From Day to Day (12/11/06). Former President Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is generating considerable controversy, perhaps even more than the author had expected. One point that Cater makes is hard to dispute: "There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories."You can read an excerpt here.
Musings
- Apartheid is a key term in Cater's argument and it seems that even the suggestion that Israeli policy could be so labeled has been the source of much of the hostile reaction to his book. The issue has much to do with the status of Palestians living under Israeli occupation, directly in the West Bank and indirectly now in Gaza: whether or not their status is considered temporary or permanent, or perhaps even deserved (for Israel's own security needs)--a problem exacerbated by Israeli policy of supporting settlements (and hence Israelis with full citizenship rights) in the West Bank territories.
- Carter seems to have a deep moral sense regarding doing what's right, regardless of the political consequences. Someone who worked for Carter notes that he has "a tendency -- there's a moral streak, some would say moralistic streak -- where if he thinks he's doing the right thing, he's just going to do it no matter what." Carter often traces this part of his nature to his Southern Christian roots. Our current President, George Bush, is also seen as moralistic and religious, and has his own Southern religious connection, yet the two men seem like opposites. Who can explain it?
