into semantics and hair-splitting rather than shedding much light on the realities on the ground. It also suffers from the way western media presents all issues in the starkest of binary narratives, which is an extremely poor fit for the Israel/Palestine conflict.
IIRC from reading it at the time, Carter’s book did not expressly claim that Israel was definitionally an Apartheid state but rather as a warning about the paths it has chosen to take. That Israel is choosing the path to pariah status by walking away from the two-state solution has generated a palpable frustration in long - time observers of the conflict. The “Carter position” strikes me as fairly widespread among liberals and centrists globally, even by those who have been widely sympathetic to Israeli security concerns and have no particular animosity towards Israel.
The main problem is not that Israel has become illiberal. Its America that has become illiberal. More precisely it is the unwillingness of the left and on the right to dela with historical truths or facts as opposed to favorite group propaganda.
Just to cite a few examples. Mr. Beinart writes about Israel’s Nation State Law as an example of Israel’s illiberality. He writes that the Arabic language has been demoted. That is not what it states. It clearly states. (b) The Arabic language has a special status in the State;. (c) Nothing in this article shall affect the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into force.” That’s clear enough.
Mr. Beinart and others object to the nation state Law. It sounds illiberal and limiting. By the way has he checked the Nation State Law of Jordan? Article 1. The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation, Article 2: Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language. How about Greece. I will spare you it has more than 3 paragraphs detailing it is a Chritsian Ccountry of the Eastern Chrch and Jesus is Christ . You get the message. I know people who won’t visit Israel because it’s a religious illiberal state but they have been to both Jordan and Greece and the latter multiple times.
As for apartheid, as anyone who has lived in South Africa and Israel will tell you. In Israel Arabs can vote; in Israel Arabs are part of the coalition government and on the supreme court. And they can marry whomever they like according to their rites. None of these things was even remotely possible for Black people in South Africa. That is why the white ruling class in South Africa came up with the term Apartheid—to distinguish it from other forms of discrimination.
The problem as you can see here is simply a lack of knowledge on the part of the progressive left and of course the right-wing nuts suffer from their own delusions such as “Jews will not replace us”.
You can of course try to prove me wrong on the facts. But your response proves my point its politcal not fact based. Desmond Tutu's was a political decision to be in solidarity support the Palestinian cause. And they were part of the problem of the left supporting the left regardless of the cause. Everyone knows that Gaza for example is run by a theocratic fascist Mob. But they are considered an oppressed people of color and tehrfore deserving the support from the left. And no one has been allowed to vote by the Palestinians who are running the West Bank.
Perhaps anyone wanting to use the example of Hamas to denigrate the Palestinian people's struggle for democracy and freedom might wish to compare that organisation with the far right and outright Nazi groups the US has been supporting in Ukraine.
"The Azov Battalion is a Ukrainian paramilitary force that has previously been and reportedly continues to be aided by U.S. weaponry, training, and funding, going back to 2014. The militia, which is explicitly neo-Nazi, is being used by the west as a proxy force against Russia, as the U.S.A. and NATO seek to expand their military might throughout the region. In 2015 the U.S.A. withheld open support of the Azov Battalion, but just one year later in 2016, the Pentagon reportedly urged Congress to remove the ban on funding the neo-Nazi group.
However, a recent press release from the Azov Battalion details a cooperative integration within various aspects of the Ukraine military, which is directly funded by western nations, including the U.S.A."
So James, would you agree that the policies of a state government should have no bearing or reflection on the struggles of that state's nation or people for their rights and freedom?
I'm unsure what your point is. Israel needs to expand its definition of 'citizen' to everyone who lives there, of any ethnicity, religion or other category, giving them equal rights. That's democracy.
James, name a democracy where everyone who lives within its borders is a citizen. The United Kingdom does not fit that definition of democracy you just made up and neither does the United States, Canada, or any other democracy on the planet.
Wow. You are quite the leftist. Your jerking the steering wheel so hard it’s going to break and you’ll be stuck right there with the rest of the hard left when you finally hit the wall in November. I’m sorry- that has to be rough. But you will wake up some day soon and realize that the “vast majority of Americans” actually support moderate Israel, want guns, and detest radical leftists and communists who just can’t stop hating themselves and their ostensible countrymen. Have a nice thrilling trip while it lasts. I’ll keep reading as long as I can hold my lunch down. I wanted to see how the TNR sausage is made, and I think I need a bucket already.
Peter, have you seen the Jonathan Demme documentary "Jimmy Carter Man from Plains"? Worth watching. It's about the "Peace, not Apartheid" book tour. People refused to understand his position then and so many do not understand it now.
