Thursday, October 19, 2006

 

Carter Crosses the Line: Lays 'Apartheid' Tag on Israel

The 22 Arab states of the Middle East and North Africa are among the world's worst practitioners of religious and gender apartheid. From genocide in the Sudan to the stoning to death of women in Saudi Arabia, from Palestinian suicide attacks on Jewish civilians to the jailing and execution of homosexuals in Egypt, human rights violations are the way of life in these dictatorial and totalitarian Arab countries. In "moderate" Jordan, anyone can become a citizen so long as they aren't Jewish. Even in "democratic" Iraq, citizenship is bestowed on anyone who fled the country during Saddam's reign of terror, so long as they aren't Jewish.

So on whom does America's worst ex-President place the inflammatory "apartheid" tag: Israel, of course. Dhimmi Carter has to know better, despite his new book's title, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The title was chosen to deliberately draw comparisons to the evil system of legalized racial discrimination in South Africa. It is slanderous. It is grossly inaccurate. And it stigmatizes the Middle Eastern country with the best human rights record. He would never think of characterizing Israel's genocidal Muslim enemies nor totalitarian nations from Cuba to North Korea in terms anywhere near as harsh. No, the friend of America's enemies saves his moral indignation for democratic Israel. Carter goes as far as he can in demonizing Israel, stopping just short of clear anti-Semitism.

The "apartheid" allegation is false. Israeli Arabs have full equality under the law. Within Israel, where more than one million Arabs live, there is freedom of speech, religion and press. Women, ethnic and religious minorities and gays have the same rights as other citizens.

So the "apartheid" claim, like the book's cover photo, focuses on those Palestinians in the "occupied" West Bank, the ones Israel offered an independent state in 2000 on 97 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza and shared administration of Jerusalem. The Americans and Europeans pledged billions in support for the new state. Yasser Arafat rejected Israel's offer, and without making a counteroffer, launched a terror war against Jewish civilians.

In response, Israel reoccupied parts of the West Bank and Gaza that it had turned over to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo agreements (under which the Palestinians had agreed to renounce violence, not build bomb factories). Israel set up checkpoints and built a separation barrier in order to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from murdering Israeli civilians. It was Palestinian violence, not a desire to oppress people that led Israel to impose restrictions on the Palestinians. After leaving Gaza last year, the Palestinians had complete self-rule there. In response, they elected a terrorist government that seeks the elimination of Israel and started launching rockets at Israeli cities. What is the Palestinian peace plan? I mean, other than the one that says there will be peace when all the Jews are dead and Israel is history.

Lastly the charge of apartheid implies racism. A simple comparison of Jewish and Arab media, scholastic text books, songs and religious sermons makes clear who the racists are in this conflict and who truly wishes to oppress the other. In the final analysis, the doctrines of Islamic jihad and Arab and Muslim supremacy, not Jewish self-defense, have resulted in the status quo in the Middle East. Jimmy Carter knows this and denies it, or he doesn't understand this and that helps explain his failed presidency. Either way, his book will be aiding and abetting the world's worst anti-Semites.

Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?