Remarkably Decent

{ 6 comments... read them below or add one }

1. Richard Witty says:

   October 31, 2008 at 11:18 am

   "The only good Palestinian is a mute Palestinian. The only good Palestinian valorizes ethnic cleansing of his people."

   I DIDN'T read that in the editorial. I read that their editorial policy differed from his, but was in the range of respectful disagreement.

   Log in to Reply
2. anon says:

   October 31, 2008 at 11:36 am

   Slightly off subject, but not entirely, given the ethnic background of the subject man–anything significant in the Muslim patriarchal priority, and the Jewish matriarchal priority, as criteria for who is a Muslim and who is a Jew? And, just for contrast, nothing like this in the Christian criteria?

   Log in to Reply
3. nitwit says:

   October 31, 2008 at 11:51 am

   Muslim patriarchal priority, and the Jewish matriarchal priority,

   Who wins, if the father is a Muslim and the mother a Jew?

   A not serious answer: the matrilinear view tells us that Jews do not completely trust their women, while Muslims on the surface seem to. …

   Log in to Reply
4. Eurosabra says:

   October 31, 2008 at 12:31 pm

   There are mixed (Muslim man, Jewish woman) marriages, and generally speaking the women join their husbands' religion, family, and village. There have been a few custody disputes where the kids didn't even know they were Jewish (father claimed them as Muslims, mother as Jews, they'd been living as Muslims for fear of anti-Jewish violence in the OPT) and in one the two daughters were returned to Israel when the mother won custody.

   Log in to Reply
5. Craig says:

   October 31, 2008 at 12:33 pm

   @nitwit: No, I think matrilineal transmission of "Jewishness" is intended to discourage exogamy. In a patriarchal society, you can simply forbid daughters to marry outside the clan, but declaring that only a Jewish mother can bear Jewish children discourages Jewish men from doing the same as well.

   Log in to Reply
6. Dan Kelly (higginslads) says:

   October 31, 2008 at 12:37 pm

   According to the WaPo editorial, Khalidi is a "militant" advocate for Palestinians. As I've commented elsewhere, this is a deliberate choice of words, and par for the course when writing about Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims), even in an overall positive light. It creates a, well, militant image of Palestinians (even "smart" ones like Khalidi, as the Post referred to him).

   "Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a SMART, if MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."

   Here's another version:

   "Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, passionate advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."

   Small word choices like this appear all the time in articles that are seemingly portraying Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims) in a positive light. Zionists, to their credit, are masters of creating images in readers' minds through their writing, often in the most subtle fashion, which contributes immensely to Americans' incredibly Zionized view of the world.

   In fact, to analyze a little deeper, the paragraph in question basically shits on any hope for open dialogue. It is essentially saying "Khalidi is an intelligent, passionate advocate for the Palestinians, and Obama will listen to him but he's not going to change his mind (compromise his own position)." So, if you're a presidential candidate in America, you can listen to smart Palestinians, but it won't go further than that.

   How about this:

   "Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, passionate advocate for the Palestinians with an open mind and a willingness to work through differences in order to arrive at a peaceful solution for everyone involved."

   Log in to Reply