A Brutally Frank Jimmy Carter Calls Out Israel on Permanent Apartheid

In an interview with the U.K.‘s Prospect magazine, former President Jimmy Carter is brutally frank in saying that all hope for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict has ended. “At this moment, there is zero chance of the two-state solution,” he said, according to journalist Bronwen Maddox.
That judgment is widely shared and not so controversial. It is what he said next that ruffled feathers in Israel: “The Netanyahu government decided early on to adopt a one-state solution … but without giving them [the Palestinians] equal rights.” In this sentence, he accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of having pursued, upon his election in 2009, a deliberate policy of relentlessly annexing and colonizing the Palestinian West Bank, ensuring that it will end up as part of Israel. At the same time, he said, Netanyahu conspired to ensure that the 4.2 million Palestinians under Israeli occupation remain stateless and without rights.
It seems fairly clear to any dispassionate observer of Netanyahu’s government that these steps are precisely the ones it has taken, and Carter is simply stating the obvious. But in the world of international diplomacy, it is customary to put some of the blame for this state of affairs on the Palestinians. Pro-Israeli critics run interference for Tel Aviv, insisting that the PLO, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, has declined perfectly reasonable negotiating offers and that Israel would be very happy to have someone take Palestine off its hands, if only it could receive security in return. Carter violated these conventions of “on the one hand” political discourse by baldly and correctly blaming the occupying authority for its illegal actions, rather than the helpless, occupied population.
Carter wasn’t done with Netanyahu. Not only is the two-state solution dead, the Palestinian West Bank being entirely stolen, the Palestinians doomed to be ruled by the Israelis in perpetuity—but Israeli society and politics are such that in the single state now forming under Netanyahu’s iron fist, Palestinians “will never get equal rights.” In short, he implicitly called Israel an apartheid state in which the only hope for the Palestinians is to achieve at least “more equal rights.”
The interviewer caught Carter’s implication and asked if Israel is heading for apartheid. Carter said, “I am reluctant to use that word in a news article,” but admitted the logic of the description. The problem, the former U.S. president explained, was that in a one-state solution the Palestinians would end up being the majority of Israelis, which would be unacceptable to the Jewish minority. The only way Netanyahu can annex the West Bank and create a single state for both Jews and Palestinians, but retain a Jewish-majority vision of Israel, is to keep the Palestinians stateless and excluded from the vote. So Carter wouldn’t use the word (lest that become the only headline), but he accepted the argument for the use of the word. Surely that amounts to the same thing.
Carter began warning of Israeli racial exclusion with regard to West Bank Palestinians in his 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” It was arguably the first time someone of Carter’s stature had dared use the word in this context, and it produced vehement attacks on the former president from the Israel lobbies. Fourteen pro-Israel advisers on the board of his foundation noisily resigned in order to embarrass him. He was initially disinvited from speaking at Brandeis University unless he would share the podium with gadfly Alan Dershowitz, an offer he declined. When he did go to the campus in January of 2007, he said, “This is the first time that I’ve ever been called a liar and a bigot and anti-Semite and coward and plagiarist. … This has hurt me.” Given that Carter’s Camp David Accords in 1979 had protected Israel from the Egyptian army, its only credible foe, the vehemence of the denunciations seemed ungrateful, to say the least.

Continued at ... http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_brutally_frank_jimmy_carter_calls_out_israel_on_permanent_apartheid_20150

The ONLY president to have brokered peace FOR Israel. Is the most hated by Israel....go figure.

Greatly admire Jimmy Carter, a really decent man.

There you go again hated by "Israel" as if they are on entity.
This is why you fail to understand how such rhetoric incites hatred against Jews.
When are you going to learn? I also love how he ignores that on 3 occasions they have had a chance of statehood and each time spurned this. Also the jouranlist now decides to attach such a word when there is no aparthied to a President never stated it was Apartheid. It annoys me that such people ignore the lack of equality laws in both the West Bank and Gaza.

Yet, Jimmy Carter is the one president who worked hardest to bring peace to the Middle East.  He is more intimately familiar with the issue than any other American statesmen.

Also, I have to take exception to one thing.  Criticism of Israel does not bring "hatred against Jews".  Jews are not Israel.  Don't assume that just because Israel is a Jewish state, that American Jews champion everything Israel says and does.  As Netanyahu proves, even a good cause can fall into bad hands.  No one is quicker than American Jews to realize that.  They are the core of American intelligentsia.

Original Quill wrote:Yet, Jimmy Carter is the one president who worked hardest to bring peace to the Middle East.  He is more intimately familiar with the issue than any other American statesmen.

Also, I have to take exception to one thing.  Criticism of Israel does not bring "hatred against Jews".  Jews are not Israel.  Don't assume that just because Israel is a Jewish state, that American Jews champion everything Israel says and does.  As Netanyahu proves, even a good cause can fall into bad hands.  No one is quicker than American Jews to realize that.  They are the core of American intelligentsia.

