Steve Inskeep did his follow up interview with Ken Stein this morning. Comparing the two interviews, I have to say that the final one was a let-down, but a good one. Inskeep put Carter on the defensive and let him battle his way back. But in interviewing Stein, Inskeep just lets him talk–and Stein’s accusations don’t seem to hold enough weight to make it interesting.
Inskeep: A layman might ask: “Why not call it Apartheid?”
Stein: A layman would have every right to ask that question. That doesn’t mean: “If it looks like a duck and it smells like a duck and it quacks like a duck its a duck.”
Inskeep: and the difference to you is. . . .
Stein: the difference to me is that part of this problem is that the Palestinians have chosen to use terrorism. . . .
That gives you an idea of the logic here. If the Palestinians hadn’t have used terrorism it would be Apartheid. Once again, the Israelis are more noble because they are the recognized State. Palestinians are savages because they are not. And here in the twenty first century we return to the reasoning of Thomas Hobbs in the sixteenth century. What stays the same is the fact that after forty years of Military Occupation in Palestine political theorists can’t stop this Sovereign State from killing innocents, no matter the number of books written, interviews conducted, and peace negotiations gone right.