by Jarrod Niebloom | The PLO spreads propaganda at Tufts.
“It’s not the Palestinians who occupy Israel but the Israelis who occupy Palestine” was only one of the many inflammatory things said by the purported ambassador of the PLO to the United States in a recent speech given on campus. Afif Emile Safieh not only offended supporters of Israel and all Jews but also all Americans: “if ever America aligns itself with one belligerent player in a regional conflict, not only does America antagonize and offend and alienate all the other players in that regional conflict, but it also antagonizes, offends and alienates a group of its own citizens.”
The cornerstone of his ideology is that a people who blow themselves up in order to receive Palestinian government funding for their families deserve a state of their own. Moreover, Safieh believes the land thatmakes up Israel today did not legitimately belong to the British Empire and should not have been allocated as land to make the State of Israel. Despite the fact that such an action was recognized by the United Nations in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the PLO leader suggests an alternate version of history. He suggests that the land known as Israel today belonged to a group of nomads who were kicked out of every country in the surrounding Middle East, congregated in the desert of Israel, and did nothing with the land.
Perhaps one of the more interesting claims made during Safieh’s speech was “history is often a cemetery for oppressed people, who remain oppressed until they vanish into historical oblivion.” Indeed, the Palestinians are an oppressed people, but they are oppressed by other Arab Muslims. The situation must be understood through the lens of history. “Palestine,” as labeled by the British, did not refer to any specific people but rather a geographic area. Secondly, the “Palestinian” people are the contemporary people of what the Jordanians labeled biddun—undesirable wanderers who were a strain on the economy and political morale of Jordan and so they were often the subjects of great political exploitation. The people lived in what the British called Palestine, which, years before, was part of the Ottoman Vilayet of Syria that included Jordan. With the rise of nationalism in Europe came the desire for many regions worldwide to fight for autonomy. In finally drawing borders, nothing made Jordan as happy as finally ridding themselves of the wandering people. As opposed to helping their own people, Jordanians oppressed, exploited, and then cleansed themselves of the “Palestinian” problem.
“Palestine” was not technologically advanced. Its dry and arid desert land precluded it from becoming an agricultural exporting area, and there was no local governmental system–the people were content being under Ottoman and British rule. Even when nationalism struck the rest of the Middle East, the Palestinians remained without autonomy and never fought for it until more recently. As for the land’s uselessness, however, that all changed in 1948 when more Jews came in. Israel today has a thriving economy, is a world partner in economics and international affairs, is the only democracy in the Middle East, houses the headquarters for various multinational technological corporations, and is thought to be one of the handful of countries to possess nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, the Palestinians remain exploited. Their terrorist government funds suicide bombings even after Israel has acquiesced and given over portions of their land to the Palestinians. This backward thinking leads to the conclusion that they cannot control a state of their own. A Palestinian state would contain such unrest that the state would implode, only to require an international cooperative effort to clean it up. Yet, even under that possible outcome, Israel has given over land in hopes that there can be peace. Perhaps the reason that has not happened is because the Palestinians do not want peace or necessarily a state of their own. They simply want Israel and its Jewish population out of the region – no matter what the cost.
Under such conditions, more important is Safieh’s claim that America should not concern itself with the peace process. That America should be a non-partisan supporter of peace rather than an advocate for the Israeli cause is an unrealistic and naïve claim. Considering Israel has taken the necessary steps to promote peace and yet the Palestinians continue to fund terror, America is obligated to become involved. Because America is the most powerful and influential country in the world, it has the responsibility to promote democratic values antithetical to the funding of suicide bombings. Democracies support democracies—not the empire of terror that seemingly continues to develop in the Middle East every day. The United States, with the strong support of its citizens, has the greatest responsibility to thwart the Palestinian cause considering the method by which Palestinians hope to gain their desired result.
The Palestinians must learn democratic and humanistic values—two things they presently lack. Safieh’s claims made throughout the evening were factually incorrect and inconsistent with democratic and American values. He, in essence, has a very ominous outlook; perhaps he should recognize the continuous Palestinian funding of terror before claiming that the Palestinians deserve a state.
Mr. Niebloom is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
Comments