LA Times: Israel Bashing Diatribe
To be honest, I don't know what disturbed me more about this article , the way the writer twisted and abused the substance of George Orwell's essay or his invective against Israel.
Read it yourself : In the War of Words
My response:
Dear Editors -
Saree Makdisi’s article is Orwellian. But not in a way Orwell would have liked. He quotes from “Politics and the English Language” and in then personifies the behavior that concerned Orwell in that very essay. Instead of using language to enable clarity of thought, he compiles a “mixture of vagueness” and demonstrates how muddled thinking becomes when “the concrete melts into the abstract.” Instead of engaging the question of “recognition” fully, directly, and honestly Makdisi reiterates half-truths and canards that border on doublespeak.
Given the lack of facts to support anti-Israel arguments these days, people like Makdisi and former President Carter believe they have only one option left -- personify Orwell’s fears by using inflammatory words like “Apartheid” and by making abstract arguments that can influence the uninformed.
Makdisi attempts to give credence to a simplistic view of the Israeli-Arab conflict through familiar cliché and sins of omission that demonstrate a bias that poisons his world-view.
The Israeli demand that the Palestinian government recognize Israel is not based on Israeli sentimentality. In 1993, the Israeli government allowed Palestinian leaders to form a government in the West Bank and Gaza . In return, Israel , the US , and Europe demanded that the Palestinian government renounce terrorism and recognize Israel ’s right to exist.
Instead of focusing on today’s issues, Makdisi proffers the old canard about Israel’s borders, makes a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument relating to whether the Palestinian Authority qualifies as a state or not, and then appeals to emotion by asking how a Palestinian could ever recognize Israel given the history between the two peoples. In doing so, he fails to acknowledge that Palestinian leaders already recognized Israel ’s right to exist nearly fourteen years ago. That recognition was the basis of the peace process and the hope that Israelis and Palestinians could one day live in peace. The problem is that the current Palestinian government has reneged on that agreement.
And this is why nothing is being asked of Israel in return. The reason is simple. Israel has already given and is still waiting to receive. It gave the Palestinian leadership the opportunity to govern their own people in their own land. And it has given up all of Gaza . In return, it has received more suicide bombers and daily rocket attacks.
A just peace between Israelis and Palestinians is possible. But true reconciliation will only occur when both sides recognize each other’s right to exist. Israel has already recognized the Palestinian right to have a state in the West Bank and Gaza . It was even ready to sign on the dotted line seven years ago. Recognition is not, as Makdisi suggests, a mere “palliative and therapeutic function.” The failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel ’s right to exist is the primary reason why this conflict continues. But it can also be the starting point for new hope.
To be honest, I don't know what disturbed me more about this article , the way the writer twisted and abused the substance of George Orwell's essay or his invective against Israel.
Read it yourself : In the War of Words
My response:
Dear Editors -
Saree Makdisi’s article is Orwellian. But not in a way Orwell would have liked. He quotes from “Politics and the English Language” and in then personifies the behavior that concerned Orwell in that very essay. Instead of using language to enable clarity of thought, he compiles a “mixture of vagueness” and demonstrates how muddled thinking becomes when “the concrete melts into the abstract.” Instead of engaging the question of “recognition” fully, directly, and honestly Makdisi reiterates half-truths and canards that border on doublespeak.
Given the lack of facts to support anti-Israel arguments these days, people like Makdisi and former President Carter believe they have only one option left -- personify Orwell’s fears by using inflammatory words like “Apartheid” and by making abstract arguments that can influence the uninformed.
Makdisi attempts to give credence to a simplistic view of the Israeli-Arab conflict through familiar cliché and sins of omission that demonstrate a bias that poisons his world-view.
The Israeli demand that the Palestinian government recognize Israel is not based on Israeli sentimentality. In 1993, the Israeli government allowed Palestinian leaders to form a government in the West Bank and Gaza . In return, Israel , the US , and Europe demanded that the Palestinian government renounce terrorism and recognize Israel ’s right to exist.
Instead of focusing on today’s issues, Makdisi proffers the old canard about Israel’s borders, makes a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument relating to whether the Palestinian Authority qualifies as a state or not, and then appeals to emotion by asking how a Palestinian could ever recognize Israel given the history between the two peoples. In doing so, he fails to acknowledge that Palestinian leaders already recognized Israel ’s right to exist nearly fourteen years ago. That recognition was the basis of the peace process and the hope that Israelis and Palestinians could one day live in peace. The problem is that the current Palestinian government has reneged on that agreement.
And this is why nothing is being asked of Israel in return. The reason is simple. Israel has already given and is still waiting to receive. It gave the Palestinian leadership the opportunity to govern their own people in their own land. And it has given up all of Gaza . In return, it has received more suicide bombers and daily rocket attacks.
A just peace between Israelis and Palestinians is possible. But true reconciliation will only occur when both sides recognize each other’s right to exist. Israel has already recognized the Palestinian right to have a state in the West Bank and Gaza . It was even ready to sign on the dotted line seven years ago. Recognition is not, as Makdisi suggests, a mere “palliative and therapeutic function.” The failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel ’s right to exist is the primary reason why this conflict continues. But it can also be the starting point for new hope.
posted by Adam Harmon at
4:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home