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’.

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’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.

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.

“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.