Perspective: Fayyadism is not Authoritarianism

-

This is a guest note by Fadi Elsalameen, managing director of Palestine Note. Elsalameen shares this post with us from Ramallah where he is today.
fayyad.jpgFayyadism is not Authoritarianism
In Nathan J. Brown’s recent commentary published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Brown accuses Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of authoritarianism and says his governance has failed to ensure democracy and institution building.
Brown argues that, “what Fayyad has managed to do is to maintain many of the institutions built earlier and make a few of them more efficient. But he has done so in an authoritarian context that robs the results of domestic legitimacy.”
Brown describes disorder in the Bar Association and the Teachers Union as failures in two major institutional areas: the rule of law and the educational system. He concludes: what Fayyad’s government claims to be institution building is in fact institution maintenance or revival.
So to follow Brown’s logic, if the Bar Association and the Teachers Union’s ills were cured, then Fayyad’s work would be what Brown would call institution building.
From what I know, in order to cure a body from an illness, one’s body needs “maintenance and revival,” and since Brown’s logic leads one to believe that if the “illness” is cured, institution building is accomplished, I can’t help but point out the obvious: Brown’s argument at best means Fayyad is in the middle of institution building, not at the end, and Fayyad himself never claimed that he has finished building Palestinian institutions.
Reading through the article, Brown fails to prove how Fayyad is an autocrat and in fact convinces me of the opposite. He shows that Salam Fayyad and his government have been steadily, if unevenly, building and maintaining Palestinian institutions and rule of the law.
Brown accuses Fayyad of not adding or naming a single new institution built under his government but rather maintained the institutions he inherited from Arafat and improved some of them. At the same time, Brown does not recommend or name one area where a new institution is needed.
Furthermore, Brown lays the blame on some vague structural problem that he does not name. But those problems have names, chief among them “occupation.” Faced with underlying problems from Fatah party politics, the split with Hamas, and the ubiquitous Israeli occupation, I would argue that it has been independent Fayyad’s leadership that has kept the Palestinian Authority functioning. Palestine is still in process, and Fayyad is working tirelessly to curtail corruption in the ministries to maintain the rule of law. Misuses and abuses are expected while the state is being built, but on the ground one can already see the fruits of Fayyad’s labors.
In front of my own eyes today, a fight broke out between two large families in the south of Hebron in the West bank. One of the family members was a policeman who used his gun in the fight. Within minutes the entire town was full of police, intelligence, detectives and Preventative Forces, and all offending parties were arrested, including the policeman who used his service weapon illegally. The police were on the scene after one call from a town resident.
I asked one of the detectives if there were other policemen coming and his answer was “we are waiting for an Israeli approval to allow two more units to join us from a neighboring town.” Brown never mentions the obstacles and difficulties posed by the Israeli occupation to Prime Minister Fayyad’s institution building.
And contrary to Brown’s argument of institutional rivalry, although representatives of each security apparatus were present at the fight, the police force took the lead in the investigation, and the rest acted as support. “There is no rivalry, everyone respects their role, if this was a terrorism issue, the Preventative Forces would take the lead in the investigation and the police would support,” one of the security members told me.
Therefore, contrary to what Brown argues, Fayyadism has more to show than international respect; it has local, visible Palestinian respect.
He says that the Fayyad government has shown spotty success and that most of its tenure has been a failure, but in fact from what he shows, there has been spotty failures and an overwhelming success.
Brown discusses the lack of progress in certain areas of the educational system, and attributes it to Fayyad’s governance. He fails to mention even once the enormous difficulties occupation puts in front of Palestinian education. I have known of teachers who were arrested by the Israelis from Area A and threatened with expulsion from the Palestinian Ministry of Education by alerting the Palestinian Authority that these individuals are posing a security risk and must be arrested.
Such Israeli actions undermine the legitimacy of any Palestinian-Israeli security cooperation and indicate that Israel can take advantage of the Palestinian split to undermine the Palestinian institution-building process.
To his credit, PM Fayyad personally answered a letter from a teacher in the southern Hebron area and issued instructions to the Ministry of Education to investigate a case where a school’s headmaster complained that the Ministry of Education demoted him based on accusations that he was linked to Hamas and therefore posed a security risk. Immediately, Fayyad asked the Ministry of Education to form a committee where everyone from the teacher to the head of the regional office of the Ministry of Education was investigated. The head of the school was restored in his previous position and certain individuals in the Ministry of Education were reprimanded based on the investigation’s results.
Contrary to Brown’s study, Fayyad is not an authoritarian. Fayyad is building a state, despite all difficulties and engaging all avenues, and he is not yet finished.
— Fadi Elsalameen