Great column as usual Peter. By the way, I would like you to write about the alleged connections between Hamas and Latin America and the Palestinian diaspora here.
Peter, why don't you think HRW and AI are decrying Lebanon's treatment of Palestinians as apartheid? Is it because they think Lebanon's treatment of Palestinians isn't in fact apartheid?
The fact is that the Jewish community here in Colombia has spoken a lot about Palestinian connections with Palestinian diaspora money sent from here and other Latin American countries to help Hamas and other terrorist organizations and they try to connect that with left wing Latin American government as Peronist Argentinian or Chavista Venezuelan Government. It do not know from an independent source if this is true or just another Hasbara right- wing story. Greatings from Bogota, dear Peter.
Lebanon's treatment of the Palestinians is abominable. They're a weak population victimized in a dysfunctional, deeply corrupt country with an unworkable sectarian political system left over from colonial times. (if you're a paid subscriber i can send you the call we did with Jim Zogby about Lebanon). But there's some deeply ironic about using their plight to suggest that Amnesty shouldn't be focusing on Israel given that they're only in Lebanon because they were expelled from their homes in what's now Israel by Zionist and later IDF troops. (And given how brutally those Palestinian refugees suffered during subsequent Israel's invasion of Lebanon and bombing campaigns). If Amnesty ignored Lebanon and the rest of the world, you might be right to question its motives. But Amnesty covers the entire world and a quick search shows lots of scathing Amnesty reports about Lebanon. Why they haven't used the word "apartheid" specifically--probably because they don't think it fits the definition under intl law. If you've done a deep dive into Lebanon's legal and political system and the intl jurisprudence on apartheid, maybe you have a different view. But this all reminds me a great deal of what people said in the 1980s about South Africa: Why isn't the UN expelling Idi Amin's Uganda? or Mobutu's Congo? or Bokassa's CAR? Why all the attention on this one country. It's a case of double standards! You know what--that's what defenders of every oppressive government say. I'm sure when Amnesty criticizes Lebanon, some people in its government ask why they're not more focused on Yemen or Israel or France. So your question is a way of turning the conversation away from the one at hand: In the territories under Israel's control, do Jews legally dominate and oppress Palestinians? When you actually spend time on the ground with Palestinians anywhere between the river and the sea, and see how the state functions for them, the answer is pretty clearly yes.
Thank you for your response, Peter. You said that, "Why they haven't used the word "apartheid" specifically--probably because they don't think it fits the definition under intl law."
How interesting that Lebanon, which literally discriminates against a national minority to the point of banning them from certain professions and from owning land, "doesn't fit" Amnesty's definition, but Israel does. How very convenient indeed. Amnesty has literally never tweeted about the Lebanese government's treatment of Palestinians. This conversation is about Amnesty International and their views of what constitutes apartheid. If Amnesty wants to be considered authoritative and worth listening to, it should treat all countries equally and fairly. Wouldn't you agree?
"Why all the attention on this one country. It's a case of double standards!"
When Amnesty International has dozens if not hundreds of tweets about Israel's treatment of Palestinians and none about Lebanon's treatment of Palestinians, I'm not sure what else one would call it except a double standard.
The accusation of apartheid isn't new. It really started after the Durban conference in 2001, in which an impressive collection of anti-Semites got together and decided that the new smear of choice going forward would be "apartheid". That makes it over twenty years old at this point. Carter got a large reaction when he published his book because most people hadn't heard that libel yet. Now it's just one in a Rolodex of talking points that people like Beinart cycle through when they want to smear Israel and undermine its legitimacy.
Anti-Semites and Israel haters have been accusing Jews of racism for wanting their rights and a state of their own since before Israel existed, for example in the "Zionism is racism" UN resolution. Some on this very Substack argue that exact point to this day. Likewise, Israel's treatment and relationship with the Palestinians hasn't changed much in the past twenty years either, if anything it's gotten better. There are no large scale pitched battles on the streets of the West Bank for example and thousands of Palestinians work in Israel every day.
The only thing that has changed is the media outlets that Beinart identifies have shifted to pushing more extreme points of view and their views on Israel followed suit. They have made it clear their journalism is based on the extreme left's politics so of course their treatment of Israel will be following in lockstep. Again, Israel hasn't changed, it's the positions of these ivory tower American leftists that have.
