This article as nonsensical. The argument does not support the conclusion. In fact the author didn't bother substantiating half of his claim, namely that religious sentiment is driving Palestinian unwillingness to "compromise" (what the hell does that mean anyway?) .
His only discussion of religion re Palestinians is about Hamas' alleged "intransigent ideology" yet it should be common knowledge at this point that Hamas does indeed endorse a de facto two-state solution. Pointing to its out-of-date charter is not only a hasbara canard but weak scholarship. Political movements develop over time, and Hamas' pragmatism and ideological flexibility are evident to anyone who is paying attention -just look at their history of ceasefires and the statements of leaders like Khaled Meshal. Does the author use google? This list took me about two seconds:
"Khaled Meshaal has endorsed the idea of a two-state solution, accepting the creation of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital."
"A day after agreeing to form a Palestinian unity government with rival faction Fatah, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal (pictured above) has told The New York Times that he will work toward a two-state solution"
"This isn't the first time Hamas has called for a two-state solution. In 2006, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar expressed support for such a plan as a new Hamas-led Palestinian government came into being. Two years later, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter announced that the Islamist movement would accept a two-state solution so long as it was approved by a Palestinian referendum or a newly elected government."
From January of this year
"Khaled Meshal, head of the Syrian branch of Hamas’ political bureau, has reportedly accepted the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has authorized King Abdullah of Jordan to convey the message on his behalf to U.S. President Barack Obama. His new stance marks a dramatic shift in Hamas' position on the long-standing conflict. "
This isn't to say that Hamas as an organization has a monolithic, fixed view of the two-state solution (or that its ideas of what that means are the same as Israel's). Nevertheless, it is categorically false that Hamas outrightly rejects it.
At the same time other major players in Palestinian society -the PLO, Palestinian "civil society," the diaspora, and even Palestinian Muslim groups inside the green line, do not use religious arguments to explain their unwillingness to "compromise." In fact, the main currents in Palestinian society either endorse the two-state solution fully or rally around BDS. None of this represents any kind of religiously-motivated intransigence.
More fundamentally, whether couched in religion or not, (and as many people on this forum have already said), Palestinian claims are completely grounded in law and *even more importantly* in basic notions of morality. That this author would characterize insistence on liberation as an unwillingness to "compromise" says more about him than it does about Palestinians.
The only impression I get from this article is that its author sees religious supremacism in service of ethnic cleansing as somehow equivalent to (largely non-existent) religiously-motivated liberation ideology, and that he thinks insisting upon one's rights is "intransigent."
What utter trash.
I'm not reading too much into your comment. You didn't think about the implications of your little joke and how it is bigoted. That's the nice thing about being privileged though isn't it? You don't have to think about how your words have a larger meaning and hurt people in a lesser position than you.
I have a question for you, Taxi. Are you gay? I'm guessing no, but I apologize if I'm wrong. Because here's the thing....if you aren't, you don't get to run your mouth about gay people, whether we do or not. Like black people reclaiming the n word, women reclaiming the word bitch, or speaking freely and frankly about our social condition. People who belong to cultures founded on oppression finding humor in our predicament is not the same thing as a straight (or white, or cisgendered, or able-bodied, or whatever it is) man using his privilege to make jokes at our expense.
Like I said before, you're an ally. I respect that. You should respect the fact that people who are different from you in myriad ways are also a part of this community and you owe it to them to treat their identies with dignity. We are not here to be the butt of your jokes.
There are plenty of ways of insulting McCain and Graham without resorting to childish bigotry. Stop being lazy and apply yourself.
Bradley Manning's courage and accomplishment aside, do any of you not find it completely repugnant to try to credit the uprising of millions of brown people struggling under oppression to one white American guy? This reeks of white messiah. I'm not arguing that wikileaks, and by extension, Manning, didn't play a role. But this:
"Of course, it is impossible for me to establish whether the man whom everyone credits with starting the Arab Spring, the noble fruitseller Mohamed Bouazizi, who immolated himself in a provincial city, read those cables. But they were widely available when Bouazizi lit himself on fire on December 17, 2010. He died January 4, 2011."
This is ridiculous. Really, Phil? "I can't prove that Mohamed Bouazizi read the cables, but he might have," as if he needed to in order to have the courage or motivation to set himself on fire, as if the entire Middle East were just waiting for Manning and Assange to enlighten them about their own rulers. Insulting.
And Ratner's comment that manning "actually sparked the Arab spring" is even worse. Talk about overstating your case. How about us white people stop trying to lay claim to everything? Have some damn respect.
There is an argument to be made about the role of information, including wikileaks, in the Arab spring. But in this overstatement, or more importantly focusing on Manning's role in the Arab Spring at all, you are doing what all colonizers have done to the Middle East -placing whiteness at its center. It's a shameful topic to be obsessed with.