“It is the right thing to do.” Is it?

By Ted Belman

A few days ago Jerry Gordon reported on recent antisemitic remarks by Sari Nusseibeh, calling him a Terrorist supporter. These remarks appeared in a MEMRI clip. These remarks were no small matter because Nusseibeh is President of Al Quds University in Jerusalem, holds a PhD from Harvard and is Head of the PLO in East Jerusalem.

This story has legs. An exchange of correspondence followed initiated by our friend Ami Isseroff. Particularly read my remarks at the bottom.

Isseroff to MEMRI

(removed as confidential)

Belman to Isseroff

    If Nusseibeh wants to explain, he should..

    Why are you interceding for him.

Mort Klein of ZOA recalls the history of extreme remarks in this post yesterday.

    Palestinian “Moderate” Sari Nusseibeh: “No Jew” May Live In A Future Palestinian State, Jaffa Should Be Part Of It

    ZOA: Cut ties with Nusseibeh and his Al-Quds University

Isseroff refers to this post

(removed as confidential)

Isseroff to Belman

(removed as confidential)
Anti-Racist Blog: Exposing Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism on American College Campuses replied

    With all due respect, like Ted, I don’t get your defense of Mr. Nusseibeh either. The statements in the video were offensive, as were some of his past statements, which were documented by the ZOA press release, and other articles.

    For example, see excerpts from this early 2007 article:

    “Even Al Quds University–embraced as the bastion of moderation by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)–engaged in a weeklong celebration this January of the terrorist credited with developing the first suicide belts more than a decade ago. […]

    When asked by this journalist about its funding decisions in the West Bank and Gaza, USAID pointed to $2.3 million in assistance provided to Al Quds University. Undermining USAID’s argument that funding the school is wise policy, however, was the weeklong celebration this January of Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas leader known as “the shahid [martyr] engineer.” He is credited with creating the first suicide belts in the mid-1990s and training the next generation of suicide bomb makers.

    The school’s celebration of a leading terrorist actually seems to be in line with the beliefs of its leader. The president of Al-Quds University President, Sari Nusseibeh, is widely considered a leading Palestinian moderate–USAID praised him as “one such prominent and respected figure”–yet he, too, celebrates the glories of terrorists.

    In an appearance on Al-Jazeera in 2002 with Hamas political bureau chief Khalid Mashaal and the mother of a suicide bomber, Nusseibeh had this to say of the woman who proudly raised a terrorist: “When I hear the words of Umm Nidal, I recall the [Koranic] verse stating that ‘Paradise lies under the feet of mothers.’ All respect is due to this mother; it is due to every Palestinian mother and every female Palestinian who is a Jihad fighter on this land.” (Transcript provided by PMW.)

    As Palestinian colleges go, Al-Quds University might well be quite moderate–but that’s the problem. If terrorists are hailed as heroes at the moderate schools, imagine what happens at the more radical ones.”
    How We Fund Hamas University

    Ami, it seems like you are desperately trying to present this guy as moderate. Why? He doesn’t seem like a moderate, even without the recent video. [..]

Anti-Rascist Blog made some excellent points. I will post any ensuing correspondence in the comment section.

I want to draw a parallel here. Isseroff advocates for both Nusseibeh and the Palestinians in the pursuit of justice.

Isseroff, argues in his defense of Nusseibeh, “It is the right thing to do.” and the Jewish tradition requires us to pursue justice.

In the pursuit of justice which we all want (though we disagree on what constitutes justice), the West has developed a system that assures the best result, namely, an adversarial system with an impartial Judge.

Unfortunate such a Judge does not exist for the ME conflict. Nevertheless the advocates on both sides must present the best case they can. When the Left in Israel, and the Jewish left in general, comes to the defense of the other side i.e. the Arabs, it is either becoming an advocate of the Arabs or it is putting itself in the role of judge. In either case it is subverting justice by subverting the system designed to achieve it over centuries. In effect the Left is undermining the case for our side. Is this the right thing to do?

Isseroff writes,

    “I believe that most people will eventually recognize fairness, and distinguish between fairness and objectivity on the one hand, and various partisan claims on the other.”

It seems to me that this is a dubious proposition. Once again he abandons the system of justice and argues as a tactic that rather than be partisan we should be fair and objective. Once again he attempts to be the judge. Given the media distortions and the spin of the officials elected or otherwise, and the propaganda and lies of the other side, it seems he is embracing a naive belief in the independence or good will of the masses.

