Time For The Palestinians To Cut The Crap
An Arab journalist tells the Palestinians it's time to give up jihad against Israel and get a life. Former New York Times Mideast correspondent Youssef M. Ibrahim, writes in The Jewish World Review:
Dear Palestinian Arab brethren: The war with Israel is over. You have lost. Surrender and negotiate to secure a future for your children. We, your Arab brothers, may say until we are blue in the face that we stand by you, but the wise among you and most of us know that we are moving on, away from the tired old idea of the Palestinian Arab cause and the "eternal struggle" with Israel. Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine, but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years.Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness. At the moment, brothers, you would be lucky to secure a semblance of a state in that Gaza Strip into which you have all crowded, and a small part of the West Bank of the Jordan. It isn't going to get better. Time is running out even for this much land, so here are some facts, figures, and sound advice, friends.
You hold keys, which you drag out for television interviews, to houses that do not exist or are inhabited by Israelis who have no intention of leaving Jaffa, Haifa , Tel Aviv, or West Jerusalem. You shoot old guns at modern Israeli tanks and American-made fighter jets, doing virtually no harm to Israel while bringing the wrath of its mighty army down upon you. You fire ridiculously inept Kassam rockets that cause little destruction and delude yourselves into thinking this is a war of liberation.
Your government, your social institutions, your schools, and your economy are all in ruins. Your young people are growing up illiterate, ill, and bent on rites of death and suicide, while you, in effect, are living on the kindness of foreigners, including America and the United Nations. Every day your officials must beg for your daily bread, dependent on relief trucks that carry food and medicine into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, while your criminal Muslim fundamentalist Hamas government continues to fan the flames of a war it can neither fight nor hope to win.
In other words, brothers, you are down, out, and alone in a burnt-out landscape that is shrinking by the day. What kind of struggle is this? Is it worth waging at all? More important, what kind of miserable future does it portend for your children, the fourth or fifth generation of the Arab world's have-nots? We, your Arab brothers, have moved on.
Those of us who have oil money are busy accumulating wealth and building housing, luxury developments, state-of-the-art universities and schools, and new highways and byways. Those of us who share borders with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, have signed a peace treaty with it and are not going to war for you any time soon. Those of us who are far away, in places like North Africa and Iraq, frankly could not care less about what happens to you.
Only Syria continues to feed your fantasies that someday it will join you in liberating Palestine, even though a huge chunk of its territory, the entire Golan Heights, was taken by Israel in 1967 and annexed. The Syrians, my friends, will gladly fight down to the last Palestinian Arab. Before you got stuck with this Hamas crowd, another cheating, conniving, leader of yours, Yasser Arafat, sold you a rotten bill of goods - more pain, greater corruption, and millions stolen by his relatives--while your children played in the sewers of Gaza.
The war is over. Why not let a new future begin?
The only problem with this letter, is that the people who most need to read it, won't. o.O
Flynne at February 3, 2009 9:23 AM
Can't, not won't. Not that they would even see it if they could read.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at February 3, 2009 10:40 AM
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=526273
Hasan at February 3, 2009 11:46 AM
Good grief, what a fantastic letter, column. Lord please, that the people who should would read this. Also, those miserable people in the US who seem to enjoy the misery of others. Thanks for this, it is great.
Tommy A. Ferro at February 3, 2009 12:37 PM
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4284.shtml
Hasan at February 3, 2009 1:40 PM
Hasan,
Just to start with the one obvious fact in The Crimson article -- Who attacked who in 1973?
From what all the typical reporting is that Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. Israel won and got at least a little of the just spoils of war. Then in trying to make a peaceful settlement, granted years later, they gave the majority of the land back.
What has it bought them -- more unrest?
Screw off!
Jim P. at February 3, 2009 2:18 PM
An excellent article by Daniel Pearl's father:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
kishke at February 3, 2009 3:44 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/opinion/04friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion :^D
Hasan at February 4, 2009 8:54 AM
With guys like Hasan on the Pali team, the crap will never be cut.
Oh, and Tom Friedman's article is dishonest in too many ways to list.
kishke at February 4, 2009 1:21 PM
This article was written in July of 2006. I don't think the Palestinians are listening.
Maggie45 at February 5, 2009 4:38 AM
List a few, kishke.
I'm not on the "Pali" team, by the way, and obviously not on the "Isra" team. I'm on the American team, and I'm not sure Amy has this one right. I'm not sure I'm right either, and the Friedman piece nicely illustrates why. Until time tells us which one of us is, or until Amy bans me from her blog, I might drop the occasional comment or link to an opposing opinion piece. Why? Because I enjoy Amy's writing and opinions (which I agree with 99% of the time) and I've been reading her for years now (when were you first syndicated to the Palm Beach Post, Amy?), and because life is not black-and-white and neither is this issue. So shove the "Screw off!" comments, Jim P., it just announces your asshole-ism (obvious fact?!?) and has no place in debate.
Nice catch, Maggie. Apparently this is making the blog-rounds again. The New York Sun went under last year...
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/dear-brethren-the-war-with-israel-is-over/35606/
Hasan at February 5, 2009 9:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/03/time_for_the_pa.html#comment-1625107">comment from Hasanuntil Amy bans me from her blog
I think your views are idiotic and wrong, but that's no reason to ban anyone.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2009 9:38 AM
List a few, kishke.
Sure. But only a few. I don't have all day for Tom Friedman's crap.
1. "But Hamas is further divided between a military and political wing,"
This is a lie. There's no daylight between them. Both want the destruction of Israel by any and all means, i.e. terrorism, killing civilians etc. They are limbs on the same body.
2. "Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Lieberman, which has been accused of having “fascist,” viciously anti-Arab leanings,"
This is a common sneaky-journalist lie, in which the writer makes a vicious accusation without adducing the slightest proof, and without identifying the accusers. Who called them fascist? Hamas? We can't be told, b/c we then would be able to judge the veracity of the accusation.
3. "to separate Israel’s crazy settlements from Palestinian villages"
This is more open bias then dishonesty. Israeli towns in the West Bank are "crazy." Palestinian towns are just sweet little "villages."
4. "a Palestinian could fly from Jerusalem to Paris quicker than he or she could drive from Jenin, here in the northern West Bank, to Hebron in the south."
Here the dishonesty lies in Fridman's omission of the reason the Palis are so dreadfully inconvenienced; namely, that in the absence of roadblocks, they use their access to shoot children and blow people up.
There's more, but I think this suffices as an example of what I'm talking about.
kishke at February 5, 2009 9:45 AM
kishke,
In their description of Hamas,
www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas.htm
the very first line states HAMAS, which includes military and political wings...
Here is an article from "Israel's #1 news source" reporting on the assassination of Nizar Rayyan, who ranked among among Hamas' top five decision-makers as the liaison between the group's military and political wing.
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051880.html
Re: Lieberman...
blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2009/02/05/1002802/israels-election-campaign-in-home-stretch
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/962767.html
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060880.html
I think your views are idiotic and wrong...
That hurts, since I thought my idea was not to pigeonhole people, but I hope your not dismissing my comments and links out of hand because of it.
Hasan at February 5, 2009 11:42 AM
One more for you, kishke, you're making my case (that moving away from progress made with moderate Muslims is bad for both Israel and the U.S.) easier...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3667054,00.html
Hasan at February 5, 2009 12:01 PM
What's your point? That Hamas has a political wing and a military one? Sure they do. My point is that there's no difference between them in policy (contrary to Friedman's inane contention). Do the politicals reject the Hamas charter? Of course not. It calls for the destruction of Israel. They're not moderates. (Are there "moderate" Muslims? I have no idea, but they certainly don't make themselves heard.)
I have no idea why you think I'm making your case, but feel free to elaborate if you wish.
kishke at February 5, 2009 12:09 PM
I should add that not only don't I know why you think I'm making your case, I'm not even sure what your case is, since all you do is post links, most of which are only tangentially related to the arguments being made. If you have something to say, say it.
kishke at February 5, 2009 12:15 PM
I give up. If you're making my case (that moving away from progress made with moderate Muslims is bad for both Israel and the U.S.) easier... isn't blatant enough, and if links to articles directly addressing the points you brought up, or op ed pieces directly on the other side of the coin from the links Amy's posting "are only tangentially related to the arguments being made", then what's the point of this discourse?
