|
I read Which is not to say that their opponents are right. Let us first dispose of the claim that Adragna is a Palestinian apologist. I hardly think that this is the case. Although I do not claim to be able to see into his mind and heart, certainly nothing that he has so far written supports such a claim. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that even if he be proved wrong, such a conclusion cannot necessarily be drawn. Adragna makes his case (not just for not being a Palestinian apologist, but for his entire line of reasoning) on the hypothesis that a majority of "Palestinians" do not support Arafat and his terrorism. Let us suppose him wrong (I believe that there is suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence that he is wrong; OTOH, as it is not conclusive, he does not need moral culpability or willful blindness to enable him to argue otherwise in good faith). Let us further suppose that, at the time of his writing, he did not know this. In such a case, he would be factually wrong, but morally correct. As an illustration of this, let us follow this line of thought: we suppose him wrong, and that at some later time, he discovers that he was and is wrong. Now, is he not likely to say, "At the beginning, I thought that this was true, and therefore advocated such-and-such. Now, however, I know it was never the case, and therefore now advocate thus-and-so instead"? (Indeed, I believe that he has said so much on occasion.) Now, if he were to say, "I don’t care what the truth is", or "These things are true", regardless of the weight of evidence against them, then we might justly label him an apologist for a cause. That has not happened, though. Now, having done my poor best to acquit Adragna of being a "Palestinian" sympathizer (a charge already much more effectively refuted by Adragna himself, Stampley, and others more adept than I), why do I still insist that he is wrong? Well, as I said before, there is a difference between being factually wrong and morally wrong. Again, Adragna’s position is:
What I'm doing is challenging the assertion that Arafat and his supporters are representative of all, or even a majority of Palestinians. Very well, let us suppose him to be right in this. Now, Adragna would (and, in fact, has) stated the need to remove Arafat from his nominal position as the leader of and spokesman for "Palestinians". What means are there to do so? We must remember: if you desire the end, then you sanction the means. Some would argue that there are many means to a given end. I would agrgue otherwise: that there is only one means to an end, although there can certainly be ends that we cannot distinguish between. Of course, an end may be evil in itself (the Shoah), or it may be that the means do not in fact lead to a given end (Stalinism is not on the road that leads to Marxian communism). Once we have determined that the end is desirable, however, and that the proposed means will achieve it, we are approving that means. Now, we might remove Arafat through the simple means of killing him. Or we might exile him, or imprison him. All of these means (to different ends, note; the near-term future is likely to be very different based on what end we choose) I think that Adragna would endorse (and some he has). What then? Note that a simple withdrawal would be insufficient. Adragna rightly notes that he is not a democratically elected leader, and that the "Palestinian Authority" has never had anything that can reasonably be called a free election. But democracy is not a "natural" form of government. How do we prevent undemocratic leaders (just like Arafat) from seizing power in some or all of Palestine (as Farouk and Abdallah I did)? Adragna says:
What Israel should do is close off the West Bank behind an "Iron Curtain" until a popular uprising of another sort takes place. Unfortunately, it has not1 taken place yet – and, indeed, history suggests that it will not take place. We are, remember, postulating that Adragna is correct in his assertion that Arafat does not represent the feelings of a majority of "Palestinians". They seem to feel, though (as have people throughout history – they are by no means unique in this) that acquiescing in Arafat’s rule is preferable to trying to overthrow it and perhaps getting shot. So, "Palestinians" will not rebel and remove Arafat; Israel must remove him for them. Afterwards, it must create the conditions for democracy (as Farouk, Abdallah I, and their successors did not do). And, the "Palestinians" must elect leaders that reflect a popular will demanding neither to destruction of Israel nor revenge for Arafat. Now, Adragna stipulates that:
The Israelis are going to have to give up the political in order to finally have some semblance of secure borders. The question becomes then: is the "Green Line" established in 1948 secure? If not, where should the borders be drawn? And, wherever we draw these borders, what of those dwelling on either side of them? 1 Earlier, I had omitted the word "not". John "Akatsukami" Braue Friday, April 05, 2002 |
|