Saturday, January 14, 2006
Occupied Palestine and blogospheric recognition
I will admit, when I first got Sabbah's blast email on the topic, I rolled my eyes. On reflection, though, the request is pretty reasonable. What, after all, do you put in your profile if you blog from, say, Bethlehem or Hebron? Israel? Even Israel doesn't want you doing that. Jordan? That country has renounced you and the land you live on. What option do you select?
Now, you might say that Palestine is not a country. Indeed it isn't, but Blogger has options for lots of places that aren't countries. Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the "United States Outlying Islands," whatever they are, are good examples. There are others. Frankly, I can't figure out a principle under which Blogger would not include an option for Palestine.
So, while I have my reservations about both the authenticity and the viability of Palestinian national aspirations, I agree with Haitham Sabbah -- something I rarely do -- that Palestinian bloggers who wish to reflect those aspirations not be frustrated at the very moment they fill out the profile form.
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Jan 15, 01:08:00 AM:
I’m indeed proud and honored by all the support. Thanks TigerHawk!
By , at
Sun Jan 15, 09:07:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, you're blowing me away again. Comparing Palestine with Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is completely absurd. [sabbath, you get no support from me with you lame brain idea]. The boundaries of Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands were established long ago. Both have democratically elected local governments. Puerto Rico has commonwealth status roughly equal to a state and could become a state if you chosed to. Neither are trying to break away from the USA and neither is involved in terrorist activities. Palestines boundaries have not yet been firmly established, they shown minimal progress toward a democraticly elected government, their society is unstable and they are trying to destroy their neighbor, Israel. Yeh, they are sure ready to be a country alright, but the country they would become would be another Islamic dictatorship harboring terrorists. Just what we need with the likes of Syria and Iran to deal with.
By 
B.D., at
Mon Jan 16, 05:04:00 AM:
Let up docdave. This argument has nothing to do with what kind of government Palestine has or may not have. That is beyond the scope of Blogger or any similar websites to deal with. It's a simple matter of geography. Palestine does have some recognizable territory even if where the lines are exactly placed its not clear. It is obviously some oversight that has led to it not being included in the list. Let's not have people make a big fuss. Just make it possible for people who want to say they are from Palestine to do so. If this is any big deal at all, it is only for the people from Palestine who want to be able to list it in their blogs.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Jan 16, 06:18:00 AM:
docdave, you're a very intense guy.
If it would make you feel any better, I could live with "Occupied Palestinian territory," although I am sure that would be more contentious than necessary.
I think longtime readers know that I am no fan, in the abstract, of the political dealings of the most influential Palestinian Arabs (including the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, etc.). But that doesn't mean that some earnest Palestinian blogger shouldn't have a location to choose from in Blogger. It is an oversight, obviously, as BD says, and one that reflects the common American perspective on the region.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Jan 16, 06:20:00 AM:
docdave, one other point: Haitham Sabbah is Palestinian. It is hard to see how, under the circumstances, his idea is lame brain. From his perspective, it is merely patriotic.
By secretdubai, at
Mon Jan 16, 06:48:00 AM:
Leaving off Palestine on country lists only confirms the fact that US media is pro-Israel influenced. They can gnash their teeth and wail charges of anti-semitism all they like for pointing this out, but the fact of the matter is: the media in a huge, supposedly indpendent, free-thinking country like the US, is basically in thrall to some evil little theocracy currently illegally landgrabbing thousands of miles away.
About time American people started to realise how pathetic it is that their own freedom of expression is curtailed by Israel.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Jan 16, 08:01:00 AM:
secretdubai -
I have seen a lot of English language media both inside and outside the United States. If you had said that the American media is biased in the direction of Israel, at least with reference to non-American English-language media, I would agree (although I also think the foreign media is too quick to ignore or forgive Palestinian transgressions). But your suggestion that this "confirms" pro-Israel influence is a bit much.
This widely-held but false idea that the American media is "influenced" by Israel has appeal around the world because it conforms to the paranoid strain of anti-Semitism, which sees a Jewish conspiracy under every rock. Yes, I would say that the American media is more supportive of Israel (at least as reflected in its editorial decisions) than its counterparts outside the United States, but it is silly and paranoid to say that Israel is behind it. There are several better reasons. In no particular order:
1. Israelis appeal to Americans. They are blunt and plainspoken, practical (like Americans), and by our lights they were the only thing close to a decent government in the entire region for most of its history. Whatever its shortcomings, it has a system of government that Americans understand. We do not understand military dictatorship or, even worse, kingdoms. Americans invented anti-royalism in the world. Our government may deal with kings because there are sometimes greater interests at stake, but Americans as a people think they are a joke. I appreciate that this point does not address the Israel/Palestine conflict, but it makes Israel look good compared to the Arab regimes in its neighborhood.
2. Americans see a lot of anti-Semitism in the Arab Muslim world. This troubles us, because whatever the details of our history we are just about the least anti-Semitic people on earth. That is why so few Jews have left the United States for Israel compared to emigration from other countries.
3. Israel was our stalwart ally during the Cold War, a fact that most Americans remember. True, the same can be said of Saudi Arabia, but then there's that monarchy point again. Indeed, American support for Israel was pretty minimal between the time of its creation (Harry Truman did support that) and 1967. Given our economic interest in Arab oil, it is unlikely that we ever would have grown so close to Israel if Nasser had not cozied up to the Soviet Union. But that pushed the United States and Israel together.
4. The Palestinian Arabs have chosen to side with America's enemies, or against American allies, at every opportunity. They may have felt that they had good reasons for this, but it remains true that they put themselves on the other side of the United States -- either formally or informally -- in World War I, World War II, the Cold War and the Gulf War. Americans remember Palestinians dancing in the streets on September 11.
5. Palestinian tactics against Israel's civilian population are disturbingly similar to the tactics used by our mortal enemies, the Islamist terrorists. Now, you might say that the Palestinians were driven to this by Israel's militarism, but I do not agree. If in 2000 the Palestinians had pursued a policy of totally non-violent obstruction and negotiated in good faith they would have had their independence by now, no wall, peace, and probably a huge chunk of foreign aid for their trouble. Imagine, if you will, that after Camp David the Palestinians had started walking peacefully to Tel Aviv, with only a water bottle and a flower in their hand. Call it the Ghandi strategy. What would Israel have done? If it shot them down, the outrage even in the United States would have overwhelmed any influence of the "Israeli lobby." If it did not, it would have revealed the inevitability of Palestinian independence. The problem is, the Palestinians did not do this, not because it wouldn't work, but because (we suspect) the Palestinian leadership (formal and informal) still seeks the destruction of Israel, which is a different thing than peace.
So, if you must say so, while I agree that the "truth," if there is one, lies somewhere between the portrayals of Israel and Palestine seen in the American and foreign media, there are many much stronger reasons than the improbable explanation that Israel "influences" the American media. George Bush can't influence the American media -- if he could, it would not have revealed Abu Ghraib, the NSA eavesdropping story, or any number of other stories that have made his life very difficult. The idea that Israel is in a position to do what he (or anybody else) cannot do is absurd, and reflects the propaganda embedded in the journalism that you read.
By , at
Mon Jan 16, 12:44:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, okay maybe I got a little carried away. It's just that I see no connection between territories held by the USA and Palestine. I believe that Palestine is an unique case in itself and whether it desires to be a nation should rest on its own merits. That said, I sharply question that Palestine has met the minimum requirements of a peaceful nation. If Palestine cannot exist peacefully with its neighbors (and that includes more than Israel as the Palestinians have committed terrorist actions against both Jordon and Egypt and provides terrorists recruits elsewhere) than it does not deserve to be granted nation atatus and to say that all this will be sorted out after it becomes a nation is blowing in the wind. From my prospective the Palestinians are more a mob that a civilized society and until they mend their ways they will remain what they are.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Jan 16, 01:07:00 PM:
Fair enough, docdave. But do you think that Palestinian bloggers should get a slot in the drop-down menu? That, actually, is the point of Haitham Sabbah's campaign.
By , at
Mon Jan 16, 03:12:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, it's your site so you can do what you want, but I would caution you to check the facts of what they publish. The Palestinian media is ripe with deliberate lies and misinformation. Even their name is a lie being borrowed from its intended usage, another name for Judea. frontpagemag.com has this post on the name today.
"Arabs should not be called "Palestinians." The Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of Judea to Palestina after crushing the last Jewish rebellion under Bar Kochba, ca. 135 A.D. Palestina then became synonomous with "land of the Jews" or "the Holy Land," and "Palestinian" synonmous with "Jew." That is why the British Mandate for the Homeland of the Jews was called the "Palestine Mandate." The Arabs, like the Grand Mufti, hated the name of Palestine since it meant "land of the Jews." It was the Soviet Union, which founded the PLO in Egypt, which made the propaganda that Arabs from the former Palestine Mandate were "Palestinian," the ancient inhabitants of the land of Israel, with all the phony history to accompany it"
In another article is a description of how the same Grand Mufti collaborated with the Nazis for the extermination of the Jews.
"The self-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, an extremely influential man (and a cherished relative of Arafat, by the way) who was responsible for the murder of countless Jews in then Palestine, worked actively together with the Germans on the extermination of the Jews and they had great plans for the time after the "Endsieg". He had his own Muslim "Handzar" SS-division and spent the war years comfortably in Berlin with his entourage, all expenses, including'prostitutes, paid for by the German Foreign Office."
