A notable feature of the analysis of international affairs that appears on CiF is the frequency with which people who engage in undesirable or criminal behavior are portrayed as doing so only, or mainly, because they have been put up to it by the United States and/or its allies . An exception is usually made for Israel, a country whose government and citizens are held to be intrinsically capable of doing wrong without encouragement from Washington.
A case in point is this piece by Ben White in which he comments on the widespread use of torture by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. In White’s narrative the rot set in when
The international community did nothing when Arafat’s men were arresting hundreds of Islamic movement activists and clerics in the mid-1990s. This crackdown, often accompanied by human rights abuses and torture, was directly linked to the anti-Fatah violence that accompanied the Hamas military seizure of control in Gaza in 2007…
Moreover, after Hamas’s success at the ballot box in 2006, the US began intense planning and cooperation with elements of Fatah to prepare for a military confrontation, so much so, that in the aftermath of the fighting in June 2007, “many Western officials and analysts” considered Hamas’s offensive as a “pre-emptive strike”.
This analysis is a prime example of the sort of condescension towards Palestinians that characterizes much of the writing by foreigners in support of them. This writing sees them as immature political subjects who have to receive wise guidance from abroad if they are not to fall into political or moral error. It also portrays Palestinians and the organizations that represent them as being essentially reactive in nature; Israel has plans and ambitions and seeks to realize them, the Palestinians react as best they can and if they get a bit carried away from time to time, well, who’s to blame them?
Another striking aspect of this discourse is the slide towards portraying Palestinians who don’t behave as the writer would like as scarcely being real Palestinians at all. This is evident in the text cited above with the Palestinian Authority being implicitly criticized for cooperating with the United States while no mention is made of Hamas’s intimate relationship with Iran.
Despite their stated sympathy for the Palestinian cause, the writings of Ben White and others like him reveal them as only treating the doings of the United States and, especially, of Israel, with real seriousness. They’d be of more use to that cause if they judged it by the same critical standards as they apply to its enemies. I’ll take the liberty of suggesting a few questions they could start with; what benefits has the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit brought to the Palestinian people? What benefits might it bring in the future and how should these be weighed against the costs arising from the kidnap? What benefits did the bombardment of Sderot and surrounding areas bring to Palestinians? Now that there is a ceasefire in place between Israel and Hamas in the south, what moves should Hamas be making that would improve the daily lives of Palestinian people and bring closer the creation of a normal state for them to live in? Is there any sign of such moves being made? What policies do Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have in place with regard to Israeli settlements on the West Bank and how successful have they been?
Unsurprisingly, given the disparity between what I actually wrote, and what is presented here, this argument depends on distortions and inventions.
“In White’s narrative the rot set in when…” [then my article is quoted]
Where did I say that this was where ‘the rot set in’? That’s a total insertion on your part.
“This analysis is a prime example of the sort of condescension towards Palestinians that characterizes much of the writing by foreigners in support of them. This writing sees them as immature political subjects who have to receive wise guidance from abroad if they are not to fall into political or moral error.”
A pretty key point in the argument – where’s the substantiating evidence?
“It also portrays Palestinians and the organizations that represent them as being essentially reactive in nature”
A potentially interesting point, but as it happens, I agree with your criticism of this approach:
Israeli agency should not be “emphasised to the exclusion of the active participation of Palestinians in the shaping of the land’s contours and ownership. Some supporters of Palestinian rights, while refusing the cruder, racist stereotype of violence-inclined aggressors, can unintentionally create an image of the Palestinians as passive victims. In fact, many ordinary Palestinians live their daily lives with a creative determination to defy Zionist colonisation that defies the “role” given to them by other narratives.” (‘Facts on the ground’, Guardian Cif, Nov 7 2007)
“Another striking aspect of this discourse is the slide towards portraying Palestinians who don’t behave as the writer would like as scarcely being real Palestinians at all.”
How does criticizing the PA’s relationship with the USA and Israel – a critique which is hardly unheard of amongst Palestinian, Arab and Western commentators – constitute portraying some Palestinians as “scarcely being real Palestinians at all”?
This piece then concludes with a lot of good questions. But given that the cause for the discussion is such a distorted interpretation of my article, and that the questions aren’t specifically related to the issue I was discussing (detention and torture by forces loyal to Hamas and Fatah), I don’t really feel like addressing them.
“Where did I say that this was where ‘the rot set in’? That’s a total insertion on your part.”
Your narrative clearly identifies what you regard as the failure of the international community to restrain Arafat in the 1990s as having initiated the downward spiral leading to today’s widespread use of torture by the PA and Hamas. Short of copying and pasting your article in its entirety, I couldn’t have treated your argument more fairly.
