Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Sharmine Narwani and Palestinian Hubris

[This is the second half of my response to Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani's latest article on the Huffington Post.]

If you were reading the first part, we are at the place where Ms. Narwani does the usual Hamas strategy of threats: If you don't give the Palestinains want they want (i.e. ethnic cleansing the settlers) then they will start killing people. What we also see the endless Palestinian card: That of boycotts. She tries really hard to convince her audience that because there are racist people in Israel now is the time to do it. I wanted to focus on two paragraphs in particular. Here is the first:
"The PA warned last week that it will take the issue of Israel's illegal settlement activity to the UN Security Council, where surely a half dozen or so dusty resolutions on the subject already exist, awaiting a time when the Security Council puts its full weight behind the enforcement of these rulings. Having already used its authority to justify a war in Iraq, authorize four rounds of sanctions against Iran and fund an ill-conceived investigation into the death of a former Lebanese PM, the Security Council will be hard pressed to ignore its own resolutions on the illegal Jewish settlements."
Oh, isn't it just so precious? Ms. Narwani seriously thinks that the Security Council aren't hypocrites! Wake up, Dignity Rockets! Of course they are, including America! Why do you think that nothing ever happened to save the victims of the genocide in Darfur? Because Sudan is protected by China, a UNSC member! And do you know who has vetoed the most UNSC resolutions? Russia. America and Britain can basically do whatever they want, including invading Iraq, and they aren't going to bend over backwards to help the Palestinians just because they are too racist to let Jews live in their state. Especially when the Palestinians just gave the middle finger to America (remember that?).

And here is the second:
"Settlements first. If the UNSC can do its magic without the interference of a US veto, "de-settling" the West Bank may be the first step toward a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. Boycott, sanctions, divestment or NATO forces -- whatever it takes to get those settlers out and recognize an independent Palestinian state. This is a scenario where Israel will be required to act according to international law or suffer the consequences. The way we did it in Iraq. But legitimately, this time."
It's so precious, isn't it? This is a perfect example of what I call Palestinian hubris: They are used to getting their way with the United Nations because they have been for long. Because they have, they think that all they need to do is click their fingers and the entire world will just jump to their beck and call. This makes it easy for people like Ms. Narwani to construct elaborate dreams of the entire world united against Israel for the purposes of wiping it out. And that dream can remain: Just as long as they never try to put it into action and see how it does.

I have bad news for you, Ms. Narwani. NATO is not going to be invading Israel over settlements, or for any other reason. They just won't, even if they weren't already bogged down in two wars elsewhere. As much as the Palestinians like to scream and cry about the settlements, they are not a crime against humanity. NATO will just tell them to redraw the borders or make the settlers citizens of Palestine. To make a comparison: AIPAC can probably lobby the American congress into declaring Hamas a terrorist organization. They might even be able to convince them to let Israel blockade Gaza. But they can't convince America to invade Gaza and throw Hamas out. Why? Because it isn't America's problem, and they won't put troops at risk when Israel is perfectly capable of doing it themselves.

Which is why Narwani's example above is Palestinian hubris at its finest: They think that because they could get the UNGA to declare that Zionism is racism all they need to do is get some more of their people killed and some UNSC angel will come down from the sky and solve all their problems for them. The sooner the Palestinians (and Ms. Narwani) face the facts that they will actually need to give something up for there to be peace the sooner everything will resolve itself. But it sounds like our friend in the Huffington Post is determined to make sure that doesn't happen.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where she calls for Israel's destruction! That's below the break.

After all Ms. Narwani has complained about the settlements (and she has complained a lot) by the last quarter of her article she make sit clear that she believes that the issue is not in fact territory (despite her own words at the beginning of the article) but that Israel exists as a Jewish state:
"But this is a different world, and this would be a "back to the future" occupation. An apartheid-style state occupying Palestine cannot survive in 21st century global politics where the only thing we know what to do with Apatheid [sic] is.. .dismantle it. And so the second solution -- again, one that has developed quite organically - presents itself. A single state where Jews, Christians and Muslims live as equals under the law."
I don't know why I am even commenting on this, seeing as how she says the same thing in every article, but it's worth repeating: In her hypothetical scenario, the Palestinians have already declared statehood and been fighting the settlers and the IDF for a while. The problem is that the two states are now at war: Israel is occupying Palestine. I mean, that is what she says, it's only right there in her paragraph. And any elementary law school student will tell you that one state occupying another is not apartheid and never will be. Unless the Palestinians succeed in changing that definition to suit them as well. 

Let's conclude with the usual false choice:
"Israel has one of two choices to make right now: remove all Jewish settlements from occupied territories and withdraw behind 1967 lines, or prepare for co-existence in One State, where all residents are equal under the law."
Hey, I have two more options: The Palestinians agree to redraw the boundaries or allow Jews to be citizens in their not-apartheid-at-all state of Palestine. Guess which plan has the support of the international community, Ms. Narwani? Not yours! But we have known for a long time that asking the Palestinians to give up anything, even a Judenrein state, is verboten to Sharmine Narwani and her very moderate supporters on the Huffington Post. Still, it's always informative to see just how far she will go.


  1. Great work. Keep it up and best wishes for 2011!

  2. Sharmine Narwani is living in a dream world in which the Palestinians will get everything they want. Sorry but such a world doesn't exist and when the Palestinian Arabs were the majority in Eretz Israel for slightly half of the 20th Century, they rejected any compromise that would given them a life of dignity and freedom and there would probably have been no Israel today. But they had to insist on everything or nothing and they ended up with nothing. When they're in a much weaker position today, their rejectionism is not paying them any dividends and what Narwani and her ilk will ensure is they will never see the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.