Comments

36 comments on “Perspective: Fayyadism is not Authoritarianism

  1. Dan Kervick says:

    “Why do you never talk about their stealing land?”
    My understanding is that the Turks have traditionally favored an independent Cypress, while some Greek Cypriot separatists have favored union with Greece.
    But no matter, for it is certainly true I do take much less interest in what is happening in Cypress than I take in Israel, just as I take much less interest in what is happening in dozens of other bedeviled parts of the world. The main reason for that is that most of these conflicts don’t have much of an impact on the United States, and don’t carry many consequences for me and mine. If we had a large and powerful Turkish community in the United States, working day after day to link the United States to aggressive policies in Cypress; and if we had to face enduring Greek and Greek Cypriot blowback and the constant threat of war in the Cypress region as a result of this work; and if we had an endless torrent of Turkish-American diatribes written from positions of influence in the highest-profile newspapers, magazines and policy journals in the United States on behalf of US involvement in Turkish wars; well then you can bet I would take more of an interest. As it is, I don

    Reply

  2. nadine says:

    Where am I going with this Cyprus business? How come Jordanian and Turkish naked aggression and ethnic-cleansing are fine by you? Why do you never talk about their stealing land? It’s the depths of your hypocrisy that I am plumbing.
    “But it does make a moral difference when an invasion is a rescue operation”
    Repelling a war of aggression is the ultimate rescue operation. The people you are rescuing are your own people in your own country. Seriously, what the hell do you think would have happened to the Israelis if they had lost? Nasser was promising to slaughter them.
    “There is no provision in modern international law for “getting to keep” what you take, even in a defensive war. The UN charter basically forbade annexation, under any circumstances”
    What they forbid is annexation of another country’s territory. The West Bank is no country’s territory. Its last recognized owner was the Brits in 1948. The Green Line is a truce line, a “line of control” just like in Kashmir. The Arab states only started pretending otherwise in an effort to get a do-over on the 1967 war which they started and lost. If they had won territory, they would have cleared it of Jews and kept it, just like in 1948.
    But you don’t mind when Arabs do it. They’re people. Jews aren’t people to you, but “colonists” — colonists in their own homeland.

    Reply

  3. Dan Kervick says:

    I’m not sure where you’re going with this Cypress business Nadine. The UN has issued resolutions calling for Turkish withdrawal from Cypress, just as it did in the case of Israel’s 1967 war, and declared an earlier Turkish attempt to establish a Turkish Republic in Northern Cypress null and void. The last UN attempt to resolve the standoff was nixed, however, by the Greek Cypriots.
    But it does make a moral difference when an invasion is a rescue operation with some justification as an act of self-defense or collective defense. When Israel has acted mainly to save Jews – e.g. Munich and Entebbe – they have been supported. When they have exploited defensive acts to expropriate and ethnically cleanse land, they have not been supported. There were very, very few Jews in the West Bank even prior to 1948. So nobody can think that the massive contemporary human invasion of the West Bank territories by hundreds of thousands of Jews is merely some attempt to restore a pre-war situation.
    There is no provision in modern international law for “getting to keep” what you take, even in a defensive war. The UN charter basically forbade annexation, under any circumstances, and the removal of people from their land. And the UNSC has reiterated the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force on several occasions since then.

    Reply

  4. nadine says:

    Yes, you do ignore it. According to your beloved international law, it makes a big difference if you are just invading a peaceful neighbor or repelling an aggressor’s invasion. Normally, you get to keep what you take in the second case — especially when the land didn’t even belong to the aggressor in the first place. Nobody but Britain recognized the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank.
    What is more to the point, you didn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask it again:
    So, what’s the rule here? Ethnic clearing is fine by you if it’s preceded by ethnic conflict? So what the Jordanians and the Turks did was fine? Would you think better of the Israeli position today if they had repaid the Arabs in kind, and ethnically cleared all or part of the West Bank in 1967?

