"Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, reported last week that the imprisoned Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti 'released an unusual statement from his cell. He called on his people to start a popular uprising against Israel, to stop negotiations and security coordination and to boycott [Israel]. Barghouti recommended that his people choose nonviolent opposition.'"
What isn't Friedman telling us? Haaretz is a leftist Israel newspaper with a market share of only some 7%. More important, Haaretz did not "report" the lines quoted by Friedman, but rather, they appear in a Haaretz editorial (see: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/listen-to-marwan-barghouti-1.421600).
Did Barghouti call for "nonviolent opposition"? In fact, the Barghouti letter stated (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barghouti-calls-on-palestinians-to-launch-popular-resistance-against-israel-1.420954):
"It is the Palestinian people's right to oppose the occupation in all means."
Sorry, Tom, but "nonviolent opposition" and opposition involving "all means" are different, particularly when opposition involving "all means" is espoused by someone serving a life sentence for the murder of five innocent civilians.
Friedman goes on to say:
"Palestinians need to accompany every boycott, hunger strike or rock they throw at Israel with a map delineating how, for peace, they would accept getting back 95 percent of the West Bank and all Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and would swap the other 5 percent for land inside pre-1967 Israel."
Hold on, Tom. What about rock-throwing? Is that also nonviolent? When rocks are thrown at cars on Israeli highways, and the drivers lose control of their vehicles, is that also "nonviolent"?
Friedman continues:
"And, in Egypt, in particular, it is already clear that a key issue in the election will be the peace treaty with Israel. In this context, if Palestinian-Israeli violence erupts in the West Bank, there will be no firewall — the role played by former President Hosni Mubarak — to stop the flames from spreading directly to the Egyptian street."
I get it: Egyptian hatred of Israel stems from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Well, have a gander at a recent article published by the "liberal" Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd entitled "The Jewish Festival of Purim Is Dedicated to Murderous Acts of Vengeance Against Non-Jews" (see: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6223.htm), in which the writer informs us:
"In ancient times, [around] 400 BCE or earlier, groups of Jews lived in Persia under the patronage of Ahasuerus, king of Persia and India. [These Jews] spread evil and destruction, as well as their dishonest and treacherous ways. Thus, they deservedly [incurred] the hatred of the state minister Haman, who incited the king of Persia against them and killed them. He picked a day by lottery on which to massacre the corrupt Jews and thus rid the country of their evil.
. . . .
[Later, the Jews] turned the anniversary of the lottery day, on which they escaped massacre, into a major religious festival... They dedicate this [festival] to murderous [acts of] vengeance against anyone who isn't Jewish.
. . . .
Jewish history documents murderous actions [perpetrated as part] of Purim celebrations. On this festival, the extremists among them used to hunt down or abduct a non-Jew, slaughter him, and then hang him up like a sacrifice to drain his blood.
. . . .
Now that their deeds on this festival have been exposed, the Jews seem to have replaced them with other actions, far more sweeping, [namely] the killing of Palestinians in unjustified military attacks during this holiday."
In short, it's time for Friedman to understand that Israel is going to be hated by its neighbors no matter what it does, and any two-state agreement with the Palestinians, requiring security concessions from Israel, cannot be reached without explicit recognition by the Palestinians of Israel's right to exist.
I really have trouble dealing with the Friedmans. No, not intellectually - no problem here, but emotionally. Absolute, pure, undiluted evil.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I was raised somewhere else and have a clear sense of what is good and what is wrong. Terrifying immorality. I really, really, really can't understand how people totally deprived of morality can live with themselves. If he's gone mad (another possibility), someone else has no sense of ethics.
It appears Mr. F has not given any credence to the book of Esther in the Old Testament where the truth is the Jewish people were only defending themselves(with the approval of Ahaseurus-who had Haman hung on the same gallows Haman intended to hang the Jew Mordecai)against Haman's planned genocide. It is convenient how we will take stories out of context to further our own prejudices.
ReplyDeleteJG, I agree with analysis . Thomas Friedman just does not get get.
ReplyDelete