If you need evidence that their views are ideological and not impartial, look at their lack of coverage of the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon. In December, the Lebanese government passed a law that Palestinians were banned from numerous professions including law, engineering and medicine. In addition, Palestinians in Lebanon cannot buy land and have no path to citizenship. By any real definition of apartheid, Lebanon fits it to a tee. So where's the accusations from HRW and AI and the New York Times and Slate and Peter Beinart that Lebanon is an apartheid state? I certainly can't find any, and actually no one can, because they don't exist, which is odd since Beinart claims the accusations of Israel's apartheid is because of "pro-Palestinian sentiment." You would think impartial media outlets and NGOs that care about truth and accuracy and are so "pro-Palestinian" would treat all countries equally and hold all countries to an equal standard. But they don't, because they're not impartial, they're ideological, and Beinart pretty much admits that above. That's why the accusation is not being taken seriously, and just being ignored.
Certainly the Apartheid claim isn’t new and the recent debate tends to get bogged down into semantics and hair-splitting rather than shedding much light on the realities on the ground. It also suffers from the way western media presents all issues in the starkest of binary narratives, which is an extremely poor fit for the Israel/Palestine conflict.
IIRC from reading it at the time, Carter’s book did not expressly claim that Israel was definitionally an Apartheid state but rather as a warning about the paths it has chosen to take. That Israel is choosing the path to pariah status by walking away from the two-state solution has generated a palpable frustration in long - time observers of the conflict. The “Carter position” strikes me as fairly widespread among liberals and centrists globally, even by those who have been widely sympathetic to Israeli security concerns and have no particular animosity towards Israel.
The main problem is not that Israel has become illiberal. Its America that has become illiberal. More precisely it is the unwillingness of the left and on the right to dela with historical truths or facts as opposed to favorite group propaganda.
Just to cite a few examples. Mr. Beinart writes about Israel’s Nation State Law as an example of Israel’s illiberality. He writes that the Arabic language has been demoted. That is not what it states. It clearly states. (b) The Arabic language has a special status in the State;. (c) Nothing in this article shall affect the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into force.” That’s clear enough.
Mr. Beinart and others object to the nation state Law. It sounds illiberal and limiting. By the way has he checked the Nation State Law of Jordan? Article 1. The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation, Article 2: Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language. How about Greece. I will spare you it has more than 3 paragraphs detailing it is a Chritsian Ccountry of the Eastern Chrch and Jesus is Christ . You get the message. I know people who won’t visit Israel because it’s a religious illiberal state but they have been to both Jordan and Greece and the latter multiple times.
As for apartheid, as anyone who has lived in South Africa and Israel will tell you. In Israel Arabs can vote; in Israel Arabs are part of the coalition government and on the supreme court. And they can marry whomever they like according to their rites. None of these things was even remotely possible for Black people in South Africa. That is why the white ruling class in South Africa came up with the term Apartheid—to distinguish it from other forms of discrimination.
The problem as you can see here is simply a lack of knowledge on the part of the progressive left and of course the right-wing nuts suffer from their own delusions such as “Jews will not replace us”.
I'm pretty sure Desmond Tutu and Cyril Ramaphosa have lived in South Africa.
You can of course try to prove me wrong on the facts. But your response proves my point its politcal not fact based. Desmond Tutu's was a political decision to be in solidarity support the Palestinian cause. And they were part of the problem of the left supporting the left regardless of the cause. Everyone knows that Gaza for example is run by a theocratic fascist Mob. But they are considered an oppressed people of color and tehrfore deserving the support from the left. And no one has been allowed to vote by the Palestinians who are running the West Bank.
I think his point was that people who lived in both South Africa and Israel would have those views.
In your essay you are corerct about Netanyahu's corrosive affect. Israel as you must know is a mini USA on steroids. Both good and bad.
Amnesty: "Israel is apartheid!"
USA, Canada, Germany, and Australia: "No it isn't."
Amnesty: "Aww."
Hamas: "We agree with you Amnesty!"
Amnesty: "Shut up Hamas you're not helping."
Perhaps anyone wanting to use the example of Hamas to denigrate the Palestinian people's struggle for democracy and freedom might wish to compare that organisation with the far right and outright Nazi groups the US has been supporting in Ukraine.
"The Azov Battalion is a Ukrainian paramilitary force that has previously been and reportedly continues to be aided by U.S. weaponry, training, and funding, going back to 2014. The militia, which is explicitly neo-Nazi, is being used by the west as a proxy force against Russia, as the U.S.A. and NATO seek to expand their military might throughout the region. In 2015 the U.S.A. withheld open support of the Azov Battalion, but just one year later in 2016, the Pentagon reportedly urged Congress to remove the ban on funding the neo-Nazi group.
However, a recent press release from the Azov Battalion details a cooperative integration within various aspects of the Ukraine military, which is directly funded by western nations, including the U.S.A."
https://www.dailyveracity.com/2022/01/23/wwiii-u-s-nato-sending-military-aid-to-ukraine-neo-nazi-azov-battalion-prepares-for-war/
So James, would you agree that the policies of a state government should have no bearing or reflection on the struggles of that state's nation or people for their rights and freedom?