    Reply

  5. Dan Kervick says:

    “You ignore that.”
    No I don’t. They military operation and the “settlement” movement are separable. The colonization of the West Bank is not part of any military occupation. It’s just old-fashioned light-fingered thievery practiced under the skirts of the military.
    Anyway, the Israelis have a peace agreement with Jordan now. So I don’t think the argument that they have to steal more land to repel Jordanian shells flies in 2010. And if they are worried about the Palestinians, why not just build their wall 100 feet high along the Green Line and be done with them?

    Reply

  6. nadine says:

    “I thought it was pretty obvious. When Israel absorbed the West Bank and started colonizing it, they weren’t riding to the rescue of West Bank Jews who were embroiled in conflict with their West Bank neighbors. Israel just used the war to grab more land.”
    No, they were throwing back a Jordanian invasion whose first step was shelling Jerusalem from the heights of the West Bank, which they had to take to stop the shelling. You ignore that. Just as you ignore the Jordanian ethnic clearing of the West Bank in 1948, and the Turkish ethnic clearing of Northern Cyprus in 1974.
    So, what’s the rule here? Ethnic clearing is fine by you if it’s preceded by ethnic conflict? So what the Jordanians and the Turks did was fine? Would you think better of the Israeli position today if they had repaid the Arabs in kind, and ethnically cleared all or part of the West Bank in 1967?

    Reply

  7. kotzabasis says:

    But certainly it is not “distasteful” for you to “stoop” “humorlessly” in tergiversation.

    Reply

  8. Dan Kervick says:

    “.. what are you trying to say here, Dan? So Cypress was riven by conflict for years; so was Palestine, so what? Why the different treatment?”
    I thought it was pretty obvious. When Israel absorbed the West Bank and started colonizing it, they weren’t riding to the rescue of West Bank Jews who were embroiled in conflict with their West Bank neighbors. Israel just used the war to grab more land.

    Reply

  9. nadine says:

    “Well, for one thing, Cypress had been riven for years by conflict between Turkish and Greek Cypriot populations, which included ”
    what are you trying to say here, Dan? So Cypress was riven by conflict for years; so was Palestine, so what? Why the different treatment?

    Reply

  10. nadine says:

    “There were no Jews to speak of in the West Bank prior to 1967. After the war, the Israelis simply stole it and started colonizing it.” (Dan Kervick)
    No, because the Jordanians ethnically cleared the Jews out of the West Bank in 1948. There were thousands before 1948. You are conveniently declaring 1967 the Year Zero of history.

    Reply

  11. Marcus says:

    Hey POS, on the subject of Arafat, did you swallow any of his…rehtoric about making peace ?

    Reply

  12. Dan Kervick says:

    Well, for one thing, Cypress had been riven for years by conflict between Turkish and Greek Cypriot populations, which included
    There were no Jews to speak of in the West Bank prior to 1967. After the war, the Israelis simply stole it and started colonizing it.

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gee, Nadine. Thats a pretty interesting way of misrepresenting the exchange between Netanyahu and the family he was speaking to.
    I’m a little curious. Do you people that lie and spin constantly ever consider WHY your positions always require deception to justify? And just once in a while, don’t you feel a bit disgusted with yourself? Most normal people, if caught in a pattern of daily deception, begin to develop a sense of self loathing. Its one of the key personal degradations that finally prompt alcoholics to seek help.
    You don’t see the self destructiveness of your dishonesty? Who here “likes” you??? Who here has any “respect” for you??? Who here “trusts” your narrative? You don’t find a message in that?

    Reply

  14. nadine says:

    Violins? So please Dan, explain the very different treatment of Turkey in Cyprus vs Israel in the West Bank. And Cyprus was an internationally recognized country, while almost nobody recognized Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank.

    Reply

  15. nadine says:

    Yes, POS, just like Obama talked about all his non supporters being bitter racist clingers to God and guns. Politicians put things to their followers in a way they don’t to the general public. And in this case, they weren’t even his followers; they were people attacking him from the right, who had just in their own opinion lost family due to his weakness.

