Thursday, August 5, 2021

An Open Letter that’s full of Pinocchios

 Let me ask you a question that may sound a little odd but is pertinent to this discussion. Here it is: Can you think of something that is bigger than Pinocchio’s nose? If you can’t, let me tell you of one.

 

What you’ll need to do first, is read the piece that came under the title: “An open letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield,” and the subtitle: “Men of ice cream, men of unjust deserts.” It was written by Clifford D. May, and published on August 3, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Once you’ve read through the preliminaries of that open letter, you’ll encounter the following bigger-than-Pinocchio’s nose lie: “You should be aware that the BDS movement with which you’re now associated, openly seeks Israel’s extermination”.

 

So, you want to know why this a lie. It is a lie because Clifford May began by asserting that BDS seeks the extermination of Israel, which conjures up visions of the Holocaust. Clifford May then followed the assertion with what he wants the readers to believe is evidence that proves it. He did so by quoting one of the founders of the BDS movement. And that’s where the demonic dimension of the lie reveals itself.

 

To understand this part, you need to have some background. Here are the pertinent points to remember: Omar Barghouti is one of the co-founders who worked on establishing the BDS movement. Educated in Egypt, America and Israel, and married to an Israeli of Palestinian origin, he sought to work on a peaceful solution that will replace the sometimes-violent resistance plaguing the Middle East today.

 

He discovered that there can only be one of three solutions to the Palestine/Israel dispute: It can be the one-state solution, the two-state solution or the binational solution. He settled on the one-state solution as the most viable option, but discussed them all in depth at various times.

 

Omar Barghouti openly answered questions to explain his views and elaborate on their implications. Asked if peace can be achieved by implementing the binational option, he responded as follows: “Definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine”.

 

Barghouti has maintained all along that it will be a bad idea to create a binational state where two peoples will maintain their distinctiveness and be forced to compete against each other at perpetuity. By contrast, in the one-state solution, which he wants to see implemented in Palestine, everyone will be considered equal under the law. This will make the distinctiveness disappear in his view, and so will be the need to compete between the ethnic groups. Instead, they will all work together for the good of the country.

 

As can be seen, there is not a hint in any of the above about exterminating Israel or the Jews. What is sought is the implementation of a solution such as the one chosen for South Africa where it has worked well for the country. And so, for Clifford May to have hidden this truth, and to have deceptively characterized the Barghouti approach as some kind of extermination, is to commit an intellectual fraud that’s bigger than Pinocchio’s nose could ever get. In other words, Clifford May lied a big lie.

 

Having done this, the writer used the lie as a foundation upon which he built layers upon layers of speculations as to what the Palestinians will do to the Jews once they are freed from the bondage imposed on them by a military occupation that has lasted more than half a century already. Here is how Clifford May started this segment of his presentation, talking to the addressees of the open letter:

 

“Perhaps you believe that the Palestinian state Mr. Barghouti hopes to see replace the Jewish state would refrain from killing or expelling Jews, and allow them to remain as a minority. But that’s hardly a safe bet considering what’s happened to Jews elsewhere in the region”.

 

He went on to propose what follows, presented here in condensed form:

 

“In Gaza and the areas of the West Bank governed by the Palestinian Authority, selling land to Jews is a crime. The educational system demonizes Jews. The policy you oppose is the presence of Israelis in the West Bank. But consider if the Israelis were to withdraw from the West Bank, as they withdrew from Gaza, is it not probable that the West Bank would become what Gaza has become? I hope you’re aware that after the Israelis left Gaza, Hamas, has been waging war against Israelis utilizing rockets, tunnels, incendiary kites, etc. If Hamas takes over the West Bank, how long before rockets are fired at Israelis in nearby Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? Israelis will respond. Both Israelis and Palestinians will be killed. Your policy preference will have helped bring about this carnage. You’re okay with that?”

 

By now, Clifford May would have realized that what he says makes no nonsense, considering that he is describing the state of war which exists now between the Palestinians and the Jews, not the state of peace that Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield and Omar Barghouti, wish to see implemented. Thus, the writer shifted gear and went looking for a safe exist in the basket of worn-out talking points that the Jews have been using for decades.

 

Clifford May lied about Israel making good offers that the Palestinians rejected. He speculated about the motives of the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. He distorted the history of the region. He made false analogies between the Israeli genocidal occupation of Palestine and the small disputes in other parts of the world. And he made the false promise that, “Unusually and uniquely, Israelis are willing to give disputed territories to Palestinians in exchange for nothing more than peaceful coexistence. To date, no Palestinian leader has been willing to accept that deal”.

 

And this has been the biggest lie uttered by Clifford May.