Hasan at February 5, 2009 1:08 PM
You asked a question; I answered it with a considered post; gave examples; explained what I'm saying. In response you give me a list of links. How about instead you respond to my points? Say where and why you think I'm wrong. If you want to bolster your points with links, by all means do so. But I'm not going on a treasure hunt. If you can't express your arguments, there is no discourse to begin with, let alone one with a point.
kishke at February 5, 2009 1:44 PM
Fine, but like you I'm running out of time and patience, so I'll just tackle the least correct point I think you brought up, which is that Lieberman does not have fascist, anti-Arab "leanings".
From my first link concerning that...
Lieberman and his party are a "clear and present danger," says Hebrew University psychology professor Leon Deouell in a piece published on Ynet: "Yisrael Beiteinu openly calls for undermining the most basic rights in a democratic society, including the right to express and promote one's views. Without these rights, there is no democracy. This is a clear and present danger that no voter must ignore." Along similar lines, Ha'aretz published an editorial Wednesday titled "Reject Lieberman," arguing that "the slogan 'Without loyalty there is no citizenship' is not illegal, but has its roots in a dark conceptual world and is contrary to the lifeblood of democracy, which never makes civil rights contingent on performing duties."
The headline from the second link...
Lieberman to Arab MKs: One day we will 'take care of you'
More from that article...
...MK Abbas Zakour (Ra'am-Ta'al) called out to Lieberman saying that he was a threat to the state of Israel.
Lieberman added that "today we have a government made up of wimps. Believe me, this is temporary, just as you are temporary here. Just as the Kuwaiti government knew ho to handle situations like these," referring to the Kuwaiti decision to deport citizens who attended a rally commemorating the arch terrorist Imad Mughniyah, who was killed in a bomb blast in Damascus on February 12.
From the third link...
Israel's most recognizable television anchor, Haim Yavin, has offered blistering criticism of Yisrael Beiteinu and its chairman, Avigdor Lieberman. In an interview Monday on national radio, the famed newsman referred to Lieberman as "Kahane's successor," a reference to the murdered extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane, who headed the outlawed Kach movement...
..."I would suggest people view this with concern. The world's greatest racists were soft-hearted, kind, smiling figures who you wouldn't hesitate to dance the waltz with at a ball in Vienna, for example," Yavin said.
Headline from the last link...
Clear and present danger
Yisrael Beiteinu openly calls for undermining democracy's most basic rights
More from that article...
Lieberman is talking about anyone who disagrees with his perception of the State and its path. Please read Yisrael Beiteinu's platform; it doesn't hide a thing. In the "Citizenship and Equality" clause, under the headline "stricter attitude to subversion," it says: "We shall act to ban parties or bodies whose words or acts constitute incitement against the State of Israel as a Jewish Zionist State and undermine its existence."
Now I ask you, no anti-Arab leanings from Lieberman?
Hasan at February 5, 2009 2:31 PM
Hasan, that's all good and well, except that I never said that Leiberman doesn't have anti-Arab leanings. In fact, I said nothing about Leiberman at all. I was talking about Friedman. What I said was that Freidman was sneaky and dishonest in the way he labeled him a fascist with an unsourced, unsupported quote. Again, read my comment, and you will see that I said nothing about whether or not Leiberman is anti-Arab. Your link is utterly irrelevant to what I said.
(Actually, the article you cited is a perfect example of why it's important to source quotes, and helps illuminate Friedman's dishonesty. When I see that the guy attacking Leiberman is a prof at Hebrew U, I know he's almost certainly a leftist, and I discount his view accordingly. Ynet is honest about their source; Friedman is not. Let me say also that an article by someone accusing Leiberman of being anti-Arab does not necessarily mean that it is so. That's what this guy's opinion is; I can see another interpretation entirely of Leiberman's view, one having to do with loyalty to country, regardless of one's ethnicity.)
kishke at February 5, 2009 3:01 PM
Hasan -
If you could show me evidence of one instance of
in the last thousand years, I'd appreciate it.This is the central lie in the whole thing. That there is, in fact, such a thing as a reasonable Palestinian by our (western) standards of "reasonable". There is nothing moderate about anyone on the muslim side of the debate, because they aren't willing to compromise on anything.
There are, to my knowledge, no groups within the Palestinian territories that have any influence whatsoever that do not demand either the elimination of Israel and its replacement with a single muslim-run state, or the so-called "right of return" which demographically accomplishes the same end.
brian at February 5, 2009 3:04 PM
Leave a comment