    Reply

  16. Dan Kervick says:

    “Clearly, once again, Kervick … blah, blah, blah.”
    Look, it is distasteful to have to stoop to explaining my jokes for the benefit of the humorless. But my “clearly an impossibility” line was intended as a crack in the direction of the voluble and unvanquished Nadine, not as a sober comment about Middle East attitudes.

    Reply

  17. Dan Kervick says:

    “Dan Kervick, there is only one constant in “international law” it is this — that those who try to wipe out Israel are acting legally, but whatever Israel does to defend itself is illegal.”
    Oh boy, there go the violins again.

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hey Kotz. I recently took a little tour of your internet musings throughout the blogosphere. Congrats, buddy, you’ve arrived. Does the term “certifiable” ring any bells in there, buddy?
    And no, I’m not talking about the voices. I distinctly said “bells”. You’ll hafta figure out the voices without my therapeutic assistance.

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Dan Kervick, there is only one constant in “international law” it is this — that those who try to wipe out Israel are acting legally, but whatever Israel does to defend itself is illegal”
    Do you keep a straight face when you type pure unadulterated shit like that, Nadine?
    And unfortunately for you and your ilk’s narrative, Netanyahu didn’t talk about “dragging his feet”. He talked about LYING to the President of the United States. I realize that means nothing to anti-american bigoted trash like you, but it pretty well underscores what a waste of money it is to subsidize these maggots running the show in Israel. Fact is, they’re just ripping us off for those billions upon billions we piss away over there. They don’t appreciate it, they haven’t earned it, and they don’t deserve it. And your kind of disingenuous spew is an aid to getting that point across to more and more Americans. Keep it up, and thank you.

    Reply

  20. nadine says:

    Dan Kervick, there is only one constant in “international law” it is this — that those who try to wipe out Israel are acting legally, but whatever Israel does to defend itself is illegal. Though most countries proclaim that Israel has a right of self-defense, this right is strictly theoretical. Anything Israel actual does will be found to be illegal.
    But for countries that are not Israel, it’s a completely different story.
    When Turkey up and invaded Cyprus (which had not invaded Turkey, unlike Jordan which did invade Israel in 1967), ethnically cleared the northern third of Greeks (real ethnic clearing, the kind where no Greeks remained) and moved in 160,000 Turks from the mainland, is that “illegal occupation” “contrary to Geneva conventions”? Are the Turks “settlers”? Ans: no, of course not, this is Turkey we’re talking about. This is permanent, the Greek Cypriots can go cry in their retsina. Only Jews are “settlers” even when they returned to their own property that Jordan seized in 1948.
    International law is a sick joke.

    Reply

  21. nadine says:

    POS, that Netanyahu was dragging his heels in the late 1990s in response to the extreme non-compliance of Arafat with the Oslo agreements is not news to anybody who knows anything about the period. Arafat was supposed to fight terror and built a state, remember? Instead he set up 17 competing security services (but refused for years to pass the Basic Law) and gave Hamas the green light to blow up restaurants and buses in Jerusalem.
    Arafat announced that he would send a “million martyrs to Jerusalem” in Arabic while proclaiming the “peace of the brave” in English. You seem to forget that part.
    Remember all those years the New York Times denied that Arafat had control over Hamas (even during the brief periods he would shut them down) or that al Aqsa brigades worked for Arafat? Lie for peace, that’s the liberal formula. Lie for perpetual war, that’s its result.

    Reply

  22. nadine says:

    jdledell, you have decided that Arafat and his apologists are trustworthy, as opposed to everything that Clinton, Ross, Barak or Ben-Ami or even Saeb Erekat (who is on record saying that the two sides had agreed on borders) had to say. That is rather remarkable, considering Arafat’s track record.
    If Barak had had an agreement in hand, he could have won the elections. Instead, Arafat refused with no counter but an ongoing terror war and so elected Sharon. So you claim that Clinton and Barak had no power to make peace. They certainly couldn’t do it without Arafat!

    Reply

  23. Dan Kervick says:

    “Arafat and Abu Mazen turned down the offers in 2000 and 2007 based on demanding “right of return”.”
    False. First of all, there was no real “offer” in 2007. Just a secret, drive-by handwaving suggestion by a disgraced and outgoing Prime Minister, who commanded no constituency of weight, and who had no credibility or political power left to be making deals of any kind. Nothing Olmert said or didn’t say in his final days is worth taking seriously, and any Palestinian leader who invested an ounce of political capital in chasing the shadows of Olmert’s self-indulgent and undeliverable legacy shenanigans would have been a dope.
    In 2000, there was no agreement at Camp David on any of the three major issues – Jerusalem, borders and right of return. The issue Arafat pressed hardest, and got stiffed on most by the Clinton-Barak tag team, was the principal of an equal exchange of territories based on the pre-1967 border as a baseline, and the inability to get any help from Clinton on Israel’s refusal to take seriously their Oslo commitment to implement UN 242 in a final settlement. After trying unsuccessfully to get Barak to take his thumb off the scale for his extra 10% to 20%, and to get Bill Clinton to take international law seriously, they gave up.
    Of course, then there was Taba – another final days, last gasp, election-eve non-agreement by people without the power to make any deals.
    Israeli leaders seem very fond of making idle offers when they no longer have the power to make them stick. It’s a little game they play. If you yell some half-assed offer out the window of your limo as you are driving away, you give your successor the leverage of claiming that the Palestinians keep rejecting Israeli offers. But when these PMs are at the height of their power, and are actually in a position to do something, they are usually too busy making their bones by invading Lebanon, bombing Gaza or bulldozing protesters to make a deal.
    I have no doubt that Netanyahu will make his own generous offer on the back of a piece of toilet paper when it finally comes time for him to exit the premises.

    Reply

  24. jdledell says:

    Nadine – I am damn sick and tired of you spouting nonsense about the offers of 2000 and 2007. Show me anywhere these “peace plans” are codified in writing. You know very well both sets of negotiations were nothing more than a lot of talk with a scribble here and there with an occasional map thrown in. The ONLY peace plan fully cofied is the Geneva Initiative.
    Remember the devil is in the details and little changes in words can make all the difference in the world. Just remember Bibi’s confession in Ofra on how he snookered everyone on Oslo by defining military zones his way. There is NO OFFER until every last detail is spelled out.

    Reply

  25. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Netanyahu admits on video he deceived US to destroy Oslo accord
    Jonathan Cook, Foreign Correspondent
    Last Updated: July 18. 2010 1:02AM UAE / July 17. 2010 9:02PM GMT
    There is one video Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, must be praying never gets posted on YouTube with English subtitles. To date, the 10-minute segment has been broadcast only in Hebrew on Israel

    Reply

  26. nadine says:

    “Nobody should renounce their rights. The Palestinians shouldn’t renounce their right of return. They just shouldn’t press it or act on it.”
    They already did. Arafat and Abu Mazen turned down the offers in 2000 and 2007 based on demanding “right of return”.

    Reply

  27. Dan Kervick says:

    Nobody should renounce their rights. The Palestinians shouldn’t renounce their right of return. They just shouldn’t press it or act on it.

    Reply

  28. nadine says:

    From the Hamas Charter, written in 1988:
    “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”
    “[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith”
    “The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Obligation. When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims”
    “The Zionist invasion is a mischievous one. It does not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires. It relies to a great extent, for its meddling and spying activities, on the clandestine organizations which it has established, such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions, and other spying associations. All those secret organizations, some which are overt, act for the interests of Zionism and under its directions, strive to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam.”
    “Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there.”
    http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html
    Just thought you’d like to know that the Rotary Club and the Lions are perfidious Zionist spying organizations. This is what Hamas believes. Carroll supports Hams, btw, so she must believe it too.

    Reply

  29. nadine says:

    “”… and vanquish the Jews.”
    Clearly an impossibility.”
    That’s not what they tell their people. That’s not what the Palestinians believe. Pay attention to what Fatah and Hamas say in Arabic. 82% of Palestinians would rather have no state than give up the total “right of return” to Israel. That poll was done just last week. Nobody ever told them this wasn’t realistic. Just the opposite. Nobody ever told them they would have to compromise.
    Of course, the right of return of five million Palestinians to Israel would destroy Israel from within and cause massive bloodshed. The Palestinians would come to conquer, which they have also been told is their absolute right.

