Friday, September 7, 2012

Kelly Clark's Pointing Finger (Part 1)

A blogger by the androgynous name of Kelly Clark (just kidding, it's actually Kelly James Clark) has written an article about what he considers to be "the Most Important Political Issue of Our Day." Do you think it's unemployment? No. Education? No. Poverty? Heck no. What about the debt? Negative. Science? You wish. The rise of China? Naah. The preservation of American democracy? No thanks. Global warming? Forget it. 

Nope, the most important issue of our day is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And Mr. Clark makes it clear right from the start that he's "Palestine's man" all the way. He even preempts criticism that this is an important issue by saying that if you don't consider this issue to be important, you're too egotistic!
"Of course, if you were a Palestinian living in the Occupied Territories, you would be aware of the most important political issue of our day. You would be living under occupation, denied basic human rights, limited in your freedoms, cut off from family and friends, living in fear and lacking economic hope. And you would think that your impoverished and subhuman conditions were supported by the world superpower dedicated, in principal but not in practice, to freedom and freedom. You would wonder, not without reason, if the world superpower's commitment to freedom is just a useful fiction."
Yeah, except that 99.99% of the Huffington Posts' readership are not Palestinians, despite how it may appear on the Israel threads. We're Americans, and many of the Israel haters often hypocritically demand that we only care about America and no other countries. But this is a good paragraph just because we see Mr. Clark's biases right on display, he doesn't even try to hide them. No one is suffering more than the Palestinians, their suffering is in no possible way a predictable consequence of their own actions, and America is the one to blame. Notice further how Mr. Clark doesn't appear to mind speaking for the Palestinians, without even bothering to cite a source showing where their priorities are. Which is ironic because just the other day there were protests against Fayyad for not getting his act together vis a vis the economy. You remember, Fayyad, the poster boy for "peaceful Palestinians."

After this Mr. Clark explains that 9/11 happened because of America's support for Israel's "occupation," in his usual backhanded way of course, and that that same support is the only reason why Islamic terrorism exists. He also doesn't mention that Al Qaeda still enjoys the most support in the Palestinian territories, along with any other facts that might not fit the narrative.

This next bit is awesome. He assumes that we agree with him that this is the most important issue (we don't) but says that his critics would say he should offer solutions. Check out the first part of his answer (emphasis mine):
"We all know the problems. How can Israel safely remain a Jewish state if it grants equal rights to Arabs (who might later become the majority)? How can tiny Israel hope to remain safe and secure if the Occupied Territories no longer serve as a buffer between them and the vast and armed Arab nations? How can Israel negotiate with people who refuse to acknowledge its right to exist? Enough with the problems."
Um, yeah. "Enough with the problems" isn't going to cut it when you're sitting in an ivory tower six thousand miles away from the people who would actually suffer and die should your moronic ideas go sideways. "Enough with the problems" was the attitude during the Oslo Accords and we all know how well that ended.

The bias shines through here as well. Israel already grants equal rights to Arabs and it is a Jewish state. Maybe Mr. Clark was going for the "equal rights to the Arabs in the OTs" point but he didn't say that and it is quite a different discussion. Furthermore, Israel isn't saying that they need the OTs as a buffer between them and potential Arab armies, though that is a possible concern. They are saying the problem is rocket attacks from the West Bank mirroring the ones coming out of Gaza. But as usual, Mr. Clark can't be bothered to listen to legitimate points about what's wrong with his argument, so he pretends they don't exist.

But ready? Here's his big solution:
"1. Get both sides to agree to binding arbitration. 2. Let the arbitrators arbitrate.3. Implement the agreement.
Voila, peace in Palestine."

Wow. What a genius. No one ever could have thought of such a brilliant solution without Mr. Clark's wisdom being handed down to us like the Ten Commandments.  I will note that he says "peace in Palestine" not "peace in Israel," which is informative, and because we're about to take a break, let me bullet everything that's wrong with this plan.

-Which "sides" are we talking about. Who will represent the Palestinians. Hamas or Fatah?
-If Hamas, are you aware they have no intention of making any peace agreement with Israel? I know he does because he admits as much later in the article. If the PLO, do they have the backing of the Palestinian people?
-Which arbitrators are we talking about? America? You just spent the past two paragraphs bashing America's role in this issue. And no one else can do it, as Aaron David Miller has pointed out.
-What about the red line issues: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, right to exist? Do you have any thoughts?

No, he doesn't. Because the only thinking he's actually done about this issue is "the lives of Palestinians are bad" and "America is too pro-Israel." Seriously, there is absolutely no new information or insights contained within this article. I'm a humble blogger, not hired by the Huffington Post, but even I know more about what's going on than he does.

And in the next part, we will see just how much he can embarrass himself.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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.