Similarly there is a time honoured way to negotiate a settlement. Both sides must want to settle their differences and to make compromises to do so. If one side does not want to compromise but to win, the other side must decide to give in to all demands or to go to court. The Left essentially feel defeated and don’t want to fight any more. They are willing to give in to all demands (almost all). Even when there exists a spirit of compromise, in order to get the best deal one must seek to let the other side make the offer first. Also one must offer as little as possible. The Left do not follow these rules and so they are “taken to the cleaners”.

Our duty is to make the best deal possible. This can only be done if there is a willingness to say “no.”

Our duty is to discredit what the other side says as much as we can and to credit our position as much as we can. That and only that will give us the best shot at justice.

December 25, 2007 | 25 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

25 Comments / 25 Comments

  1. I am not implying anything, God forbid, but it’s so good to re-read this occasionally in this world of cowardly, simpering attitudes and platitudes:
    Patrick Henry Speech
    “Liberty or Death”

  2. Bill

    Ami complained that MEMRI left out the context. I merely said that I care about other issues more and went on to expand. I did not say that “the context of ami’s position is not important”. I did not refer to it all.

    I have no information as to where he posted on this.

  3. Ted, Ami’s position on the issue of Sari Nusseibeh views is not clear from the foregoing.

    You report that Ami wrote to tell you that he had been forced by you against his better judgment to write publicly that:

    you are encouraging a forum of extremists, and pandering to a narrow group of right-wing Zionist supporters. You are not recruiting any neutrals to the cause of Israel or convincing any of them.

    Why not provide the link to his public statement in that regard.

    Further, while you say that context of Ami’s position is not important, it is difficult to understand what either of you are saying without providing context.

    While Ami for whatever reason does not want his private discussions with you disclosed, perhaps you could prevail upon him to provide us with the links to those articles he has written that he feels germain to this discussion.

  4. Israel’s given a lot of land and blood in exchange for…… nothing!

    I think that someone in this forum has already said that Israel is the only country that has been victorious in war and has given back land to the losers (losers who just happened to be the aggressors as well).

    The Sinai was perhaps the most egregious example of giving so much for so little. The Sinai could logically have been a suitable home for the Palestinians – too bad the Egyptians don’t think so. I believe that if Israel still had the Sinai today, the Palestinian Arabs would have had a country to by now.

    It seems that the land for peace option has placated some nations such as Jordan and Egypt but the terrorism, the root cause of the problem, is given backing by these countries (in lieu of direct warfare). If a deal were now made with Fatah or Hamas or Hezbollah you can bet that they would take the land, change the name of their terror groups and then work the hudna until Israel were so small that it could not be defended.

    There is a view by certain people that land does not matter. I am not sure how stupid one can be to think this. Even environmentalists know that a certain amount of land is needed to sustain a population of any animal, and that includes man. One might be correct in saying that modern warfare does not respect borders, and that is true. However, that only increases the need for Israel to keep the first strike option open so that such a small country does not fall prey to countries like Iran and Syria that have no compunction about striking first. Their reasons for striking first are not because they fear Israel will strike them, it is because Israel is an entity that they cannot live with according to their religious beliefs. Israel is concerned about security of their land and people, the Muslims are concerned about the ethnic and religious purity of their future Caliphate.

  5. If the Saudis have their own way with their plan, Israel will look like this, the Saudi apartheid state as it is today:

    Ami has picked up on just one little omission from MEMRI, but as I previously stated, it wasn’t MEMRI who made up the words that came from Nusseibehs mouth:

    No Jew in the world, now or in the future, as a result of this document, will have the right to return, to live, or to demand to live in Hebron, in East Jerusalem, or anywhere in the Palestinian state.

    He must have been quoting someone… and these aren’t the sort of words that could possibly be misconstrued as being out of context.

    In Ami’s accusations, he’s insinuating these words are so out of context that they could be attributed to someone talking about “peace” or how much they actually like the Jewish people.

    And as for Charles Enderlin, which he’s so busy comparing the MEMRI clip to, there were 9 minutes of the film missing from the original 27 minutes that Enderlin was asked to produce to the Court. The actual clip transmitted to the public on France2 was 55 seconds. See this report.

    We fight the lies with the truth, backed up by facts, but the problem is that too few people really see the Arabs’ end game, and know nothing of taqiyya.

