.
In 2000, Clinton and Ehud Barak virtually asked Arafat to sign the Palestinians’ rights and cause off away in return for concession that were not only pathetically insignificant, but also were not written down on any document. So what does our glorious leader Arafat do? Just what you and I would, he takes a hit in the ego, storms out of Camp David, wears his gloomy, terrorgasmic face that the NY Times loves to display on the first page, and heads back to his shell in Ramallah without saying a word to anybody. (Well… he actually wrote an op-ed for the NY Times a year later.)
Not that the media needed any help to be biased, but Arafat was of great help. The media had a field day telling us all about how Palestinians are the obstacle for peace because they love to kill Jews, and they will never make peace because you can never offer them enough, and Israelis — the good-hearted victims — are dying to make peace but find no partner. To the extent that I began to doubt my own outlook on life and begane to question whether I, a Palestinian, am just made for death and destruction.
For a long time, that sentiment was so prevailing that it became Washington DC and US media common wisdom, and still is, except that two years later Seth Ackerman painstakingly researched and eloquently debunked the Myth Of the Generous Offer. (But don’t expect those politically X-rated views to get play in mainstream media, so you really have to research for it.)
It is really hard to exaggerate the damage and harm said media campaign has inflicted on the support for the Palestinian cause in the US, so it is only logical to expect that Abbas and Co. — charging to Annapolis this week — would do their homework and perhaps prepare a media statement if not a set of individuals to conduct interviews and appear on news talk shows (something that seems to come intuitively to their Israeli counterparts).
Or so you think…
On my drive home from work, my radio happened to be tuned into NPR when All Things Considered was on. They advertised an interview with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to come later in the hour. The fact they spoke of no interview with Abbas or a Palestinian representative caused even KABOBcorrespondent Chaim Sugarman to quickly speculate that the pro-Zionist media is about to play another one-sided, biased campaign that won’t even interview Palestinians. Because there is no way, the Palestinian delegation could make the same fatal mistake again, especially when the whole conference is little more that a PR campaign.
Well, at the end of Olmert’s interview, Bob Siegel made it clear that his requests for interview with the Palestinian president and the unconstitutional prime minister were declined.
And to answer my opening rhetorical question, yes, Abbas has English speakers around, including his Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, who is rather well spoken, when he wants to be. But I guess speaking English does not necessarily mean K street smart…
Related posts:
- Abbas Blows Fuse – Meeting Postponed
- Izaddin Kassam Launches English Website
- Abbas catches dictatorship bug in Egypt
- Palestine’s First English Daily
- The Latest Mahmoud Darwish Commentary (English)
Disregarding the run-on sentences, as well as the improper use of phrases and punctuation marks, I counted 15 spelling mistakes and/or word omissions. Not bad Foof!!
[check - 5 in the 1st paragraph, 1 in the 2nd, 2 in the 3rd, 3 in the 4th, 2 in the 5th, 1 in the 6th, and 1 in the 7th]
Posted by Nadeem | November 27, 2007, 5:22 pmCom’on…. you can’t count grammer and sentence structure…
Posted by Fayyad | November 27, 2007, 6:17 pmFoofy, this is a good piece that I’m gonna pass around so forgive my small edits…
P.S. i’ve saved the original in all of its anti-spellchecker glory if you’d like to revert.
Posted by QuiQui | November 27, 2007, 6:18 pmI guess Clinton’s point of view is just Israeli inspired propoganda as well. Care to check out his book?
I find it interesting that every point of view or argument that puts the Palestinians in a bad light is always defined as being in the realm of myth or conspiracy. Sometimes a spade is a spade and you would be well served, friend, to not ignore facts and operate from a standpoint of truth and honesty – even if something may be detrimental to your position.
And please, Seth Ackerman? I can find any hack (review Ackermans articles if you must) who will write anything under the sun, but that doesn’t make the words true. Hell, he can even painstakingly research it and eloquently present it but it doesn’t make it any more true. Look at the facts. Look at what the people ACTUALLY INVOLVED in the negotiations have to say. It may shock you foofy, but not every one is part of a grandiose conspiracy (gasp!). I question if you’ve ever had to accept something that is painful to believe. I doubt it. After all, blaming the media is so much more, and apparently, easier on the conscious apparently.
Posted by Anonymous | November 28, 2007, 8:05 amThank G-d the Palestinians did not accept Barak’s offer at Camp David. I have said the following many times to friends…
From a spiritual standpoint – one in which the Jewish people are linked to the land of Israel – it is clear that, over time, the Palestinian people are responsible for ensuring that the Jews cannot simply wash their hands of Judea and Samaria, walk away and become like any other nation.
I realize most people reading this are either Palestinians, Arabs, or anti-Israel activists; the common misconception among these groups (that probably refers to you!) is that Israelis are brutal colonizers who want to take your land. I know first hand that this couldn’t be further from the truth. 75% of Israelis would give this land up in a second if it meant no more interruption to their daily routines. Look how quickly the Israelis left Sinai – with oil fields! – or Syria (from the gates of Damascus) or Lebanon. The vast majority of Israelis don’t have any problem giving away land – giving it away, not even trading. On an external level, the Jews of today don’t feel linked to the land of Israel, even if they live on it. Their quality of life matters more than the land itself.
Of course, on a deeper, spiritual level, to tear the Jewish people away from the land of Israel is to split a baby in half.
On a spiritual, macro level, with their blood, the Palestinians force the Jews to return to Judea and Samaria, to take responsibility for the land. It’s twisted, I know. Try to follow my reasoning here…
The Palestinians do this through horrendous acts of violence and murder, which are illegal, immoral, reprehensible and unjustifiable.
The Jews respond in kind with violence (much of it justified, in self defense), and that’s precisely the point! While the Palestinians commit violence to bring the Jews closer, the Jews respond with tactics that push the Palestinians away further. The more the Jews push them away, the more desperate the Palestinians (and their tactics) become, as they need to fulfill their mission to bring the Jews closer.
Yet, however they do it, they do it. Time and time again the Jews are forced to return to the land they don’t want, but to which they are spiritually bound.
This is the ultimate injustice, and part of why I am a strong supporter of a one state solution that includes the Palestinian people.
Many of you here are atheists, marxists, what have you; some are devoutly religious – Christians, Muslims. Call it a “religious” reason if you must. I think that, with the span of history, the reality is clear.
With their blood, tears and suffering, the Palestinians are fighting for a reunification of the land – a reunification not just in physical terms of geography, but a reunification in spiritual terms, of the Jewish people and the land. That can only happen when Jews acknowledge their connection and responsibility to the land.
Until then, the Palestinians will continue to suffer, needlessly, but purposefully; perhaps not for the reason they think, but for the reason that matters.
Posted by Victor | November 29, 2007, 7:17 am