I'm unsure what your point is. Israel needs to expand its definition of 'citizen' to everyone who lives there, of any ethnicity, religion or other category, giving them equal rights. That's democracy.
James, name a democracy where everyone who lives within its borders is a citizen. The United Kingdom does not fit that definition of democracy you just made up and neither does the United States, Canada, or any other democracy on the planet.
Very nice article, thank you for it.
Wow. You are quite the leftist. Your jerking the steering wheel so hard it’s going to break and you’ll be stuck right there with the rest of the hard left when you finally hit the wall in November. I’m sorry- that has to be rough. But you will wake up some day soon and realize that the “vast majority of Americans” actually support moderate Israel, want guns, and detest radical leftists and communists who just can’t stop hating themselves and their ostensible countrymen. Have a nice thrilling trip while it lasts. I’ll keep reading as long as I can hold my lunch down. I wanted to see how the TNR sausage is made, and I think I need a bucket already.
Peter, have you seen the Jonathan Demme documentary "Jimmy Carter Man from Plains"? Worth watching. It's about the "Peace, not Apartheid" book tour. People refused to understand his position then and so many do not understand it now.
no but it sounds like a great recommendation
Great column as usual Peter. By the way, I would like you to write about the alleged connections between Hamas and Latin America and the Palestinian diaspora here.
what do you think there is to say?
Peter, why don't you think HRW and AI are decrying Lebanon's treatment of Palestinians as apartheid? Is it because they think Lebanon's treatment of Palestinians isn't in fact apartheid?
The fact is that the Jewish community here in Colombia has spoken a lot about Palestinian connections with Palestinian diaspora money sent from here and other Latin American countries to help Hamas and other terrorist organizations and they try to connect that with left wing Latin American government as Peronist Argentinian or Chavista Venezuelan Government. It do not know from an independent source if this is true or just another Hasbara right- wing story. Greatings from Bogota, dear Peter.
Don't think I'm the best person to get to the bottom of that but thanks for reading the newsletter. Best, Peter
Peter, can you answer my question about Lebanon's treatment of Palestinians please?
Lebanon's treatment of the Palestinians is abominable. They're a weak population victimized in a dysfunctional, deeply corrupt country with an unworkable sectarian political system left over from colonial times. (if you're a paid subscriber i can send you the call we did with Jim Zogby about Lebanon). But there's some deeply ironic about using their plight to suggest that Amnesty shouldn't be focusing on Israel given that they're only in Lebanon because they were expelled from their homes in what's now Israel by Zionist and later IDF troops. (And given how brutally those Palestinian refugees suffered during subsequent Israel's invasion of Lebanon and bombing campaigns). If Amnesty ignored Lebanon and the rest of the world, you might be right to question its motives. But Amnesty covers the entire world and a quick search shows lots of scathing Amnesty reports about Lebanon. Why they haven't used the word "apartheid" specifically--probably because they don't think it fits the definition under intl law. If you've done a deep dive into Lebanon's legal and political system and the intl jurisprudence on apartheid, maybe you have a different view. But this all reminds me a great deal of what people said in the 1980s about South Africa: Why isn't the UN expelling Idi Amin's Uganda? or Mobutu's Congo? or Bokassa's CAR? Why all the attention on this one country. It's a case of double standards! You know what--that's what defenders of every oppressive government say. I'm sure when Amnesty criticizes Lebanon, some people in its government ask why they're not more focused on Yemen or Israel or France. So your question is a way of turning the conversation away from the one at hand: In the territories under Israel's control, do Jews legally dominate and oppress Palestinians? When you actually spend time on the ground with Palestinians anywhere between the river and the sea, and see how the state functions for them, the answer is pretty clearly yes.
Thank you for your response, Peter. You said that, "Why they haven't used the word "apartheid" specifically--probably because they don't think it fits the definition under intl law."
How interesting that Lebanon, which literally discriminates against a national minority to the point of banning them from certain professions and from owning land, "doesn't fit" Amnesty's definition, but Israel does. How very convenient indeed. Amnesty has literally never tweeted about the Lebanese government's treatment of Palestinians. This conversation is about Amnesty International and their views of what constitutes apartheid. If Amnesty wants to be considered authoritative and worth listening to, it should treat all countries equally and fairly. Wouldn't you agree?
"Why all the attention on this one country. It's a case of double standards!"
When Amnesty International has dozens if not hundreds of tweets about Israel's treatment of Palestinians and none about Lebanon's treatment of Palestinians, I'm not sure what else one would call it except a double standard.