    If they really wanted dialogue and fair dealings, they’ve had their chances. Israel’s given a lot of land and blood in exchange for…… nothing! We can hope and pray that one day there will be peace, but at present, just look at the history of “peace” talks, and see how many lives it has cost. Look at the antisemitic rhetoric coming from the Islamic states that’s certainly no different to that of the Nazis 1938… and be realistic.

    How do you make a real and lasting peace with someone who wants you dead?

  6. Gary well put! I like you more with ea new comment. Peace was never a Zionist goal or ethos that is not to say that we do not want peace or value it but that was never a driving concept of the Zionist movement. The Zionist movement was a movement of National Liberation period. Peace is not a commodity that can or should be bought and paid for as then it would have no intrinsic value other than the absence of war, which is always transitory.

  7. “Meanwhile, you are encouraging a forum of extremists, and pandering to a narrow group of right-wing Zionist supporters. You are not recruiting any neutrals to the cause of Israel or convincing any of them”.

    For many years, people in this forum whom you have labeled, “extremists,” have given the Arabs every chance to make peace. I recall wishing and hoping after each and every war that peace would now be possible – but I was wrong and perhaps you were wrong too. Every step of the way the Arabs have defied the Israelis, defied the world community, and defied their own people. They worship the god of terror and use violence to make their points and promote their jihad. There is no room for peace in their hearts and no solution that differs very much from the Nazi final solution.

    The fact that the ME is now a much more dangerous place is not Israel’s fault. The people in this forum come from a wide range of backgrounds and experience but the one idea that they generally agree upon is that peace is not possible without some significant changes in the attitudes and mindset of the Arab nations and the Muslim world in general.

    You know and the Arabs know that a change in their own attitudes with a reasonable accommodation that involves land and material contributions from the Arab countries as well as Israel will result in peace – Israel does not want war, only the Arabs want war and they are using the constant threat to Israel’s existence and a huge buildup of their arsenals of WMD, conventional and nuclear weapons to make their point very clear. We must not weaken our own resolve by sympathizing with their cause before they have had a chance to come to their senses and be human and reasonable. After all, what the hell do they want with so much land, resources and backing? It is 1.2 billion to 7 million – what the hell is their problem?

    “Mr. Enderlin edited out a few minutes of his Al-Dura film. Just about 8 minutes! On that basis, he was able to start an Intifada that killed a thousand Israelis. MEMRI shows us a clip that has been edited far more intensively”.

    That is exactly what differentiates the Arabs from the Jews – the Arab leadership will do anything and everything to contribute to the propaganda that makes violence (Intifada) its first option. Israel does not wage violence based on Propaganda – it waits for the bombs to fall and it never has to wait too long for that to happen. This is an ideological and a religious struggle – the Muslims have defined it as such.

    Israelis, hardened to the Pals’ lies and abuse, are only concerned about what the Arabs do not what they say. The fact that one more academic has proposes a Nazi-style government and Shari’ia law with Jew-free land is nothing new. Every Arab country currently refuses to have Jews and, if they do, they tend to have have dhimmi status at best. One cannot even travel to Arab lands en route through Israel without the risk of being jailed and tortured. Now if that isn’t in the Nazi tradition, then what is?

  8. Ami starts with the assumption that the Saudi Plan is good for Israel. I have the opposite opinion. He fights for his beliefs, I fight for mine. But he calls me the extremist.

    Or he says we have no choice but to go along with the world. He may be right in this but I am not willing to concede it. I believe there is another way.

    As for the MEMRI clip, the issue is not whether it was truncated but rather whether it was done so, to distort truth as was done by Enderlin. Thus there is no comparison.

    Ami wants me to support a two state solution to show Zionism is reasonable. I have written that I would accept a two state solution but not on the Saudi terms. I want a two state plan where Israel retains all the settlements and Jerusalem. So now what?

    He may think this is unreasonable. If so he will have to argue how he determines reasonableness.

    To make my point I wrote The Arabs should make a better offer.

  9. Ted, I agree that we have no responsibility to make the case for the other side. However, and Ami clearly goes much further than this, we should be as accurate about our case as possible. Asking MEMRI to fix the clip doesn’t change the racist nature of Nusseibeh’s remarks. It does, however, shield us from accusations of foul play.

  10. Ami writes I “blackened the name of Zionism as an evil militarist plot.” I think not. When Bush or any other leader says the military option is on the table in dealing with Iran, he and they are acknowledging that if diplomacy fails we still have the military option. Only the left takes it off the table. This is counter productive to negotiations.