Sorry but when a persen uses terminology to attack a people by defining them as Israeli yes it does bring hatred against Jews. You may want to look at the antisemitism in the middle east to understand this. She could have said Israeli Government but she was referring to the people of Israel hating Carter based off nothing more than assumption and a poor one at that. So the hate is directed against a people and not a body like the Likud Party or the Israeli Government. Being critical of a people makes them all culpable which is appalling to claim. You notice when I am critical it is of Hamas or Fatah themselves which is far removed from saying Palestine or the Palestinian people and she uses Israel all the time which does bring about antisemitism, as the hate is directed at the people, whether they be Christian, Jews, Muslims, Druze etc they are all Israeli's.
So yes this kind of Rhetoric is disgusting and is borderline racism.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yet, Jimmy Carter is the one president who worked hardest to bring peace to the Middle East.  He is more intimately familiar with the issue than any other American statesmen.

Also, I have to take exception to one thing.  Criticism of Israel does not bring "hatred against Jews".  Jews are not Israel.  Don't assume that just because Israel is a Jewish state, that American Jews champion everything Israel says and does.  As Netanyahu proves, even a good cause can fall into bad hands.  No one is quicker than American Jews to realize that.  They are the core of American intelligentsia.

Sorry but when a persen uses terminology to attack a people by defining them as Israeli yes it does bring hatred against Jews. You may want to look at the antisemitism in the middle east to understand this. She could have said Israeli Government but she was referring to the people of Israel hating Carter based off nothing more than assumption and a poor one at that. So the hate is directed against a people and not a body like the Likud Party or the Israeli Government. Being critical of a people makes them all culpable which is appalling to claim. You notice when I am critical it is of Hamas or Fatah themselves which is far removed from saying Palestine or the Palestinian people and she uses Israel all the time which does bring about antisemitism, as the hate is directed at the people, whether they be Christian, Jews, Muslims, Druze etc they are all Israeli's.
So yes this kind of Rhetoric is disgusting and is borderline racism.

In terms of concentric communities, Israel is a nation that identifies with its greater Jewish heritage.  But in terms of concentric logic, does that mean all Jews identify with Israel?  Of course not.  You see the fault in your logic.  The terms 'Jewish' and 'Israel' are not coterminous.

You speak of terms like "racism" and "hate" and "attack" and "antisemitism" and "disgusting" when a simple discussion of the logic might do.  You speak in a language of war and antagonism, when there is no need to take it to that level. The language of reason would surely serve better.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Sorry but when a persen uses terminology to attack a people by defining them as Israeli yes it does bring hatred against Jews. You may want to look at the antisemitism in the middle east to understand this. She could have said Israeli Government but she was referring to the people of Israel hating Carter based off nothing more than assumption and a poor one at that. So the hate is directed against a people and not a body like the Likud Party or the Israeli Government. Being critical of a people makes them all culpable which is appalling to claim. You notice when I am critical it is of Hamas or Fatah themselves which is far removed from saying Palestine or the Palestinian people and she uses Israel all the time which does bring about antisemitism, as the hate is directed at the people, whether they be Christian, Jews, Muslims, Druze etc they are all Israeli's.
So yes this kind of Rhetoric is disgusting and is borderline racism.

In terms of concentric communities, Israel is a nation that identifies with its greater Jewish heritage.  But in terms of concentric logic, does that mean all Jews identify with Israel?  Of course not.  You see the fault in your logic.  The terms 'Jewish' and 'Israel' are not coterminous.

You speak of terms like "racism" and "hate" and "attack" and "antisemitism" and "disgusting" when a simple discussion of the logic might do.  You speak in a language of war and antagonism, when there is no need to take it to that level.  The language of reason would surely serve better.

It does not matter how I see things it is how those who hate Israel do and why so many Jews are attacked because of the hate of Israel. That is what you fail to grasp because it is how such a concentric view is seen and actually promoted with Jews constantly promoted as evil throughout the Middle East. I can show you countless evidence that in the Middle east it is a view of Jews and not really Israel itself where the hate is directed You only have to see this how the BDS got an American Jewish singer banned in Spain.I speak facts and of a reality of the situation because I studied about hate for part of my degree in the form of studying Nazism. So I think I have a fair valid quaification to say how bad rhetoric is and how such hate forms which is very much disgusting.

Anyway I have to go. Is it so wrong to ask for some balance here and to point out how bad certain rhetoric is, because the reality is many Jews do suffer off hate directed at Israel. If Sassy wants to vent her anger at something then it should be the Israeli Government, or the Lukid Party or Jewish extremists, not Israel itself as many people have different views within Israel itself.

That is all I am saying as I understand from studying racism for years how such hate forms and how people suffer from such Rhetoric promoted.

Have a good evening Quill.

Good night, didge.