Of Course its apartheid.

Jimmy Carters book "Palestine: Peace Not apartheid" has, not surprisingly, been attacked by pro-Israeli commentators and bloggers. Words like "anti-semetic", "anti-American","lies", "plagiarism", "untruthful" and "distortion" are all used to describe Carter and his book.

I haven't read the book so I can't really make any comment on whether its thesis is convincing or not. I suspect most anti-Carter commentators haven't read the book either, but simply take offence at the books title and Carters assertion that the American Israel-Palestine debate is one sided. An example of this was last Tuesday when The Guardian seemingly didn't dare publish this article by Jimmy Carter without also printing this rebuttal by Michael Kinsley.

Kinsleys denial of Carters reference to apartheid is, in my opinion, unconvincing. Simply dismissing the analogy by arguing that the Israeli government does not have an official philosophy of racial superiority, contrary to the former regime in South Africa, only makes Israel look less honest about their policies than National Party lead South Africa. Even if Zionism can be said to not contain an ideology of ethnic supremacy, Israel's policies of annexation and colonization have created a 'de facto' apartheid state. The two ethnic groups are separated physically and in legal status. Israeli settlements occupy many of the best parts of the West Bank and are connected by 'Israeli only' roads. In the impoverished Palestinian areas, the populations live lives deprived rights such as voting, freedom of movement and freedom of ownership.

Kinsley's statement that "Palestine is no bantustan. Or if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews" is staggering in its denial of Israel's occupation and military control of the West Bank and Gaza. While it is debatable how much Israel planned and orchestrated the removal of Arabs from what became Israel in 1948, it cannot be denied that Israel has been the occupier and ruler of the whole of Palestine since 1967 and that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was created under Israeli rule. Israel has continued to exercise military control since establishment of the PNA in 1994 and has regularly attacked PNA infrastructures undermining its ability to govern. Also in economic terms is Palestine controlled by Israel and the PNA only survives because of EU and US handouts. How can Kinsley argue that this state of affairs is an Arab creation?

Supporters of Israel may believe its policies towards the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza are justified and right, but they are in denial if they reject the label apartheid.