    The same for Israel. The left by arguing there is no military solution leave us no option but to accept what the Arabs are offering.

    So I put it there in response to the Left saying otherwise. I wanted to undo the damage.

    Furthermore I am an optimist. I am not prepared to accept whatever is given us. Thus I suggest an alternative
    to the Saudi Plan which I don’t think is fair to Israel. I propose that Israel end the peace process and execute a plan that results in Israel sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

    Ami writes,

    Meanwhile, you are encouraging a forum of extremists, and pandering to a narrow group of right-wing Zionist supporters. You are not recruiting any neutrals to the cause of Israel or convincing any of them.

    Quite the contrary the center in Israel is shifting to my camp. It is not extreme in the least. It is realistic. It recognizes that the Arabs will not compromise and really make peace with us and therefore other solutions must be found. A significant majority of Jews in Israel support my views rather than the Saudi Plan.

    Ami should welcome my views as contributing to the debate. Let the people decide. But no, he prefers to shut me down on the theory that I am harming his the image of Zionism as reasonable. I am not sensitive to Israel being accused of being fascist. We must do what we have to do.

  11. Ami Isseroff writes

    To Ted

    Baruch atah adonai eloheinu, shehechiyanu, vekimanu vehigiyanu layom hazeh. Amen

    As my mother used to say, “Az me lebt derlebt men.”

    Meanwhile, in all the years that it was up, you blackened the name of Zionism as an evil militarist plot. And you have left “There is no diplomatic solution” which implies the same thing.

    Herzl’s political Zionism said “There is only a diplomatic solution.” Israel did not come into being because of the military might of the Haganah or the Irgun. We could’ve blown up British soldiers from now until doomsday. Without moral support, we would never have had a state. The Americans would have sent 3 divisions and that would be the end of the Hagganah and the Irgun and the Lehi and our whole Mickey Mouse outfit in 1948.

    And the Americans could have stopped us in 1967 had they wanted to. They even had a plan to do it. If Israel becomes so extreme that even the US cannot support it, we are through.

    There will be a diplomatic solution, when we convince the other side of the need for such a solution.

    Why not write “Two states for two peoples” – just as unpalatable to the Arab extremists? It is what we accepted in 1948, and it is the official policy of the Israeli government – under Sharon and Barak and Olmert.

    Meanwhile, you are encouraging a forum of extremists, and pandering to a narrow group of right-wing Zionist supporters. You are not recruiting any neutrals to the cause of Israel or convincing any of them.

    I have already written the following publicly, because you forced me to do so against my better judgement:
    Meanwhile, you have come out in favor of MEMRI’s cut-up film, pulling the rug out from our case against Charles Enderlin. He also likes edited films. If that is your ethics, you cannot complain when the other side does it.


  12. From: Ted Belman
    To: ‘Ami Isseroff’

    Subject: There is only a military solution

    I have removed this slogan although the reason I put it there in the first place was to counter the Left’s slogan or belief “There is no military solution.”

    I believe their slogan is harmful. It necessitates a diplomatic solution when there are none in my opinion.

  13. I removed all of Ami’s correspondence except the quote that I wanted to address. The context of Nusseibeh’s remarks is of no interest to me. Nor is debating the conduct of Nusseibeh.

    What interests me, is the issue of whether or not advocates of Israel should abandon advocacy for the role of Judge. Should we be making the case for the other side? I say not.

    As for truth, I am not an advocate in telling lies, though some think that we should do what ever it takes. Remember a lie travels half way around the world before the truth gets out of bed. But I believe our credibility is more important. I think we should tell the truth. But I don’t think we should accept responsibility as the IDF constantly does before it is known that we are really responsible.

    It is another thing entirely when our opponents say or do anything that allows us to run with it. We should milk it for all its worth and let our enemies scramble to explain if they so wish. We shouldn’t be doing it for them.

    Nor should we admit to any rights for the Arabs. Our job is to promote our rights. I am against lending support for their narrative or claims to rights. Let them make their own case.

  14. Ami, I do get some articles into the British newspapers, which is an exceptionally hard task these days, because most of them are indoctrinated with anti-Israel propaganda.

    I was just wondering if you’ve managed to get your quotes or articles into the mainstream global news?

    I admit I’ve never heard of your websites, but do know Camera and Honest Reporting.

    There’s a lot of blogs and messageboards, but it takes groups of well-coordinated, like minded people to get the truth into the media.

