by Hugh Fitzgerald
Zuheir Mohsen: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity."
Ben Gerstein now uses uncritically – in his mea-maxima-culpa apology — the term “Palestinian people.” Does he have any idea where the term comes from? After the Six-Day War, when the Arabs realized that they would not be able to conquer Israel militarily, they moved instead to a propaganda effort to persuade the world that the conflict did not pit twenty-two Arab states or – still more lopsided – fifty-seven Islamic states, against tiny Israel but, rather, re-presented it as a conflict between “two tiny peoples, each struggling for a homeland.” Overnight the “Palestinian people” came into existence, and few questioned their invention. No one could offer a single distinguishing feature of the “Palestinian people” — but then no one was asked. The “Palestinians” possess neither a distinct religion, nor language, nor culture; they are, in fact, indistinguishable from the Arabs in the same neighborhood (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon). It didn’t matter. Few in the West thought to think through this matter of an invented “Palestinian people.”
The “Palestinian” leader of the terrorist group As Sa’iqa, Zuheir Mohsen, explained in a moment of candor the origin of the “Palestinian people”:
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”Gerstein should ask himself why the phrase “Palestinian people” was not used – not once — by any of the Arab leaders, or Arab diplomats at the U.N., either during the 1948-49 conflict, or since, right up to the Six-Day War. No “Palestinian people” were mentioned during the Sinai Campaign of 1956, nor for the next eleven years, right up to and including Nasser’s speeches to huge hysterical Cairene crowds in May 1967, when he promised to annihilate Israel. But not a word by Nasser, or any other Arab leader, was uttered about the “Palestinian people.”
Gerstein was right in 2017 when he asked a simple and obvious question: do those people who are now called the “Palestinians” deserve a state “at this time”? He never said that the “Palestinians” should never have a state, only that they should not have one as long as they engaged in unacceptable and murderous behavior. He might have asked, further, what criteria should be used to determine which peoples are most worthy of statehood. Surely an easily distinguished people, with a millennium or two of history – like the Kurds and the Berbers – who have no state of their own, and are variously mistreated in the states in which they now live as minorities, should have their claims to autonomy or statehood given pride of place by the advanced Western world.
He should also ask himself if the fact that there are already twenty-two Arab states, making the Arabs the most richly-endowed of all peoples in the number of states they possess, makes the demand for a twenty-third Arab state more or – as most fair-minded people would agree – less compelling. And that is especially the case if the main reason for that 23rd Arab state would be to deprive the single Jewish state of the “secure and recognizable borders” it was promised under U.N. Resolution 242. The establishment of such a state is not an end in itself but a means to an end: reducing Israel to a size that will permit another violent assault on the Jewish state. Gerstein should be reminded , too, that already, in 1921, fully 77% of the territory that had originally been intended for the future Jewish state – all of Palestine east of the Jordan — was instead allocated by the British to what then became the Emirate of Transjordan, created as a consolation prize for the Hashemite Abdullah, who had wanted to become the King of Syria.
In his latest appearance, Gerstein was weak when he ought to have been strong, craven when he ought to have been assertive. He had nothing to apologize for, and he ought to have stood firm against those maligning him. Now he has foolishly accepted the unacceptable premises of the enemies of Israel in the student government, and in accusing himself of wrongdoing, he comes across for all the world just like those defendants in the Soviet show trials of the 1930s, or the Chinese who accused themselves of every kind of thought crime during the Cultural Revolution. It has been a painful performance. He has won over no one, and betrayed the truth.
“In this video as well as an op-ed, I [Gerstein] made statements that erase the history of the Palestinian people. I made racist statements, including the denial of the right to self-determination, that were ignorant of Palestinians’ struggle under occupation,” he wrote. “I am sorry beyond words—both for my actions as well as not coming forward with the video sooner and seeking remedy for it. I accept total and complete responsibility for the harmfulness of my language, the offensiveness of my words and the active role I played in the silencing of Palestinian voices.”He has nothing to apologize for, especially in such a craven manner, which is what makes his apology even worse. He did not make “racist statements.” He did not deny the “right of self-determination,” but merely questioned whether, at that point, given their behavior, the Palestinians deserved it. He claims he was “ignorant of Palestinians’ struggle under occupation.”
“I have grown considerably since I made those statements, and the repulsive views I expressed in the video no longer reflect my current understanding,” he continued. “I am devastated to see them reappear and be defended today. I know an apology is never enough, and I am complicit in the oppression of Palestinians through my past actions.”No, he did not make any statements that “erase the history of the Palestinian people.” There is precious little history to erase: as a propagandistic fiction, the Palestinians came into existence only after the Arab defeat in the Six-Day War. Gerstein also claims he made “racist statements.” He did not, and he should never have accused himself of having done so. We know that neither the “Palestinians” nor “Muslims” are a race, and that the word “racist” is simply employed – no proof needed — to blacken the name of anyone deemed insufficiently supportive of the “Palestinian” cause. The same is true with the idiotic, and slanderous charge of “islamophobia” – a word used to misdescribe the most sober and fact-based islamocriticism.
Gerstein, like the defendants in the Soviet show trials, cannot say enough bad things about himself. He made “racist statements” including “the denial of self-determination.” He was guilty of “repulsive views” that he is “devastated to see reappear” today. He knows that he is “complicit in the oppression of the Palestinians.” Complicit in their “oppression” because he dared to suggest, in a 10-minute interview he gave three years ago as a high school student, that perhaps “the Palestinians were not the ideal candidates for statehood”? Goodness. He simply raised the issue, as any fair-minded person would, about whether the behavior of the Palestinians – their use of terrorism, their encouragement of antisemitism, their rejection of peace deals – made them less deserving, at this particular time, of a state. Isn’t that a legitimate matter to raise?
Gerstein went on to say that before arriving at the University of Michigan, he had only been exposed to pro-Israel viewpoints, but was “committed” to “learning new perspectives and being empathetic to the Palestinian community.”Gerstein had “only been exposed to pro-Israel viewpoints” before coming to the university? Hasn’t he had access to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe? Hasn’t he watched PBS, CNN, MSNBC, the BBC? The American media is full of anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian views – it’s hard to believe Gerstein when he says he was “only exposed to pro-Israel viewpoints,” given what mainstream media churns out every day. This claim makes no sense, except as part of his series of mea-maxima-culpas – “I didn’t know enough, I didn’t realize, I’m so sorry. And I’ll make sure I learn ‘new perspectives’ (anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian) and feel more empathy for the Palestinian community.” What a shameful performance. He should have stuck by his guns – he had things right the first time.
Hugh Fitzgerald
Source: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/03/ben-gersteins-craven-apology-when-he-had-it-right-the-first-time-part-2
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment