Brits Try To Hide Disdain For Jewish State, Fail
You know how not every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic? What about a hypocritical focus on Israeli tactics that are both justifiable (if not necessarily justified) and don't come anywhere close to the level of what's done in other countries? Then is it OK to call it anti-Semitism?
This is infuriating in its gall and rank hypocrisy:
Members of the British parliament's Select Committee on International Development have called on the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair to consider "economic pressure on Israel to ease movement restrictions which are crippling the Palestinian economy and causing soaring poverty."
Remember - this is a government that supports continuing to fund Yasser Arafat, who either gives the money to terrorists (which is what necessitates the movement restrictions - because the Palestinians then try to smuggle those weapons in ambulances and hide them in holy places that Israel doesn't have access to once they get there) or keeps the money for himself (which is what causes the soaring poverty).
It would be slightly (but only slightly) less infuriating if the Brits' claim was in any way coherent:
The authors of the report stressed that, although they are "highly sympathetic to Israeli safety concerns - it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a deliberate Israeli approach of putting the lives of ordinary Palestinians under stress as part of a strategy to bring the population to heel. Certain security measures, including the construction of the security barrier and movement restrictions imposed on Palestinians, are completely undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state."
First, let's be clear: they're not sympathetic to Israel's safety concerns. But even if they were, the security fence does not undermine the viability of a future Palestinian state (seriously, ideology aside, I don't know how people can reasonably argue that separation undermines Palestinian independence - which is of course why this claim is often asserted but rarely explained). And even if it did, undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state has nothing to do with the "soaring rate of poverty" that Palestinians currently suffer. It's like they don't even have to make arguments any more - they just get to say security fence and movement restrictions and that automatically is the cause of every ill experienced by every disenfranchised group in the world. I'm waiting for the editorial that blames the trampling in Saudi Arabia on the security fence for inflaming Islamist passion. Has Tom Friedman decided on his column for this week yet?
This is infuriating in its gall and rank hypocrisy:
Members of the British parliament's Select Committee on International Development have called on the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair to consider "economic pressure on Israel to ease movement restrictions which are crippling the Palestinian economy and causing soaring poverty."
Remember - this is a government that supports continuing to fund Yasser Arafat, who either gives the money to terrorists (which is what necessitates the movement restrictions - because the Palestinians then try to smuggle those weapons in ambulances and hide them in holy places that Israel doesn't have access to once they get there) or keeps the money for himself (which is what causes the soaring poverty).
It would be slightly (but only slightly) less infuriating if the Brits' claim was in any way coherent:
The authors of the report stressed that, although they are "highly sympathetic to Israeli safety concerns - it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a deliberate Israeli approach of putting the lives of ordinary Palestinians under stress as part of a strategy to bring the population to heel. Certain security measures, including the construction of the security barrier and movement restrictions imposed on Palestinians, are completely undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state."
First, let's be clear: they're not sympathetic to Israel's safety concerns. But even if they were, the security fence does not undermine the viability of a future Palestinian state (seriously, ideology aside, I don't know how people can reasonably argue that separation undermines Palestinian independence - which is of course why this claim is often asserted but rarely explained). And even if it did, undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state has nothing to do with the "soaring rate of poverty" that Palestinians currently suffer. It's like they don't even have to make arguments any more - they just get to say security fence and movement restrictions and that automatically is the cause of every ill experienced by every disenfranchised group in the world. I'm waiting for the editorial that blames the trampling in Saudi Arabia on the security fence for inflaming Islamist passion. Has Tom Friedman decided on his column for this week yet?
