April 24, 2009

The UN

The biggest loser at the United Nations Durban Review Conference on

Posted by Michael J. Totten at April 24, 2009 8:31 AM
Comments
Two minutes' hate: nice Orwell 1984 reference. I think that Israel = Nazis is an excellent example of doublethink. How many people in the Middle East are so brainwashed as to have an accurate understanding of the Nazi Germany and WWII, and still equate Israel and Zionism with them? Probably more than a few. Doublethink.
Posted by: jasonholliston at April 24, 2009 11:45 am
Interesting. I didn't know that Durban I was that bad.
Anti Jewish sentiment is a huge problem around the world . . . are bigger problem than most want to admit. Unfortunately most of these anti Jewish bigots don't support Palestinians. The Palestinians need pro Palestinians who are also pro Jewish.
Where were all these bigots since 1948? Were they hiding? Why didn't they fund reconstruction in Palestine? Why didn't they increase the capacity of the Palestinian Authority civilian agencies? Why didn't they train and equip the Palestinian security forces? Why weren't they welcoming Palestinian immigrants into their own countries and facilitating their empowerment?
Its bad enough that many Israelis mistreat Palestinians as badly as they do. Why do the neighbors also have to mistreat Palestinians?
Posted by: anand at April 24, 2009 12:31 pm
Anand, the reason "the neighbors" mistreat Palestinians (far worse than the Israelis ever have) is because they hate Palestinians. I even got a Hezbollah official, Mohammad Afif, to admit to me on the record that Israelis are nicer to Palestinians than Lebanese are. They support Palestinians against Israel, though, because they hate Israelis even more.
The Middle East has it charms (really, it does), but it's vicious.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at April 24, 2009 12:40 pm
"Interesting. I didn't know that Durban I was that bad."
Durban I took place the week before 9/11, and as a result it was largely overshadowed (for obvious reasons). Without 9/11, the Durban I conference would have been very big news, and was for the most part the reason so many were so concerned over Durban II.
"Anti Jewish sentiment is a huge problem around the world . . . are bigger problem than most want to admit. Unfortunately most of these anti Jewish bigots don't support Palestinians. The Palestinians need pro Palestinians who are also pro Jewish."
Palestinians who are Pro Jewish as well as being Pro Palestinian cannot freely express their views. If they do, they are accused of being collaborators. In the best case scenario, they are shunned from Palestinian society, often they are physically harrassed, threatened and worse.
This is one of the fundamental reasons that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems so intractable. Even if there are a large group of Palestinians who genuinely want peace and are fed up with the conflict, they are silenced by the radicals in their own society.
"Its bad enough that many Israelis mistreat Palestinians as badly as they do. Why do the neighbors also have to mistreat Palestinians?"
I'd argue that even the Palestinians treat the Palestinians worse than the Israeli's do. Human Rights Watch finally decided there was too much publicity around for them to safely ignore the vicious violence between Hamas and Fatah during the recent conflict in Gaza. Hamas tortured hundreds of Fatah loyalists, on "suspicion of collaboration" and shot many in the knees.
Last thing I wanted to say -- Michael Totten, I'm a long time reader, first time poster. Keep up the great work you do. You have had a very large hand in helping me to understand the diversity and differences within the Arab/Muslim world.
As a student, I am struggling to support myself, but when I'm able, I'll be sure to donate to you so you can continue with your critical work.
Posted by: jooliz at April 24, 2009 1:10 pm
The Arabs have treated the Palestinians as pawns for 50 years. Part of the problem has been the leadership of the Palestinians, Arafat, who was an Egyptian terrorist. The worst misfortune the Palestinians have suffered was when he came back with his henchmen from Tunisia after Oslo. For some time, the Palestinians called him and his men "The Tunisians." I have known Palestinians who emigrated and have never seen the sort of behavior that they produce in the refugee camps. The UN has a lot of responsibility for the pathology in those camps.
A couple of years ago, I helped a Palestinian friend's son to get into medical school. We were invited to a party to celebrate his success. The highlight of the evening was a demonstration by a number of the son's friends, beautiful young women, of the results of their belly dancing classes. I should add, I have no idea if they were Christian or Muslim. What a tragedy is going on in the Middle East. These people are the genetic equivalent of the Jews with all the potential that implies. When freed from the oppression of their "friends," they blossom.
Posted by: Mike K at April 24, 2009 1:56 pm
Without a doubt many of the "neighbors" are jerks.
This said, I would like to mention the Palestinian perspective on their mistreatment by Israelis, since no one else provides that perspective here.
Some Palestinians and pro Palestinians have asked me . . . how could the Israelis have elected monsters like Lieberman (who says unbelievably horrific things about patriotic Israeli citizens who happen to be Palestinians), and Netanyahu.
I like Netanyahu's pro free market and pro high tech policies. However, some of his statements about Palestinians are very offensive. Netanyahu wanted to ban Arab political parties from participating in Israeli elections.
I don't understand how Israeli voters could have elected these people. Could that many Israelis really be that misguided? It wasn't only crazy tin pot extremist settlers who voted for Lieberman and Netanyahu.
Posted by: anand at April 24, 2009 3:11 pm
Anand, a lot of this is a matter of perspective.
The issue regarding the Arab political parties has to do with the elections committee in Israel, not Netanyahu himself. There were a couple of parties whose eligibility was questioned, but the Supreme Court of Israel deliberated and overruled the elections committee, and those parties were permitted to campaign. This alone shows a great deal about the democratic nature of the state... the judiciary is completely independent and their rulings are respected.
Additionally, this is not the first time (and I doubt the last time) an Israeli political parties legitimacy has been questioned. In the '90s Israel banned a political party called the Kach party, which was an extremist Jewish party. To paint this as a Jews vs Arabs issue is misleading. Rather, it is more accurate to say this is a conflict between moderate and extremist elements (on both sides).
For some wider perspective, there was quite a stir during the American campaigns when Obama didn't wear an American flag pin on his lapel once, leading many Americans to question his patriotism. Compare this to the Israeli Arab parties in question, who regularly call for the dismantlement of the State of Israel, and whose candidates regularly meet with declared enemies of the state.
If any Western politician were to do or say even a fraction of what the heads of these parties do and say, they would be locked in prison for incitement and deemed unpatriotic traitors.
Rather than being condemned and *singled out* for its faults, without mentioning the equivalent struggles in every other democratic nation. Israel should be judged on the institutions it has in place and how it attempts to deal with these faults. Look at how hard it struggles to maintain its democratic and fair nature, despite all the threats not just from outside but also from within.
As for the Netanyahu/Lieberman question, both are unfairly and incorrectly labeled as extremists. Lieberman received a major PR lashing after saying he believes their should be an oath of fealty in Israel, that everyone would have to say (Arabs included). Anyone who has a problem with that, should also have a problem with Canada, where immigrants must swear an oath of fealty to the Queen of England to become a citizen. Americans are taught in elementary school the words for the oath of allegiance to the flag of the US.
Rather than his comments being a sign of Lieberman's purported extremism, it is actually a worrying sign for all those Israeli citizens who refuse to even say that they are loyal citizens.
Granted, Lieberman and Bibi are not the same as Israeli politicians the world has gotten used to with Olmert and Livni. They have their minimum requirements and demand that Israel be respected and treated fairly. This scares many in the world, and as a result they are branded as extreme, out of all proportion to leaders in the neighbouring states.
I personally agree with Bibi and Lieberman's approach quite a lot. Israel has, time and again, taken steps to try to and give the Palestinians a chance to take control of their own lives, and each time it has backfired on Israel. It is now time for the Palestinians to show that they can also act in good faith before Israel agrees to make more concessions. Why is it made to seem as though Israel is the only one with a responsibility in taking action? Why are the Palestinians not expected to take responsibility for themselves?
Anyway, I don't really want to get into a whole circular discussion here, cause we'd be locked in discussion for days.
The main point that I wanted to make is this: Lieberman and Bibi have been labeled as extremists by their political opponents for expediencies sake. In the middle east, it is particularly dangerous to place a label without first thoroughly researching the context and reasons given, particularly because of the tendency for hyperbole in the region.
