,
16 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ I finally read the @dannydanon Op-Ed that some on Twitter were up-in-arms over. Did the critics read it?
I don't agree with Danon's anti-two-state politics. Period. But this Op-Ed doesn't argue that view. It argues against…opposition to Israel's existence. (Gasp?)
I don't agree with Danon's anti-two-state politics. Period. But this Op-Ed doesn't argue that view. It argues against…opposition to Israel's existence. (Gasp?)
2/ The inflammatory language in the piece that some have seized on—"surrender" and "national suicide"—are very clearly rhetorical devices playing off Saeb Erekat's use of those same words.
3/ Danon's argument seems to be: If you say engaging with this peace plan is "surrender," then you should indeed surrender whatever it is preventing you from engaging. The Op-Ed argues that what prevents them from engaging is opposition to Israel's existence.
4/ It argues that Palestinian leaders should surrender an ideology that in his view is "motivated not by building a better life for its people but by destroying Israel."
5/ Re: Erekat's suicide comment, he responds: suicide "of the Palestinians' current political and cultural ethos is precisely what is needed for peace." What ethos? "The belief that the Jews have no right to the land and Israel is to be destroyed." That "needs to end," he says
6/ So… if you want to argue that based on his previously expressed positions Danon is being disingenuous when he talks favorably of the Palestinian people's "liberation" and them "building a bright future," okay, do that. Argue against his framing of the peace plan? Okay.
7/ But that's not what I've seen on Twitter. Instead, "counter-arguments" like this: The Zionists want Palestinians to die from suicide!
8/ Or this about "humiliation" and "capitulation":
9/ An NBC Nightly News guy wanting to vomit, either hiding what Danon states he means by "current political and cultural ethos," or maybe just agreeing with that ethos.
10/ Same here. Again, many the words in quotes are originally Erekat's. You can disagree with Danon's view that what Palestinian won't surrender or end is, ultimately, their opposition to Israel's existence. But this?
11/ And again here. By all means, disagree with Danon's argument that Palestinians haven't abandoned the PLO charter he quotes from (avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/p…). But it's disingenuous to say "Jews should have a state" is exactly the same as "destroy Israel!"
12/ Here, from Peace Now, leaving out the sentence that follows, and defines, the sentence she quotes:
13/ This guy is in charge of AFP's West Bank reporting, but can't bring himself to accurately convey the paragraph in question:
14/ And as I noted prior to this thread, Zonszein in fact argues the inverse ALL THE TIME. And not only the inverse of Danon's words here (stop rejecting Israel's existence) but of his political view (Palestinians shouldn't have a state).
By all means, Twitter, disagree. But disagree with what I say. I don't say Danon's heart is full of love for Palestinians. I don't say the Bahrain conference is good or bad. I don't say Likud is right. I'm saying characterizations of the Op-Ed substantively misconstrued the text.
One way to understand it: If this Op-Ed was on the GRE, and the exam called on test takers to summarize the main idea (without assessing positions the writer has expressed elsewhere, etc) the correct summary would be this:
