The New York Times recognizes the Palestinian pathologies

Fouad Ajami says, well, everything that I’ve been saying for years about Gaza and the West Bank, as well as what I’m saying about the current Palestinian situation. And he says it on the New York Times op-ed page.

The Palestinian ruin was a long time in coming. No other national movement has had the indulgence granted the Palestinians over the last half-century, and the results can be seen in the bravado and the senseless violence, in the inability of a people to come to terms with their condition and their needs.

The life of a Palestinian is one of squalor and misery, yet his leaders play the international game as though they were powers. An accommodation with Israel is imperative — if only out of economic self-interest and political necessity — but the Palestinians, in a democratic experiment some 18 months ago, tipped power to a Hamas movement whose very charter is pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state and the imposition of Islamist rule.

The political maxim that people get the leaders they deserve must be reckoned too cruel to apply to the Palestinians. Before Hamas, for four decades, the vainglorious Yasir Arafat refused to tell his people the basic truths of their political life. Amid the debacles, he remained eerily joyous; he circled the globe, offering his people the false sense that they could be spared the consequences of terrible decisions.

Then there’s this:

But it was too much to ask of Mr. Arafat to return to his people with a decent and generous compromise, to bid farewell to the legend that the Palestinians could have it all “from the river to the sea.” It was safer for him to stay with the political myths of his people than to settle down for the more difficult work of statehood and political rescue.

For their part, the Arab states have only compounded the Palestinian misery. The Arab cavalry was always on the way, the Arab treasure was always a day away, and there was thus no need for the Palestinians to pay tribute to necessity. In recent years, the choice was starkly posed: it was either statehood or a starring role on Al Jazeera, and the young “boys of the stones” and their leaders opted for the latter.

And this:

It has long been a cherished legend of the Palestinians, and a proud claim, that they would not kill their own, that there would be no fratricide in their world. The cruelty we now see — in both Gaza and the West Bank — bears witness that the Palestinians have run through the consolations that had been there for them in a history of adversity.

It isn’t a pretty choice, that between Hamas and Fatah. Indeed, it was the reign of plunder and arrogance that Fatah imposed during its years of primacy that gave Hamas its power and room for maneuver. We must not overdo the distinction between the “secularism” of Fatah and the Islamism of Hamas. In the cruel streets and refugee camps of the Palestinians, this is really a distinction without a difference.

It is idle to think that Gaza could be written off as a Hamas dominion while Fatah held its own in the towns of the West Bank. The abdication and the anarchy have damaged both Palestinian realms. Nablus in the West Bank is no more amenable to reason than is Gaza; the writ of the pitiless preachers and gunmen is the norm in both places.

And this:

For decades, Arab society granted the Palestinians everything and nothing at the same time. The Arab states built worlds of their own, had their own priorities, dreaded and loathed the Palestinians as outsiders and agitators, but left them to the illusion that Palestine was an all-consuming Arab concern.

Now the Palestinians should know better. The center of Arab politics has shifted from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, a great political windfall has come to the lands of the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula, vast new wealth due to the recent rises in oil prices, while misery overwhelms the Palestinians. No Arabs wait for Palestine anymore; they have left the Palestinians to the ruin of their own history.

Read it all. Then wait for the angry letters from Times readers who will tell Ajami how utterly wrong he is not to blame Israel for the state of the Palestinians today, what with forty years of occupation. I shall be happy to follow this up and quote them.

This entry was posted in palestinian politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The New York Times recognizes the Palestinian pathologies

  1. Joel says:

    Yeah by tomorrow the usual litany of Arabists, anti Zionists, anti Semites, anti Americans – spearheaded by former State Department officials now on the Saudi or PLO payroll (such as Edward Abington) – will write their screeds denouncing Ajami.Why by the way do we not have someone like Ajami in the State Department instead of useless apparthcniks such as Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk?

  2. Herschel says:

    Fouad Ajami has been making the same thought provoking statements for many years. He has a unique insight into the Arab mindset, and I have always enjoyed his articles.

    Unfortunately, no one in a position of power ever listens to his wisdom. The middle east would be a much better place if his ideas were actually implemented.
    Instead, we receive instant coverage of the one-term peanut farmers latest screed against Israel.

  3. Michael Lonie says:

    For one thing Ajami is, I think, a Shi’a, and all those Arabists on the Fraudi payroll are Sunni oriented. Anyone familiar with the Shi’a tends to be focussed on Iran, and Ajami came from Lebanon. Two strikes against him, no matter how much sense he writes and talks. At least MESA hasn’t been able to blackball him.

    The present day is the Arabs’ one chance to reform their political culture in the direction of halfway decent, consensual government. This opportunity was brought to them by George W. Bush, the dreaded neocons, and the US Armed Forces. This opportunity is available because the US government, parts of it at least, see such reform as the best way to suppress the jihadi terrorists without a really gigantic bloodbath. Most of the blood will be Muslim. If the Arabs fail to grasp this opportunity they will never get another and any governments they have in the future will be bloodthirsty, kleptocratic tyrants, whether “secular” or Islamist.

  4. Alex Bensky says:

    “It has long been a cherished legend of the Palestinians, and a proud claim, that they would not kill their own…”

    This is not quite true, as a casual knowledge of Palestinian history would reveal. More accurately, “they would rather kill Jews.” They still would, which is why, uncharitable though it may be, I’m glad to see them turning their weapons on each other.

  5. Oceanguy says:

    Ajami is a bit confused though. He argues for a two state solution but has no hope of the palestinians being capable of managing their own state.

    He speaks the truth, and calls the palestinian dream a fantasy, but still holds on to his own palestinian fantasy of a second palestinian state.

  6. Tatterdemalian says:

    “This is not quite true, as a casual knowledge of Palestinian history would reveal.”

    Sadly, it seems only neocons and Israelis have even a casual knowledge of Palestinian history. I actually got ran off a college campus last week for telling a group of Guevara wannabes that the Palestinians never relied solely on suicide bombings in their war for freedom; apparently the possiblity that their noble savages would stoop to such bourgeois tools as AK-47s disturbed them well past the point of violence.

Comments are closed.