Posted by: jooliz at April 24, 2009 4:14 pm
anand,
you wrote:" Where were all these bigots since 1948? Were they hiding? Why didn't they fund reconstruction in Palestine? Why didn't they increase the capacity of the Palestinian Authority civilian agencies? Why didn't they train and equip the Palestinian security forces? Why weren't they welcoming Palestinian immigrants into their own countries and facilitating their empowerment?"
Perhaps you might hazard some answers to your own questions?
Posted by: del at April 24, 2009 4:38 pm
"Interesting"
Yep. "anand" finds vicious, bullying antisemitism "interesting" and can't be bothered to express shock, distaste, or condemn it. That's because he is all for it.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 24, 2009 11:32 pm
The issue of discrimination against Israel's Arab minority is a difficult and complicated issue, and must be distinguished from the two-state issue (didn't this start out as a discussion about Durban II?)
There is a definite tension between the definition of Israel as a Jewish state, and as a democracy with equal rights for all its citizens, and this should not be avoided by pointing to how other countries treat their Palestinian population. After all, do we really want to be compared with a blood-soaked, anarchic nightmare like Lebanon? As I have commented before, Israeli Arabs can be looked at as de facto second-class citizens in Israel. This is not, I believe, primarily due to anti-Arab racism, as much as to limited resources and demographic concerns. In employment, building rights, and most other things, Israel simply favors its Jewish majority. It often does this surreptiously - for example - requiring that employees have completed army service. Most Jews do the army, most Arabs don't, so it's an indirect but definite form of discrimination.
There is no easy answer to this. Europe is also experiencing demographic pressure, and it will be interesting to see how they will deal with rising non-European populations. If there ever is a stable and prosperous Palestinian state, it could be that a lot of Israeli Arabs will choose to live there. This is not something that I would welcome. I have Arab friends and enjoy the Arab culture here, and Israeli society could definitely benefit from its positive aspects, but it may be inevitable. I'm just not sure that Israeli Arabs will ever enjoy absolute equality here, and it may be inconsistent with maintaining Israel as a Jewish state.
Posted by: MarkC at April 25, 2009 3:21 am
Calling Anand anti-semitic is ridiculous. He has condemned hate against anyone several times on my blog.
Posted by: molly at April 25, 2009 10:24 am
"tension between the definition of Israel as a Jewish state, and as a democracy with equal rights for all its citizens"
As I commented after the Israeli elections, Israel has always struck me, admittedly from a great distance, as a system and a population within its borders at odds with itself. I can't help recalling that statement about a house divided against itself.
As if the tension incoming from outside weren't enough...
Posted by: Paul S. at April 25, 2009 1:51 pm
"Calling Anand anti-semitic is ridiculous. He has condemned hate against anyone several times on my blog."
He has repeatedly cozied up to the annihilationist savages of Hamas while demonizing mainstream Israeli politicians. He has continued to make excuses for Nutjob while pointedly refusing to condemn his antisemitism and Holocaust denial. He calls the antisemitic hatefest at Durban I "interesting" - the word those like him use when they are going out of their way not to say anything even slightly negative about venomous bigots. I am not impressed.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 25, 2009 5:16 pm
Gary, is it anti-semitic to criticize Israel? I didn't hear Ahmadinejad say anything hateful towards Jews. I don't know what "cozy" up to Hamas means.
Posted by: molly at April 25, 2009 6:13 pm
Gary Rosen, man, you're the one with the problem. Anand didn't say or imply any of the things you attribute to him. On the contrary.
Try prune juice in the morning.
Posted by: MarkC at April 25, 2009 9:12 pm
Molly, you're either a shyster or totally ignorant. Can you honestly claim that the Dinnerjacket isn't being anti-Semitic when he overtly threatens the one nation on the planet established expressly to let Jews be Jews?
Posted by: gus3 at April 25, 2009 9:22 pm
"Gary, is it anti-semitic to criticize Israel?"
How about holding a conference to deny the Holocaust? What's your cynical, dishonest, sophistic explanation for that one?
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 26, 2009 2:31 am
"Anand didn't say or imply any of the things you attribute to him."
1. Called Netanyahu a "monster"
2. Called for negotiations with Hamas, never has criticized them for their annihilatonist charter which calls for the murder of *Jews* (not Israelis or Zionists) or for their murderous tactics which include throwing political opponents off the roofs of buildings.
3. Has never criticized Nutjob, tries to make excuses for his antisemitism and Holocaust denial.
4. "interesting" was right here in these postings. Guess you're either vision-impaired or not a good reader.
Now what was that you were saying, Mark?
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 26, 2009 2:36 am
I "HAVE" called for America to reach out to Hamas and see if a tactical alliance against AQ linked networks/Takfiris is possible.
There was a long discussion at the LWJ about two years ago on this subject. A slight plurality favored the US reaching out to Hamas.
I also think that the Israelis should reach out to Hamas and see what is possible between them. Hamas, as best as I can tell, favors a one united plural democratic (but not fully free) state solution for Israel and Palestine. Hamas wants to "marry Israel," and for Israelis and Palestinians to become one people and one nation. This is a form of flattery for Israel . . . even if Hamas denies it. Hamas subconsciously sees Israel as the model for a combined Israeli/Palestinian state . . . and secretly admires Israel so much that they seek to emulate Israel. Hamas offering a 10 year Hudna with Israel might have been their way of hinting that much more was possible. Naturally Hamas' secret admiration coexists with a lot of anger, suspicion, and paranoia about Israel.
This state of affairs presents possibilities for Israel that Israel should explore.
For these reasons I make no apologies for having "repeatedly cozied up to the annihilationist savages of Hamas."
Posted by: anand at April 26, 2009 2:17 pm
MarkC, thanks for your thoughtful comment.
I find the fact that Arab Israelis don't have to serve in the IDF to be troubling. Might it be better if all Arab Israelis were treated equally on all things including serving in the IDF?
The only ones who shouldn't have to serve in the IDF are those with poor health, handicaps, and seminary rabbinical students (the IDF doesn't want them.)
I hope Israel gets to keep (and hopefully add to) its Arab minority . . . they immensely enrich and benefit Israel.
"one nation on the planet established expressly to let Jews be Jews?" Many countries admire Jews and warmly welcome them to emigrate to their countries. America, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany, and India are among them. India has warmly treated its Jewish minority since before the birth of Christ. I have heard that Turks like Jews (and Westerners for that matter.)
Many countries would be delighted if hard working, creative and educated Jews would agree to move to their countries.
Anti Jewish bigotry is more a Western and middle eastern phenomenon than anything else.
Posted by: anand at April 26, 2009 2:30 pm
Anand, I would say that you are an idiot, but that would be an ad hominem argument, and I gather one that is frowned upon in the better social circles.
I will say that you are an exceptional person indeed to be able to know what Hamas subconciously sees. You little genius you!
Surely Israel will agree with you and be flattered by Hamas' secret admiration, and will concur with the idea of a combined Israel/Palestinian State. You are such a reasonable fellow after all.
At least you are consistent in your love for the Arab Islamists, and most particularly the Pals.
I also have suggested that the U.S. reach out and touch Hamas (and Hezbollah, and Iran, and Syria, and pirates), though not in quite the same way that you mean.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at April 26, 2009 2:44 pm
As an American Jew (though a secular non-theist)I can criticize Bush, Obama, Sharon, and Netanyahu if I detest them or their policies. This doesn't mean that I hate America or Jews or Israel. It means I hate certain policies or individuals. Nor does it make me a self hating Jew.
Ahmadinejad has said he would abide by a 2 state or one state solution, and support whatever the Palestinians agreed to collectively. And I don't believe he wants to kill all the Jews in Israel. He wants the Zionist apartheid regime to disappear just like the old USSR disappeared. Not by a murderous genocide but by a change in government.
No fan of Ahmadinejad or the Mullahs or any kind of theocracy BTW.
Much of the criticism against Israel is not because people hate Jews but because of the crimes and injustice done to the Palestinians.PERIOD!
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
Posted by: Jinx at April 26, 2009 4:26 pm
Jinx, has anyone said that "American Jews" are in a special category where they ought not criticize anyone whom they wish to? Do "American Jews" have a special dispensation to offer criticism?
Gotta love that "American Jew" statement.
Ahmadinejad and other Iranian (say, perhaps Khamenei) mucky mucks (technical term) and other Arab leaders have said many things. If you intend to be intellectually honest you should not pick and choose only those statements that conform with your mindset.
Would be a bit of challenge to justify the premise that Israels neighbors would prefer that the Jews just, well, not be there.
I will also say that actions speak louder than words.
"Zionist apartheid regime", no buzz words there, eh?
"Whatever the Palestinians agreed to collectively"; hmmm, wonder what that would be?
Have you criticized the Pals and their, umm, less than humane policies and practices? Poor Pals. Not their fault of course, has to be someone elses, and it cannot be their Muslim brothers.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at April 26, 2009 5:59 pm
"As an American Jew (though a secular non-theist)"
In other words, you are using your background as a crutch in your argument even though you otherwise don't give a damn about the meaning of your Jewish ancestry.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 26, 2009 9:48 pm
"Hamas, as best as I can tell, favors a one united plural democratic (but not fully free) state solution for Israel and Palestine. Hamas wants to "marry Israel," and for Israelis and Palestinians to become one people and one nation. This is a form of flattery for Israel"
anand, you are packed so full of horseshit it's shooting out your ears in jet streams. Hamas is a radical Islamist organization with *zero* tolerance for Jews - it's charter, in fact, calls for the murder of *all* Jews, not just Israelis or Zionists. They do not even have tolerance for their political opponents of the same religion - they throw them off of buildings.
Not only do I call you - correctly - an antisemite, I also now call you a Nazi. The Nazis were known for championing the "big lie" propaganda technique and the preceding passage is one of the biggest lies I have ever heard in my life. You are a compulsive liar, and anyone who gives credence any longer to what you spew is a damned fool.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 26, 2009 11:34 pm
There's some interesting nuggets in here, but all in all I think it falls victim to some serious incoherency.
For example, your title is "The UN
Posted by: glasnost at April 27, 2009 4:48 pm
And on another point - we almost have a civil blog here, Mike, but not quite.
Not only do I call you - correctly - an antisemite, I also now call you a Nazi. The Nazis were known for championing the "big lie" propaganda technique and the preceding passage is one of the biggest lies I have ever heard in my life. You are a compulsive liar, and anyone who gives credence any longer to what you spew is a damned fool.
I'm sick of your one-man jihad, GR against anyone and everyone on this website who doesn't match him in fervency and intolerance. You need to learn how to attack arguments instead of attempting to share your deep insights into the character of his fellow posters.
Since MT has already defended anand on here, you imply that Totten is a dam*ed fool. I suggest you make the case explicitly - have the courage of your convictions. Perhaps he'll finally can you.
Posted by: glasnost at April 27, 2009 5:07 pm
Glasnost, interesting that you chose not to make any comments on the Palestinian propaganda that Anand continues to offer.
I am sick of Anand and his consistent attack against anyone (particularly Israel and the Jews) that is not helping the Pals. But, not my blog so not my rules.
That MJT defended Anand ought not affect how anyone comments (reasonably civilly) on Anand's relentlessly blaming the Pals conditions on everyone except for the Pals. Or his constant attacks on Israel and Jews. Or his defense of terrorist groups such as Hamas; why, they are just patriotic Pals, did you not know that?
I never did hear Anand state his opinion on how much Arafat, the PLO and Fatah helped the Pals. And, the Pals kept putting Arafat back in power. Imagine that. Poor Pals.
How could you possibly read Anands comments in just this thread alone and not conclude that he is anti-Israel and anti-Jew? Well, Anand might agree that Jews are o.k. as long as they don't live in or control Israel, and that Israel might be o.k. if it changed its name to Palestine.
Though, it is quite possible that I really do not know what I mean (to say) here.
V/R,
Posted by: Ron Snyder at April 27, 2009 6:15 pm
I use to admire Netanyahu for his charisma, free market pro high tech policies, and leadership skills. But I was disenchanted by his leadership regarding the peace process 1996-1999 and by some of his more recent statements:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/03/2009325171634815939.html
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." (Israeli Journal Hotam, November 24, 1989)
I don't think this is appropriate language from the leader of a prosperous plural free democracy; an advanced and rich civilization such as Israel.
I wish someone else besides me was here to express the Palestinian perspective.
The Palestinians have been hurt by many; their neighbors (including but not limited to Israel), Arafat, Fatah and Hamas. The Palestinians have been plagued by many enemies. Is it so wrong to root for them?
Posted by: anand at April 27, 2009 9:28 pm
Arafat did not allow free and fair elections. I don't think it is fair to blame Palestinians for how the international community, Arab League and Israel foisted Arafat on them. Arafat was a thug. Fatah and Hamas are thugs too (although not as bad as Arafat); they seem more intent on fighting each other than helping the Palestinian people.
The fact that non Israeli thugs have harmed the Palestinians does not justify Israel doing likewise.
For the record, the entire neighborhood is greatly enriched by the presence of Israelis and Jews. Free trade/free investment/free business collaboration between Israel and its neighbors would greatly benefit all of them. I hope that Israeli Jews continue to live in and contribute to the near east.
Posted by: anand at April 27, 2009 9:59 pm
"You need to learn how to attack arguments"
My acerbic post quoted a passage from one of anand's posts and was a specific reply to it. I welcome Michael's comment on that passage and his opinion of anyone who claims to think, or actually thinks, that Hamas wants to "marry" Israel and is "flatter[ing]" Israel. In fact, I welcome the same from glasnost - it could be quite illuminating.
"you imply that Totten is a dam*ed fool"
Not unless he takes seriously the stunningly dishonest passage that I quoted. Interestingly, you state outright that Michael is "incoherent" - apparently glasnost has some special dispensation to criticize Michael.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 27, 2009 11:44 pm
"I don't think it is fair to blame Palestinians for how the international community, Arab League and Israel foisted Arafat on them."
Apparently anand is having a competition with himself to see whether his ignorance is greater than his dishonesty. The PLO was a creation of the Arab League so it *might* be plausible to say they "foisted" Arafat on the Palestinians, even though Arafat came from the same family as longtime Palestinian leader Amin al-Husseini who collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust. But it is nonsense to say the "international community" had anything to do with this and as for somehow blaming Arafat on Israel, that is merely symptomatic of anand's pathological compulsion to demonize the Jewish state. Incidentally, Arafat rose to the Palestinian leadership decades before Hamas was even formed.
What is laughable is that when Arafat was alive, the same people like anand who are pimping Hamas by comparing Arafat unfavorably to them (never mind the fact they throw people off of buildings) were fawning all over the guy. The creep won a Nobel Peace Prize because of it. What hypocritical garbage.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 28, 2009 12:14 am
Arafat was a schmuck. He nearly caused a civil war in Jordan in 1971. He nearly destroyed Lebanon in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Shia Lebanese (that Arafat so exploited) called in the Israelis to help them expel Arafat.
This same Arafat--lionized by the horrible dictators of the Arab league--was forced on the Palestinians people by Israel and the Arab League (with US, European, Russian, UN and global support.) He devastated Palestine 1993-2004. His education policies and economic policies were a disaster. He ran the Palestinian civil bureaucracies into the ground. He created awful security forces. Arafat facilitated organized crime and terrorists. Arafat didn't allow freedom or competitive elections. The internatianal community enabled Arafat's misdeeds by giving him a Nobel Peace Prize. When Arafat died, the response across the board was one of relief. What a waste. The Palestinians deserved so much better.
Many sunni arabs did collaborate with the Nazis. The modern Baath party in many ways originated from the Nazis. Some Palestinians collaborated with the Nazis. They were wrong.
I think that many Palestinians do subconsciously admire and respect Israelis (even as they strongly disagree with the policies of the Israeli government.) If anything, their vision of a free democratic plural prosperous Palestine is much closer to modern Israel than to the Arab dictatorships (and their good for nothing "leaders.") Suspicion, cynicism, deep hurt and anger can coincide with subconscious respect and admiration. Part of the reason for this is that many in Gaza and the West Bank have Palestinian Israeli citizen relatives and friends. This is why I believe that treating Israel's Arab minority better will significantly affect how non Israeli Palestinians view Israel.
Posted by: anand at April 28, 2009 12:40 am
"This same Arafat--lionized by the horrible dictators of the Arab league--was forced on the Palestinians people by Israel"
This is total fucking bullshit and you know it, anand. I challenge you to present a single shred of historical evidence for this enormous lie. If you fail to do so, and instead just keep repeating it without substantiation (which I'm sure you will do) any reasonable person can be expected to assume you are simply a compulsive liar and anti-Israel propagandist (same thing pretty much).
What is really ludicrous is that this is exactly the opposite of what anand's Israel-hating buddies have been saying. The official "story" is that Israel is responsible for Hamas because they supposedly supported them as a foil to Arafat's Fatah. Apparently anand didn't get the memo. It must be highly confusing to him anyway, he *likes* Hamas more because they are even more antisemtic and more eager to slaughter innocent Jews than Fatah, which is what anand wants.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 28, 2009 10:40 pm
"This same Arafat--lionized by the horrible dictators of the Arab league--was forced on the Palestinians people by Israel"
It's not completely right and it's not completely wrong. Deals by Israel were instrumental in inviting the PLO back home from Tunis. International pressure probably played a role in that as well, but nobody forced Yitzchak Rabin to start the Oslo process with Arafat, instead of with local Palestinian civic leaders from the first infitada.
anand is probably on safer ground along the lines of Israel's support of Arafat's security forces in the 96-99 period. Not nasty by Egypt standards, but not nice at all. And Israel wasn't interested in their human rights' record. Understandable maybe, but counterproductive. If you want verification here, I believe it was discussed by Khaled Abu Toameh. Go hunt for it.
On the other hand, Oslo depended on making peace with the Arab regimes as well as with the locals. The PLO would have tried to torpedo a deal that didn't involve them, and probably succeded.
Besides, Arafat was popular in the 90's. (why shouldn't he have been, from a Palestinian POV? He was leading history at the time.) He won a free and mostly fair election (don't b*tch at me, b*tch at the monitors who monitored it) in 1996.
I don't think Anand's sight is clear here, but being wrong doesn't make him the twisted, evil maniac that GR seems to think he is. I don't see any malice or hatred anywhere in anand's attitude, and he's reasonably willing to confront being wrong. I think anand is probably learning something from being here - but not because of you, GR, but in spite of it.
Whereas I don't think you will learn a f*cking thing here, GR. Pretty much ever. You're too busy hunting witches.
Posted by: glasnost at April 30, 2009 8:59 pm
The official "story" is that Israel is responsible for Hamas because they supposedly supported them as a foil to Arafat's Fatah. Apparently anand didn't get the memo.
This is 100 percent historically accurate, from the period of the mid 80's through 1993 or so. Ask any knowledgeable scholar of the era. Israel switched sides on this by about when the suicide bombings began, but it was frankly too late.
Posted by: glasnost at April 30, 2009 9:01 pm
Here's a bone to throw your inevitable demands of evidence and string of insults, GR:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
It's not a claim, it's fact. In Israel's defense, it's also not unusual for occupying powers to support splinter movements against their main perceived opponents that grow up to be even worse than their predecessors. If you got your start by getting handouts from the enemy, you have a need to be both militant and ruthless in proving your bonafides.
Posted by: glasnost at April 30, 2009 9:04 pm
"It's not completely right and it's not completely wrong."
Bullshit, it's *completely* wrong. By the early '70s - 20 years before Oslo - Arafat was indelibly established as *the* Palestinian leader and Israel didn't have a damn thing to do with it.
"nobody forced Yitzchak Rabin to start the Oslo process with Arafat"
If Israel had started a peace process with anyone *but* Arafat, you can bet the farm that the glasnosts of the world would have been denouncing Israel and accusing their partners of being sellouts for not including the great Arafat, the "George Washington of Palestine". The probability of this is at least as high as that of an Eastern sunrise.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 30, 2009 11:57 pm
Post a comment

Winner, The 2008 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Read my blog on Kindle









Sponsored Links

Buy a used boat

Shanghai Hotels

Yachts for sale


Recommended Reading