Wednesday, October 07, 2009

On Goldstone, Fatah, Dahlan et al. read AA. Even when he's wrong he's smart. Unlike Josh Marshall.
Saree Makdisi
"Reports have been circulating in the Arab, Israeli and European media that Abbas and his associates may have been prompted to take this extraordinary action because Israel had been threatening, had they continued with their support of the UN resolution, to withhold its release of a share of the radio spectrum that would have allowed the creation of a new Palestinian mobile phone company, Wataniyya: the product of a joint venture between Qatari investors and the Palestine Investment Fund, to which Abbas himself and one of his wealthy sons have personal connections. Palestinians have suggested that simple corruption and cronyism may have motivated Abbas’s decision. The PA and the circle of officials attached to it have certainly had their share of corruption charges—most shockingly, perhaps, when Ahmed Qureia, then the so-called Prime Minister of the PA (again, “so-called” because Prime Ministers usually have countries to govern, and the PA is anything but a country), was accused of selling cement to the Israelis to build their wall in the West Bank. The corruption of the PA and the narrow circle of Fateh party officials running it, clinging to it, and benefiting from it, is one of the main reasons why Fateh was swept from office in the 2006 Palestinian elections in favor of Hamas: most people then were voting against Fateh and its corruption and general hopelessness, rather than for Hamas (which had, and has, little to offer other than simply not being Fateh: a credit which goes only so far). It’s possible, of course, that corruption and cronyism were not the motivating factors for Abbas’s decision to withdraw Palestinian support for the Goldstone report...

These, then, are the possibilities before us: not only does the PA not represent the Palestinian people, it is also, on top of that, either corrupt to an almost unimaginable level; or it is profoundly incompetent and guilty of squandering the rights and hopes of a people that it is unentitled to claim to lead; or it is interested not in its people’s rights and hopes but rather in perpetuating its own status as the day-to-day caretaker of a permanent Israeli occupation—in which case it is no less collaborationist than the Vichy “government” of Nazi-occupied France in the 1940s. Corruption; incompetence; collaboration: ah, the agony of choice.


  1. What do you mean by "wrong"? Factually wrong, or not in agreement with your judgement?

  2. Abb, now I really am convinced you're a bot.

  3. I asked you a question, what's with this constant rudeness?

    Try being less arrogant and more nice sometimes.

  4. Anonymous10:56 AM

    He's an aristocratic leftist and it is a fact that his judgement is colored by his sensibility.

    Factual mistakes are never interesting in themselves.
    But then neither is anything else.

  5. Aristocratic leftist? Why, because he doesn't use the words "fuck" and "shit"?

    In any case, I don't see how it makes anything he says wrong. Everybody is a product of their environment; everybody has an angle.


Comment moderation is enabled.