I posted on eteraz.org about Jimmy Carter’s claim at an event today ("Carter says majority in U.S. support views in book") that normal Americans share many of his concerns.
The article closes with an observation from somebody on the other side of the issue.
"It seems from what he said today that Israel’s occupation is at the root of the problem. But I would argue that Palestinian terrorism is at the root of the problem," said Benjamin Braun, 21, a student at Emory of Middle East studies.
Fair enough. I’m the first to admit that one can make that argument, but isn’t it refreshing to see a critic of Palestinians have to argue for this opinion rather be allowed to lazily treat it as self-evident, as is customary in so many "debates" on the Middle East in American politics today?
Why was it required that a world statesman commit hari-kari for this obvious (and exceedingly commonplace) viewpoint to be given a hearing in the MSM?