    We still see comments in the UK mainstream media referring to the Jenin “massacre”. How do you get up and tell 60 million people that there was no massacre?

    Answers on a postcard please.

  15. Ted, I happen to agree with Yamit.

    Many years ago, I was told by my parents, never to forget the hardships, persecution and murder the Jews went through in Poland, Egypt, Persia, Syria, Germany, France, Britain, Russia, etc…

    History has a knack of repeating itself… and it will again.

    We had enough self-haters then, and we have them now.

    It’s war, so do you fight your enemy, or ask them to have tea and biscuits, while they’re firing their rifles at you?

  16. Ted has chosen to make public private correspondence which is not helpful to the cause of Israel advocacy. I requested that this entire article be removed – the article, and the comments reveal that most Israel advocates see nothing wrong with making dubious claims based on dubious material quoted out of context. That doesn’t look good for Israel. Instead of removing the article, Ted removed only most of my comments, leaving a few remarks quoted without much context.

    Showing creatively “edited” films, quoting out of context and inventing material are cheap tricks we should leave to the enemy. We have to be careful to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If we believe in our cause, we should not be afraid of the truth. If Nusseibeh really wants Taibeh and Yaffo in the Palestinian state or wants a state that excludes Jews, then that will be evident when MEMRI shows the uncut film. How bitterly we complained that Mr. Enderlin edited out a few minutes of his Al-Dura film. Just about 8 minutes! On that basis, he was able to start an Intifada that killed a thousand Israelis. MEMRI shows us a clip that has been edited far more intensively. You have no scruples in using this for a crusade, without bothering to check with Nusseibeh or to view the uncut film. You are making a Zionist Muhamed Al Dura, like Enderlin. How can we complain about Enderlin, if we are quite happy to do the same thing?

    J. Posts wrote:

    Is Ami Isseroff doing anything to redress the balance in the mainstream global media or in the Arab media? I’ve not noticed anything.

    If Mr (or Ms.) J. Posts has not noticed the literally hundreds of articles I have written about media bias and Zionist advocacy at Zionation , exposing Pallywood films and spreading the word about hoaxes, or the other material debunking fake Zionist quotes, it is the problem of the hon. Jerusalem Posts esquire, brave warrior for truth. That’s a funny name by the way. Did your parents really name you “Jerusalem?” A good Zionist name.

    I thought “Ami” was a funny name – at least when I lived in USA it was. Or is it a pseudonym for a pseudo-Zionist? Perhaps the need to hide behind a pseudonym is indicative of a paranoid or devious psychology or the fact that you could not look up my name in Google before making your silly statement is indicative of what? Other than writing inane comments under a pseudonym and badmouthing people, what did you do to redress media bias?

    Doing Zionist advocacy is thankless work. I spent 2 years of my life building Zionism and Israel and trying to get others to be active in a responsible way in combating anti-Zionism, recruiting friends from Holland and Britain and around the world. All of it done by everyone without a dime of remuneration. Why? So that web ikliterate “critics” who hide behind pseudonyms can call me a dhimmi.

    What is your great claim to defend the fatherland and advance the fortunes of the Jewish people, that gives you the right to pen drivel about dhimmis?

    Ami Isseroff

  17. It would be better still if the case were honestly reported from both sides.

    And the sin of omission is as bad as deception… as we’ve seen with the videotapes.

    We’ve far more enemies than friends, and those fence sitters are bombarded in the mainstream media by the pro-Palestinian efforts of the media.

    Yes of course there’s right and wrong, and there’s truth and justice, but in the middle east, how much truth and justice have we actually seen coming from the Palestinian side? How much honesty have we seen coming from their side?

    They’ve been very honest when they tell us they want to exterminate Israelis and that all of Israel is Palestine!

    What more do people want? To fight FOR the Palestinians to obliterate Israel?

    There were German Jews doing what they thought was the “right” thing in Germany, by not telling the truth of the death camps… see what happened.

    If you have an enemy, you have to be able to defeat him at his own game.

  18. Ted its your site. With re; to your opinion that

    He has Israel’s interests at heart. That’s what really matters. The fact that he believes that Israel’s interests necessitate that it make the best deal possible does not take him beyond the pale.

    What was that canard that the road to Hell was paid with good intentions? Most of us agree and can prove the the Pali Arabs are a continuation of Nazism in our time. Then what does one say and do with those Jews or Gentiles that support same? Anyone who supports my enemy that is trying to kill me as far as I am concerned ;to my mind places himself beyond the pale and becomes fair game.

