The �Israel above all� defenders, such as Harvard University Professor Alan Dershowitz and New Republic magazine Editor-in-Chief, Martin Peretz, have opened a �bag of worms� that defeats their cause. Their criticism of former President Jimmy Carter�s use of the word apartheid in the title of his new book,� Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,� falls flat and raises a question: Does Israel practice apartheid?

Their criticism of Carter�s book

Criticizing the use of a word in a title rather than a book�s contents reveals the paucity of rebuttal to a book�s arguments. Focusing on one word rather than the entire content is a means to establish a controversy that detracts from a proper examination of the book�s thrust. Since Carter referred to the separation of Palestinian and Jewish communities in only the West Bank, it is obvious that some critics didn�t even read the book.

A misleading representation is that the word apartheid is only defined by the actions of the previous South African governments towards its black population. Houghton Mifflin�s thesaurus has a more general definition for �apartheid:�

The policy or practice of political, legal, economic, or social discrimination, as against the members of a minority group.

Given this definition, does Israel�s government practice apartheid?

Israel is a state that separates its citizens. This separation is apparent in how Israel and the United States regard nationality.

The United States passport reads:

The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all of whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give lawful aid and protection.

All Americans have both United States citizenship and nationality. Israelis have Israel citizenship, but not Israel nationality. There is no Israel nationality. Israel�s citizens have either Jewish, Arab, Druze, Samaritan, Circassian, Kara'ite or foreign nationality. Don�t these prescribed nationalities show a definite separation among Israel�s citizens?

Although there might be some mixture of Arabs and Jews in major cities, there is a clear separation of these nationalities in all cities and villages.

The entire Jewish population left Nazareth many years ago and established a �new� Nazareth. The �new� Nazareth has received substantial benefits from the government and has grown prosperous and modern. The �old� Nazareth remains old.

In Haifa, the Arab population lives by the sea, while the Jewish population lives in the hills.

Few Arabs live in West Jerusalem, although many Palestinians might actually own property in that part of Jerusalem.

In Acre, immigrant Jews are able to acquire property but are not allowed to sell the property to Arab citizens.

Tel Aviv has contiguous populations but not mixed populations.

Few, if any Arabs, have been able to purchase property in government sponsored housing.

The separation of populations results in the separation of activities, recreation centers, schools and education. That�s not all.

Israel�s regulations show segregation and discrimination

Although some Arabs are able to obtain college scholarships, the large majority of these scholarships require previous military duty. Since Arabs are not allowed to serve in the Israeli army, not too many Arabs can obtain college scholarships.

Arabs don�t obtain many housing loans.

Whenever the Israeli army wants to construct a military base, Arab lands are expropriated for the endeavor.

Since marriages are performed by a rabbi, a Jew cannot marry a non-Jew within the boundaries of Israel.

The state of Israel owns more than 90 percent of the land. Non-Jewish citizens cannot, except in rare occasions, purchase land.

The Law of Return allows Jews to immigrate to Israel; other persons are not accommodated.

The facts describe Israel�s apartheid. Even without the evidence, doesn�t Israel�s declaration of itself as a Jewish state indicate a separation of Jews from non-Jews?

Two questions: (1) Is apartheid too soft a description of Israel�s policies towards its minorities?

Talk by some Knesset members of eventual transfer of Arab population is a sinister aspect, which goes beyond apartheid.

(2) Why aren�t world bodies, which debated apartheid in South Africa and implemented sanctions, not discussing apartheid in Israel and recommending sanctions?

The principal reason is because there is no organized insurrection against the Israel government as there was in South Africa.

The next questions are:

(1) Why doesn�t Israel modify its policies before the apartheid policies result in an eventual insurrection?

(2) Why doesn�t a government that considers itself democratic correct the non-democratic situations?

The answer: Israel might invite an insurrection as an excuse to deport its minorities.

The world community and Israel�s supporters are once again slow to react to eventual tragedies for Israel�s Palestinian and Jewish populations.