[WCUSP] Apartheid as our frame? Dems Repudiate Carter Book

[Barbara Taft]

I can think of two good reasons to call it apartheid:

1)  South Africans, both Black and White, have visited the Occupied Territories and
    declared them to be "worse than apartheid".

2)  Many years ago, I heard a White South African speak about apartheid.  He told
    the audience that its correct pronunciation is "apart-hate" and that it is
    very descriptive.  He said, "You keep them apart because you hate".  Especially
    now, with the Separation Wall and Jews-only roads, it is an apt description.

Barb T.

--- Kate Zaidan <kzaidan at wilpf.org> wrote:


---------------------------------
    This article raises some interesting strategical questions in terms ofchallenging US policy in
the Middle East. To me, it makes the case thatApartheid is a word that the peace movement needs to
adopt as theframe to describe the conflict.

 I think that we need to make the case to our legislators, especiallythose that we consider
"friendly", that the situation is indeedapartheid and that policy must be constructed out of that
framework.The US Government has taken a stand against apartheid before, andabsolutely would not
have done so without the hard work of theanti-apartheid movement. 

Apartheid is more than a word. It's a story. Stories have the power toshape the way that our
decision makers see the world. Apartheid is avector that carries this story and makes it such that
we, as activists,don't have to understand every nuanced dimension of policy, we justhave to set
the frame and make it such that policy is formed out ofthat frame. 

And from this article, it seems that the precedent has already been setby a powerful political
figure, and we, as activists should pick up theball where Jimmy Carter left off and take
advantages of the existingtensions in the democratic party. 

I'll send out a brief history on the sanctions that the US Governmentimposed on South Africa
separately. 

Kate

Dems Repudiate Carter Book

Jennifer Siegel | Fri. Oct 27, 2006

Top Democrats are rushing to repudiate former President Carter’scontroversial new book on the
Middle East, in which he accuses theIsraeli government of maintaining an apartheid system.

Two key party leaders — Democratic National Committee Chairman HowardDean, party chairman, and
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — andseveral congressmen issued statements Monday saying that
the book,“Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” does not represent their views on theJewish state.

“It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support agovernment in Israel or anywhere
else that institutionalizes ethnicallybased oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation
vigorously,”Pelosi wrote in a statement. “With all due respect to former PresidentCarter, he does
not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel.”

Carter’s book is being published by Simon & Schuster and is slatedfor release November 14. In an
advanced draft copy of the work,obtained by the Forward, the former president asserts that
Israel’scurrent policies in the Palestinian territories constitute “a system ofapartheid, with two
peoples occupying the same land but completelyseparated from each other, with Israelis totally
dominant andsuppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic humanrights.” He argues
that Israel’s settlement policy is principally toblame for the failure of peace initiatives in the
Middle East.

Dean also took issue with Carter’s assessment.

“While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, Ifundamentally disagree and do not
support his analysis of Israel andthe Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Dean wrote in a statement.
“On thisissue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book arehis own, they are
not the views or position of the Democratic Party. Iand other Democrats will continue to stand
with Israel in its battleagainst terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors.”

Several Democratic members of New York’s House delegation — Reps. SteveIsrael, Charlie Rangel and
Jerrold Nadler — also have issued statementscriticizing Carter’s book, as did Rep. John Conyers,
Jr., a MichiganDemocrat who is often criticized by members of the Jewish community forhis failure
to support Israel in a certain instance. Last summer,Conyers was one of eight House members who
did not vote for aresolution backing the Jewish state in the wake of the Hezbollahattacks.

In his statement, Conyers said that Carter’s use of the word“apartheid” went too far.

“I cannot agree with the book’s title and its implications aboutapartheid,” the lawmaker wrote in
a statement. “I recently called theformer president to express my concerns about the title of the
book,and to request that the title be changed.”

Fri. Oct 27, 2006


> _______________________________________________
> Wcusp mailing list
> Wcusp at wilpf.org
> http://wilpf.org/mailman/listinfo/wcusp_wilpf.org
> To post a message to all the list members, send email to Wcusp at wilpf.org.
> To unsubscribe send a message to Wcusp-leave at wilpf.org


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com