    Is there any basic differences between Isseroff and those supporters of same world view and the Quisling French under Petan? We are not playing some theoretical academic game here . Lives are at stake , lives have been lost and lives will be lost . The Isseroffs give in their own way aid and comfort to a vicious and determined enemy, weaken others resolve and belief in the justice of our existence not only here but anywhere. Ok I have now said in many words what the one you deleted would have said in a single word. No hard feelings here!

  19. It’s not about the world really, it’s about right and wrong. There is no need to lie to state our case- it is moral and righteous in its own right. Nonetheless, those who hate us always will, those who love us always will. It is those on the fence we need to reach. And to those on the fence, may be put off by such behavior.

  20. oops… hit the wrong button…

    So can Isseroff tell us who Nusseibeh was quoting, or were these his own words? Whatever the result, it’s still a racist and antisemitic statement, for which there is NO EXCUSE!

    Is Ami Isseroff doing anything to redress the balance in the mainstream global media or in the Arab media? I’ve not noticed anything.

    However, I do think that Isseroff is suffering from the same psychology that that Livni exhibited when she refused to allow the tapes of the Egyptians helping the Palestinians with their arms smuggling. It’s a typical dhimmi mindset… covering up for the enemy to your own detriment.

    If the psychology of this type of dhimmi Israeli doesn’t change, then they’re in for a harsh reality check when the next war breaks out. And if it’s anything like the debacle in Lebanon last year. Israel will lose.

    Let’s hope they wake up before it’s too late.

  21. There were German Jews who took the same stand as Ami Isseroff regarding Goebbels antisemitic propaganda… and we all know what happened in the end!

    In the global mainstream media, the Arabs are still producing some vile, antisemitic material, much of it coming from the PA and Hamas. The rest of the world follows suit, by telling us how big and bad Israel is, and how the Palestinians are the poor, hard done by people. They still talk about the “occupation” of Gaza, even though Israel let and the Gazans could have had their own, fruitful state by now. They chose instead to follow the path of violence and still want to eliminate the State of Israel.

    The latest we saw from the PA was a map of the area with no Israel. Let’s face it, the Palestinians learnt well from the Nazis.

    As far as I was aware, Nusseibeh said:

    The Israelis now living in the territories of the future Palestinian state should return to living within the borders of the state of Israel.
    No Jew in the world, now or in the future, as a result of this document, will have the right to return, to live, or to demand to live in Hebron, in East Jerusalem, or anywhere in the Palestinian state.

    So can Isseroff tell us who Nusseibeh was quoting, or were these his own words? Whatever the result, it’s still a racist and antisemitic statement, for which there is

  22. Yamit

    I removed you disparaging remark about Isseroff. He has Israel’s interests at heart. That’s what really matters. The fact that he believes that Israel’s interests necessitate that it make the best deal possible does not take him beyond the pale.

  23. When we catch then cold both our enemies Arab and Jew cry foul; Play by the rules Jew! of course they seem to always be making the rules and always to their advantage!

    I have a cartoon buried somewhere depicting a Jew buried up to his neck in the Roman Arena waiting for the starving Lion to tearm him to bits. When the Lion does approach the Jew bites the Lion on the foot and the Lion runs scream from the Jew. The crows in Unison Yell Jew Fight Fair, Jew Fight Fair

    There are only two kinds of Arabs: SMART ONES AND DUMB ONES: the smart ones tell you what you want to hear! The Dumb tell you what they really think!

  24. Perhaps there is a bit of confusion here, as both Ami and Ted have good points. However, their points are relevant to different aspects of the issue. What Nusseibeh said is flat out racist, and thus deserves no defending on that front. However, in the context of his statement, Nusseibeh clearly did not mean to include Jaffe in his future Palestinian state. Inaccurately portrayed him is, as Ami said, clearly wrong. What he said is reprehensible enough, without us adding to it.

    But, in a more utilitarian light, as Ami also said, people recognize when others are being fair, and also when they going out of their way to damn. Thus, the point here, is simply what did Nusseibeh actually say. Conflating the matter beyond what it is will not gain any support, except from the choir. They have already ‘bought their bill of goods’ However, those on the fences may run despite Nusseibeh overtly disgusting remarks, simply because our side reeks of foul play.

Comments are closed.