The institutions of higher learning are usually selective when choosing their employees or granting an exalted status of fellow. It looks like at least in one case Oxford granted this latter status to a person with doubtful level of knowledge, albeit with a poisoned tongue and considerable skills in manipulation of history.
The note under the “Comment” article Despite the divisions, the national consensus holds in the Guardian tells about its author: “Karma Nabulsi is a politics fellow of St Edmund Hall, Oxford University, and a former PLO representative.” It was my personal bad karma for today to become a reader of this opus.
Everything in the article is looked upon from the point of view of political correctness according to Arafat, and the subtitle of the article summarizes its main point:
The Palestinian strategy of negotiation and resistance is common to liberation movements.
There are three elements in the above that beg for a clarification:
1. Negotiation.
According to the deceased, it’s a big show of good will. Usually not related to any real goals, proposals, acts or behavior aside of the intention to kill as many Jooz as possible on the side. Could be stopped for a better focus on “resistance” when convenient for any possible reason.
2. Resistance.
The definition of resistance also underwent a dramatic change in the hands of the deceased. Murdering unarmed civilians, at the same time in majority of the cases steadfastly keeping distance from the armed soldiers of the occupying forces. If not actually inventing the suicide bombing, at least creating a whole industry of “martyrs” that served as a shining example for others. Hiding behind the backs of innocent population and squeezing every PR drop out of the images of the killed and wounded innocents. Some resistance…
3. Similarity to other liberation movements.
It is interesting that in support of this (quite stupid) statement Ms Nabulsi, the learned fellow of politics, has chosen the ANC and Nelson Mandela. Interesting for several reasons, but the chief one is that ANC won due to the wise decision by its leaders to to use non-violent opposition and to negotiate in good faith. Like other successful liberation movements (Indian freedom movement under Mahatma Gandhi, IRA), the solution to RSA apartheid was reached mainly thanks to non-violent opposition and appeal to the world public opinion.
That way has never suited Arafat who wanted to negotiate (or paying lip service), kill Jews and use (abuse) the world public opinion – all at the same time. This way has obviously not occured to our Karma…
Now read my lips, Karma: during the beginning of the nineties there were a lot of people (I confess to be one of them) who wanted to believe in a possibility of making peace with our neighbours and cousins through negotiations only. It was the solemn promise of your buddy Yasser, and no “resistance” string was attached to it. At least not publicly. Now you come out of the closet to tell us all this was a lie? Thanks, we already know it.
We stopped believing Arafat a long time ago. We prefer now to believe in what Hamas says. Maybe they cannot yet take their, mostly impotent, threats to the bank, but they, at least, are saying it straight – unlike their predecessors.
And tell you what, Karma: each Qassam, each suicide bombing attempt, each bullet shot to kill a passer-by, each knife stuck in the back of a Jew – reduce the number of us who still want to believe in a possibility of that oh so remote peace. Unfortunately, we are all becoming more and more united in our skepticism. And you and yours better beware of us when we are united. I am sorry to have to say it, but unfortunately I must…
Cross-posted on SimplyJews
