Republican presidential frontrunner upset Palestinians and supporters recently when he repeatedly stated his steadfast opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
I am writing to set the record straight and declare support for Giuliani’s seemingly anti-Palestinian agenda, and explain how it is, unwittingly, a pro Palestinian one. So, bear with me.
On its face, Giuliani’s agenda seems utterly racist and as Zionist as they can be, and that is not hard to conclude, for example, the dude is flaunting the words Islamo-fascism and Islamic Terrorism in every paragraph he speaks, whether they usefully fit into the sentence or not. (For example, on Larry King commenting after Bush’s address on the September report on Iraq, towards the end of his interview, he threw out the phrase “Islamic extremist” a la carte, apparently that’s all he could do when he realized that he still did not use it and the interview was concluding.)
Furthermore, his views on war and collective punishment of Arabs and Muslims around the world as a response to terrorism helps enforce the notion that the former New York mayor is opposing a Palestinian state out of spite to Palestine, and because he believes that would harm Palestinians, and benefit Israel. At the very least, he believe such a line will get him the Jewish vote, and other pro-war votes.
This makes more sense when one learns that Giuliani had hired as campaign advisors the racist, Zionut, war mongering, pro-Israel, neo-cons Norman Podhoretz, Martin Kramer, and Daniel Pipes. The three are members of the neocon movement that has pushed for the disasterous direction US foreign policy has taken. They pushed for war under Bill Clinton, and again under Bush after September 11th.
Did you know that the ideological founder of the neo-con movement, Leo Strauss of University of Chicago, was mentored by Carl Schmidt, the leading Nazi government lawyer among those who were planted into the academia to facilitate the rise of the police state? Just some trivia for you, and if I had a proposal to suspend Habeas Corpus in order to enable a police state, I would have called it the Patriot Act.
So the fact that his advisor calls for ethnic cleansing and war crimes through the raising of Palestinian villages may offend some. Understandable, but Giuliani’s motivations aside, the establishment of a Palestinian state at the moment is the worst case scenario and is the ultimate “knock-out” blow to the cause of the Palestinian people. See, hate-filled politicians like Giuliani, Tancredo, Brownback and others of their feather lack the tact to hide what they think, and masterfully plot their evil intentions, rather they spell it out in the hopes of rousing the support of the other hoo-ra-ras.
A Palestinian state at this time will be worse than the Oslo agreement, which managed to absolve Israel of responsibility for the well-being of the populations it occupies, and allowed it the PR luxury to picture the Palestinians as another, equally-sized goliath dealing with whom requires a full war arsenal. Even more, Israel opened its hand and the donations in the forms of 500-lb bombs came generously.
At this time, Palestinians have even less: Less land, less rights, less meaningful institutions, less international support, and more importantly, less leadership and sense of direction. Any so called comprehensive deal with out less than bright leaders or other Arab leaders who seem to generously negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians will be a long term disaster. It will set Palestine and Palestinians for failure and more internal strife.
This kind of deal is what Bush and his Israeli friends are trying to achieve in coming year. The rendered whatever Palestinians Authority institutions with any viability impotent, they split the population, and separated the West Back from Gaza, now after they separated the refugees out side of Palestine, and Palestinians inside Israel. We no longer have a representative voice. Yet we have leaders who are contemplating to sign on such deals out of spite for their rivals. Hence Bush’s content-less conference scheduled for November. But Bush and the Israelis may have over played their hand, even Mahmoud Abbas and the Saudi’s are getting restless with the feeling they are being set up and pulled into a trap. Their requests for information on the conference substance have gone unanswered.
The only thing the Palestinians can afford to do is refuse any political deals that attempt to gloss over their weakness, and treat them as equals only as far as the concession making process necessitates. They must look at historic Palestine (Israel, West Bank, and Gaza) as one country, for them and the Israelis, learn to live with the enemy, and as such, transform their struggle into one of demands for civil rights, equality, and coexistence.
And to make sure some slick politician does not preempt such a movement. You could vote for Giuliani.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Palestinians For Giuliani
By
Fayyad
KABOBegories: 2008 elections, american politics, Fayyad, israel, palestine, zionuts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

6 comments:
You write of Norman Podhoretz, Martin Kramer, and Daniel Pipes: "All three were among the signer of a letter demanding Bill Clinton invade Iraq in 1998, and again after September 11th, requesting Bush do the same." But when I click thru, I see that Pipes and Kramer did not sign either letter you mentioned, and Podhoretz only signed the second. You stand corrected.
YOu're absolutely right. I should not have worked all from memory and verified facts. I stand corrected.
Well Fayyad you are repeating the 60 year mistake the Arabs have made.
1) In 48, the partition was not good for the Aarbs.
2) Between 48 and 67 no Palestinian state was put in place in the West bank and Gaza.
3) After 67, the three no's at Khartoum.
4) The rejection of the Clinton plan in 2000 and the second intifada.
5) And now you are saying no to the two state solution.
Have it your way, another 60 years of Palestinian poverty and anguish. You can dream on that at some point the Palestinians will be able to negotiate out of a stronger position. But this hasn't happened in the last 60 years and the Pals have paid a heavy price for this kind of strategy.
How about, take what you can now, create a strong secular state, and then be in a position to demand more? I am not saying that what was oferred or is oferred is "fair". All I am saying is that what is oferred is going to be less in the future and the Pals are not getting stronger.
But that's precisely what I warn against. The offering to the Palestinians have dwindled over time so that present one is not viable, not to mention that what would end up being implemented in reality is far less than what the media is now touting.
What do you advocate by saying take what you get now, get stronger, and ask for more? Do you mean after we have a Palestinian state we start pushing Jews off the land. I won't agree with that. I don't want militarized Palestine and Israel fighting for survival at the expense of the other.
The only way out of this is sharing the land, equally and with respect. So we have to start asking for that now. Because any other agreement will be purely political maneuvering by Israeli leaders to by time through forcing Palestinian ones make concessions. Because both leaders lack long term vision.
If you don't take a Palestinian state now you will get decades more of Palestinian suffering. What I meant with getting stronger is that as the Palestinian state gets stronger it will become an economic unit with Israel.
You are asking now for the moon. Forget Lebanon, Iraq and Yugoslavia. Even Chechoslovakia and Belgium, yes Belgium cannot sustain two nations. It won't happen in Israel as it will lead to civil war. The Flemish and Wallons cannot get along. You think the Israelis and Pals can? Two racist and religious societies with huge animosity and one society about 10 times richer than the other? You think Israelis want to live with kids that learned from Farfour and that Arabs want to be looked down upon daily? That is what will happen. There is zero respect between the communities and zero love. It is not a basis for a country as history amply shows. It is only a basis for war.
If you want anybody to support you, you must address these issues. Your plan is just not realistic. Let's start with a two state solution and see what happens. Really, even Uri Avnery sees how fultile the one state proposition is.
"Two racist and religious societies with huge animosity"
Yet Israel's population is 25% Arab with full rights and how many Jews are allowed or feel safe living in Palestine again?
Maybe there are levels of "racism" or is everything black and white in your worldview?
Post a Comment