Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Why the ‘Palestinian’ cause is confusing

Here’s a test: build a sentence with the words, “peace, justice, racism, Human Rights, Palestinian, International law”. The sentence must be coherent.   

This is a litmus test. It determines if you understand the ‘Palestinian’ cause. If you fail to combine these words into a coherent structure, you might not understand what Palestinians want.

Language is like that. If your writing isn’t clear, you usually don’t understand what you’re writing about.   

Supporters of the Palestinian cause appear to have this problem. You see it in their Mission Statements.

For example, the group, Americans for a Palestinian State, uses the word ‘peace’ in its Mission Statement. That’s good. It’s clear. But then it confuses its meaning by using ‘crimes against humanity’. What’s that got to do with peace? 

The Mission Statement is confusing. It raises a question: what concerns the Palestinians--peace or crimes?

Do you really get peace when you focus on crimes?

Jews for Justice for Palestinians has a similar problem. They, too, call for peace. But then they add in justice.  

That’s confusing, too. When someone wants peace, they don’t normally add other, possibly distracting issues. Such additions complicate negotiations.  

It’s like trying to explain baseball by adding in football terms. The football language complicates your ability to explain baseball. Demanding ‘justice’ has the same effect on ‘peace.’

What do the Palestinians want—peace or something more complicated?

Isn’t peace enough?

Women’s Coalition for Peace also wants peace. But like its peers, it complicates matters by mixing in human rights and justice.

Isn’t peace enough?

Students for Justice in Palestine have close to eighty chapters at American University campuses. But most of the chapter homepages aren’t clear.  Some of the homepages mention peace—and then mix in justice or international law or human rights.  What are they calling for--peace; peace and justice; or peace and human rights?

Perhaps Palestinians want peace and ‘human rights’. But then, what exactly does the phrase, ‘human rights’ mean when joined with ‘peace’?

The group, If Americans Knew, also refers to peace. But then it confuses us by throwing in justice, human rights and international law. Why? What’s wrong with just ‘peace’?

Almost every writing teacher says the same thing: if your writing is confused, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do these groups think they’re exempt from this writing requirement—or is there something else at work here, another factor that forces these Mission Statements to become confused?

There is another factor at work. The American Education Trust suggests what that factor is. This group wants to tell the truth about the Middle East. But it suffers the same problem as other pro-Palestinian groups. It’s unclear. The best it can do for Palestine is ‘International Law’ and ‘human rights.’ It doesn’t mention peace at all.

Why is that? Perhaps peace isn’t the Palestinian goal.

If peace were the goal, everybody would be clear. Pro-Palestinian supporters wouldn’t look confused. Their Mission Statements would be simple.

We see where confusion leads in The Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC). This group announces that it ‘campaigns for peace and justice for Palestinians, in support of International law and human rights and against racism.’

This statement uses all the key words of the litmus test in one sentence. But the sentence doesn’t make sense.

Look at the sentence. It starts out being ‘for’ peace. That’s a clear goal with a clear focal point. But then it adds ‘justice’.

Why? We keep seeing this combination. But no one explains it.  

Next, the sentence expresses ‘support’ for something very general (international law/ human rights). But again, why does the Palestinian cause need international law and human rights to discuss peace? There could be connections here between these ideas, but the PSC never elaborates. They just use the words without explanation.

Finally, the sentence ends by being ‘against’ racism. That’s fine--but what does racism have to do with peace (the first stated goal)? 

What’s going on here? If Palestinians want peace, they should say so. Why do they confuse that goal with other issues?

Most of the key words within this sentence do not even apply to peace negotiations. Have you noticed that? They apply mostly to what happens inside your own nation after peace.

Your English teacher is right. Confusion in your writing means you don’t understand your argument’s core concept—or you want to hide that concept.

The Palestinian cause is not about peace. They want to destroy Israel. They just want you to believe they want peace. They hide their true goals—or they have no clue what peace means.

Remember, if peace was their true goal, those Mission Statements would have a clear message. They don’t.

That can mean only one of two things: Palestinians are hiding something—or, they don’t understand peace.

Either way, they are not honest brokers.


1 comment:

  1. You have to be kidding. The Palestinians are the only occupied and colonised indigenous people in history to be held equally accountable for their plight and to have demands put upon them to negotiate. Negotiate what? They are powerless just as the American Indians were powerless. All power rests with the coloniser and justice must be given by the coloniser, in this case Israel.

    The Palestinian cause is not about peace, you are right, because they cannot provide it, only Israel can. The Palestinian cause is about justice which is the right of a colonised people to live in freedom and equality and not to be locked into bantustans and concentration camps, nor to be discriminated against on the basis of religion.

    Israel's only enemy in any true sense is Israel and the belief it needs to create an apartheid State and deny the Palestinians justice. There can only be one outcome when sanctions and boycotts bring the Israeli economy to its knees as was done to apartheid South Africa and that is one state with equal rights for all. A democratic, just, fair State, just as every other coloniser has had to do.