In an opinion published in the Washington Post of 12/12/2006, Michael Kinsley criticizes former President Jimmy Carter for using the term apartheid in his new book to describe the situation of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. Now Kinsley might be right that, as the term is Afrikaaner used to describe a state policy enacted in South Africa, Carter is wrong to apply it to the Palestinian situation. He might be right, although many Palestinians no doubt feel that the idea behind the term is more than appropriate.

Kinsley states that since the earl 1900s, there have been one and a half ideas regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict worthy of consideration. The one-half idea is the so-called road map, which Kinsley endorses because he feels that incremental small steps are far more achievable and realistic than the expectation that the parties will trust each other enough to embrace a comprehensive settlement of their dispute. On this, I think he is probably right, because human nature is not inclined towards easy settlement of long standing disputes.

The "one idea" that Kinsley cites as worthwhile is Ariel Sharon's decision to build a wall, which is one of the main elements that Carter cites in his application of apartheid to the Palestinians' situation. How Kinsley can see the Israeli built wall as the singular great idea put forth in the past 100 years of the Israeli-Palestinian and NOT see it as something at least very close to apartheid indicates that, unlike Carter, Kinsley probably hasn't been to the occupied territories since the construction of this other "wailing wall". In some cases, the wall separates people from their farms. In one case that Carter cites, Palestinian Christians have their church walled off from them. If this isn't apartheid, it surely is also not a good idea.

In his defense of this wall, Kinsley cites Robert Frost's poem, Mending Wall. Just as some Senators used that one line, "Good fences make good neighbors" in their argument for The Fence on the US-Mexican border and ignored the rest of the poem, so Kinsley misses Frost's point. The poem begins with, "Something there is that doesn't love a wall", and goes on to question "Why do they make good neighbors?" Although the poet ascribes the question to Spring's mischief, he also wants to "put a notion" in his neighbor's head. That notion is found in the poet's declaration that "Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in and what I was walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense." As Kinsley noted Sharon's role in the massacres at two Palestinian refugee camps, I hardly think the "philosophical" Sharon gave much, if any, thought to whom he was "like to give offense" in his wall plans.

Supposedly, this wall is temporary and will come down when the parties have come to terms, meaning when the Palestinian government eliminates the scourge of suicide bombers. So far, it would seem that Sharon's wall has succeeded in virtually eliminating suicide bombings, but a closer examination shows that the recently ended Hamas cease fire may have had just as much to do with the cessation of human IEDs. That it is called temporary by Israelis brings to mind Keynes quote about long term results of short term policy. "In the long term, gentlemen, we will all be dead", and in the meantime cutting people off from their farms or churches could scatter the seeds of hatred wider and cause them to take even deeper root.

There is no question that the primary responsibility of the Israeli government is to protect its citizens, just as securing its borders is part of the United States' government's same responsibility. But ends do not justify means. Once upon a time, the US government put American citizens in prison camps solely on the basis of their bloodline and the fear that bloodline would trump patriotism. As I recall, reparations were made for that action. And today, we are a nation divided over the extra-judicial means being used to wage the War on Terror, even as our Congress has recently shredded the notion of habeas corpus.

Kinsley and others can criticize Carter for his appropriation of the term apartheid. In Carter's view, Sharon's wall and other Israeli practices amount to at least de facto apartheid. In Carter's critics' view, the democratic state of Israel is incapable of such a practice. What Carter and his critics hopefully will achieve is a renewed focus on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, resulting in the renewal of two party negotiations along the lines of the good "half-idea" called the road map.

Finally, whether it be Kinsley or US Senators, I'd like to recommend that Frost's poem be declared off limits as an allusion to support their pro-barrier arguments. For when a person takes that one line out of context, then "he moves in darkness as it seems to me, not of woods only and the shade of trees. He will not go behind his father's saying And he likes having thought of it so well He says again, 'Good fences make good neighbors.' " A little poetry is a dangerous thing...

Monday, December 11, 2006.

Well, it's been so long since I've written anything that it disappeared! Of course it was so long ago that the Catholic priest scandal was at its apex, at least here in Philly. I think I wrote something about the Grand Jury report. That was a pretty upsetting thing and the diocese' response was even more disturbing. The diocese pretty much conveyed the idea that the Jewish D.A. had it out for the Church. Crazy.
One thing to note about all that is that there was only one priest actually prosecuted for a sexual crime; the rest had the statute of limitations on their side, although a few were tossed from the priesthood. But the priest who was prosecuted is a man I knew pretty well. No, he didn't do anything sexual with me. But he did have a fairly long term "affair" with a (now) young man, which began when the fella was in high school. Obviously, it had a negative impact on the kid.
They were able to prosecute this priest because he had left Philadelphia while the statute of limitations was still open, so time in effect was stopped. I certainly think he was wrong to do what he did, having myself been similarly victimized by a much older religious. But the sad thing is that this priest was essentially a good man. I feel that, like the man who seduced me, Father N. was blinded by his strong feelings, which resulted in his refusal to look at the situation clearly and see it as the manipulative thing it was. I don't let him off the hook, but I understand how he could do it. And I really understand how the kid went along with it. You can not imagine the emotional paralysis that sets in and the feeling that, in your shame, you are to blame for what happened and that there is no one who can help you out of the situation. That shame stays with you forever, I think, and requires a lot of work to be able to forgive yourself and go on with your life, wounded as you are. I know we all have our wounds but I think the situation that produces this kind of wound is particularly devastating.
Not to cut such a serious topic short, but all I wanted to do was fill in what I remember last writing about. There's a whole lot, both personally and in the larger world, that has happened since that last posting. I hope to continue posting on a more regular basis and hope that some dialogue will occur.