“A pretty key point in the argument – where’s the substantiating evidence?”
It’s immanent in the text, the unspoken assumption which grounds your argument.
“Israeli agency should not be “emphasised to the exclusion of the active participation of Palestinians in the shaping of the land’s contours and ownership. Some supporters of Palestinian rights, while refusing the cruder, racist stereotype of violence-inclined aggressors, can unintentionally create an image of the Palestinians as passive victims. In fact, many ordinary Palestinians live their daily lives with a creative determination to defy Zionist colonisation that defies the “role” given to them by other narratives.” (‘Facts on the ground’, Guardian Cif, Nov 7 2007)”
This is a different point. I am not saying that people such as you are portraying the Palestinians as “passive victims”. I am saying that you regard them as being possessed of only a partial political subjectivity and that you are inclined to regard Israel as the only motor of history in the conflict.
“How does criticizing the PA’s relationship with the USA and Israel – a critique which is hardly unheard of amongst Palestinian, Arab and Western commentators – constitute portraying some Palestinians as “scarcely being real Palestinians at all”?”
I said “slide towards”, not that we are there yet. You, and many others, seem to think Palestinians who seek cooperation with Israel and the United Sates are doing something inherently wrong, something that intrinsically goes against the interests of the Palestinian people, regardless of the outcomes it might produce. You seem to regard Palestinians who seek cooperation with, and assistance from Iran as acting in some sense more naturally and the influence of Iran on Palestinian politics to be unproblematic.
“This piece then concludes with a lot of good questions.”
Thanks.
“But given that the cause for the discussion is such a distorted interpretation of my article, and that the questions aren’t specifically related to the issue I was discussing (detention and torture by forces loyal to Hamas and Fatah), I don’t really feel like addressing them.”
I repeat what I said above; my post is entirely fair in the way it quotes from your article but I am in no way obliged to analyse it from the angle that you would like me to.
“Your narrative clearly identifies what you regard as the failure of the international community to restrain Arafat in the 1990s as having initiated the downward spiral leading to today’s widespread use of torture by the PA and Hamas.”
Eamonn, it’s hardly a ‘narrative’, and besides, where do I say that a failure to restrain Arafat was what “initiated” (your own insertion, once again) the “downward spiral”.
“It’s immanent in the text, the unspoken assumption which grounds your argument.”
Ahhh, I see…Well that’s that then I guess.
“I am not saying that people such as you are portraying the Palestinians as “passive victims”. I am saying that you regard them as being possessed of only a partial political subjectivity…”
Could you explain the distinction?
“I said “slide towards”, not that we are there yet.”
Oh. Well I find it hard to provide a counter-argument for an argument against a prophesied future opinion of mine.
Ben,
I think you don’t address a really interesting point in Eamonn’s criticism (the last one of your reply).
I’m curious about what would you say about of a theoretic stance that thinks “Palestinians who seek cooperation with Israel and the United Sates are doing something inherently wrong, […] and Palestinians who seek cooperation with, and assistance from Iran are acting in some sense more naturally”.
Against Eamonn, I’m not assuming that you support this possition.
Eamonn:
It seems that your original post/argument is a bit of a non-entity, now shown to have been based on:
1. Your own invented insertion (the non-existent evidence).
2. The ‘immanent’ ‘unspoken’ reality of my article (the conveniently invisible ‘evidence’).
and,
3. A prophesied future opinion of mine (the not-yet-existent evidence).
On such shaky foundations, moreover, you feel able to construct some pretty sweeping generalizations: “the analysis of international affairs that appears on CiF… much of the writing by foreigners in support of [Palestinians]”.
Juan Castro:
What you quoted is interesting, but before anything else, I need to ask for some clarification. I appreciate that you are quoting Eamonn, but I can’t really go any further without knowing the following.
Firstly, what is meant by “inherently wrong”? Do you mean morally speaking? Or unwise in a strategic political sense? Or what? You also omit part of Eamonn’s original comment, where he says that I and others see Palestinian cooperation with Israel and the US to be wrong “regardless of the outcomes it might produce”. See below for why that is a bizarre thing to suggest.
Secondly, what is meant by ‘acting in some sense more naturally’?
Finally, I must say that I don’t think this can be a ‘theoretic’ stance, since both the question and any response only make sense in real, practical terms. The discussion depends on, for example, the policies of any given US, Israeli or Iranian administration - it can’t exist ‘in theory’.
Ben,
I quoted Eamonn’s just to economize the effort of writting in English (it’s not my first language).
Thanks for the reply.
JC