    Reply

  30. Dan Kervick says:

    “… and vanquish the Jews.”
    Clearly an impossibility.
    By the way, do you have your Jewish membership card and secret decoder ring in order, Nadine? I hear Avigdorable and YB want to make the club more restricted.

    Reply

  31. nadine says:

    Oh come off it, Dan. Where is Fayyad exercising his debated authoritarianism and the 100s of millions of foreign that he is kept on to receive? A displaced persons camp in Syria? Of course not. Stop this idiotic wailing over the Palestinians. You needn’t feel sorry for Fayyad or anybody in the ruling circles. They are all rich as Croesus and living in mansions in Ramallah.
    As for his efforts being authoritarian, what else could they be? Abu Mazen is 70 months into a 48 month term with no plans to ever hold elections again — Fatah is such a divided mess it might not win them. Fayyad has no base himself.
    “What am I missing? How do the whole Palestinian people get a legitimate and viable independent state out of this process?”
    What you are missing is that the Palestinians don’t want a state. That’s why they are so divided and irresponsible. It’s deliberate. Fayyad couldn’t be there if Fatah didn’t want him there to collect the money.
    If they got their act together to build the institutions of a state, they’d have to make compromises they don’t want to make (like accepting the fact that Israel isn’t going away and 5 million refugees will be returning to Palestine, not to Israel), the international aid would dry up, and they’d have to run their own economy like other people.
    It’s MUCH more fun and profitable to wail about how oppressed they are, so people like you keep giving them billions in aid. That way they can keep telling their own people how they will liberate all of Jerusalem and vanquish the Jews, and they need never put down Hamas and other Islamist radicals whose sole aim is the destruction of Israel.

    Reply

  32. Carroll says:

    Fayyad has to answer to both the US and Israel…i.e. it will never become a independent state that way.
    But then that’s the whole game plan isn’t it?

    Reply

  33. David says:

    Fascinating read. Also, what POA said.

    Reply

  34. Dan Kervick says:

    Fayyad seems like a good man, making the best he can of an inherently rotten situation. And it seems unfair to criticize a dispossessed people, who have no state, and who have had their land gradually stolen from them by lots, bits and pieces over 100 years, because their embryonic “pre-state” isn’t up to snuff.
    But it seems to me that Fayyad is basically being paid by Israel, the US and its allies to keep the Palestinian people divided. I don’t see how this process ends up with a state of the Palestinian people. It looks more like its going to produce a semi-autonomous Palestinian “Arab Quarter” or economic zone – on part of the West Bank alone – run by Israel.
    What am I missing? How do the whole Palestinian people get a legitimate and viable independent state out of this process?

    Reply

  35. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I fail to see how any Palestinian leader can make progress. Israel holds all the cards, and actually nurtures Palestinian division and rivalry. Progress towards a unified Palestinian front is a threat to Israel’s agenda, and time and again Israel has demonstrated that it will, by any means, derail any such progress.
    The recent unmasking of Netanyahu through his own comments on video perfectly illustrate the futility and hopelessness of the situation the Palestinians find themselves trapped in. And the subservience of the United States to the Israeli agenda virtually guarantees a continuation of the status quo.
    The ONLY hope I see for the Palestinians is a change in the narrative here in the United States. And that is a huge mountain to climb, because the hasbara and megaphone campaigns of Israel are well organized, well funded, and firmly entrenched within the American media, AND blogosphere.
    Cold it may be, but the plight of Americans such as Emily Henochowicz and Tristan Anderson should be capitalized on. The injustice of what has been done to them carries a powerful message that would resonate with the American people should their story become mainstream. And the story of the Palestinian farmers, and the Israeli efforts to rob them of their livelyhoods could be used to reach the more conservative Americans in middle and rural America. But as things stand now, I see very little in the way of organized efforts to carry the truth to the American people, and it is rare indeed to encounter the American citizen that is not victim to the propaganda sown by the Hasbara and Megaphone campaigns. Until that changes, the heavy hand of Washington DC will continue to subsidize and justify Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *