To begin with, Ms. Freeman takes her turning beating the dead horse that is the Mamilla Cemetery controversy. Citing a Youtube video as her source, she continues to push the lie that Israel is destroying a cemetery to build the Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance, even though it was debunked months ago. But fortunately she doesn't stick to it very long, only showing it as "an irony that exemplifies the conundrum." I prefer to think of it as a half truth that sets the tone for an article as a whole.
From there she talks about Obama (of course) and how he didn't immediately take the Palestinian side in everything (of course) before proceeding to a ridiculous rewrite of history:
"The people of Palestine have undergone centuries of external pressure if not always occupation -- from the Israelite, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Iraqi, Egyptian, Turkish and British forces to name a few -- and history has proved that, when push came to shove, the Palestinian voice was repeatedly silenced. Nobody asked them for their thoughts when Theodor Hertzl advocated for a Jewish State.."Quick question. Who exactly does Ms. Freeman think "the Palestinians" are? Is she not aware that they are the descendants of the Arab armies who invaded in the 700s? Because they are, and will proudly tell you of their brotherhood with their fellow Arabs. So as usual it is ironic that she says the Israelites "occupied Palestine" before it even was Palestine, and therefore occupied the Palestinian Arabs, even though there were no Palestinian Arabs there to occupy. Her writing indicates a level of ignorance or a level of dishonesty that is unusual even by Huffington Post standards.
So having rewritten history to fit the Palestinian narrative of "helpless silenced victims," and by justifying Palestinian terrorism because of what "Zionists" did decades ago, she then launches into full on victim mode:
"In 1963 the PLO constitution was drafted at a summit of Arab states in Cairo, although it took another 11 years for the UN and the Arab League to recognize the PLO as the sole representative of the people of Palestine. In 1967 the work of the Zionists was done with the complete occupation of the rest of Palestine."The reference to the people of Israel as "the Zionists" continues throughout the whole article by the way. So notice how she doesn't tell us inconvenient facts about the PLO in 1963: Namely that they didn't consider the West Bank and Gaza to be "Palestine" but only Israel was "Palestine." But then in her next sentence we see that not only does she fully swallow that Israel wanted to conquer the West Bank all along, but that Israel itself is an occupation. This seems to be confirmed elsewhere in the article where she declares that " In other words, Israel is really the Palestinians' country. Not seeing much daylight here between what Ms. Freeman is saying and what a Hamas propagandist might say.
Her anti-Israel rant continues with more one sided history. The "Zionism is racism" resolution in the UN is mentioned without condemnation or comment, but its renunciation is not. Sabra and Shantila is mentioned but the role of the Christian Phalange is not. And of course she blames the Second Intifada entirely on Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, even though history has clearly proven what Ms. Freeman would find to be an inconvenient truth. Keep reading, because it gets worse.
Even though Ms. Freeman obviously thinks that Israel shouldn't exist, she's not that extreme:
"Israel has a right to exist. Not because there is agreement that the foundation of that nation was right, but because time moves forward, not backwards. Unless we are thinking about returning all the national treasures plundered by the British Commonwealth from all the countries it colonized, unless we are talking about taking the influence of France out of the continent of Africa...we cannot talk about an absence of the nation of Israel."Translation: "I don't think Israel should exist but its unrealistic to expect it not to do so." Too bad her Palestinian friends often don't agree with the last part of that sentence. But fortunately she gets back in their good graces by continuing to push the one sided narrative that it is the Palestinians alone who have been the victims of injustice, have lost property, and have to live in a dangerous area. She does provide lip service to Israeli fears of violence, but lip service is pretty much all it is.
She finishes by giving America a big middle finger:
"In 2009, a small island nation called Sri Lanka [where the author is from fyi] told the United States where it could put its money and its rhetoric, ended 30 years of war and now, in a state of peace, and with the aid of China, boasts a thriving economy that rivals that of America. Palestine, too, has friends in other places. It can and will do the same. It will achieve statehood and, in time, peace with Israel. And people around the world will no longer care who wins the American presidential elections."Oh Sri Lanka? Do you mean the nation that just finished a civil war in which more people died than Arabs and Jews put together? The nation that has been accused of state terrorism and in which human rights continues to be a joke? Sure Ms. Freeman, you go and compare Palestine with Sri Lanka. You do that. Maybe then your homeland will finally come out ahead.