When journalism sinks to the level of the weird, you get
something like what you see in Benny Avni's latest column. It came under the
title: “After Abbas: The coming Palestinian bloodbath,” and was published on
January 27, 2016 in the New York Post.
You are taken aback when someone predicts a bloodbath.
That's because two possibilities race through your mind, none of which is
savory. Either you expect to see intriguing clues that will make you conclude
yes, a bloodbath is in the offing, or you'll discover that the writer is
wishing so hard that the Palestinians will kill each other, his wish has turned
into a delusion, and the delusion has become a part of his system of beliefs.
So you start to read the article looking for an explanation
as to how a bloodbath might result if and when Mahmoud Abbas retires. Failing
this, you expect to see strong clues that a bloodbath is a real possibility
because of some other reason. The trouble, however, is that you find neither of
those. What you encounter, instead, are clues as to how the writer borrowed
heavily from literature to construct a fantastic story he is masquerading as
journalistic punditry.
Avni begins to tell the story like this: “What if a
Shakespearean battle … was raging and no one was there to document if?” Well,
there was no one there to document the story and so, our journalist turned
fiction writer started to imagine things. Because he mentions names of people
who exist in real life, we must accept that the fiction is based in part on
real events.
Now that you know this is fiction by another name, you stop
looking for an explanation as to how a bloodbath might result when Abbas
retires, and you stop looking for clues as to what else might lead to such a
bloodbath. You decide, instead, that because this work is the product of the
head and the heart of the writer, you'll try to establish what motivated him to
produce an article (a fiction) of this kind.
The best way to do that is to read the article to the end
where the punchline usually provides a good indication as to what the author
has aimed to establish from the start. And what you encounter at the end of
Avni's article is this: “The real double standard is in endlessly scrutinizing Jerusalem while ignoring
Ramallah.” And that's the answer to your question.
It is the fact that the world sees very little that's wrong
in what the Palestinians are doing; and sees much that's wrong in what the Jews
are doing. This is what motivated Benny Avni to imagine a Shakespearean tragedy
befalling the Palestinians with a bloody ending for it.
Now that you know the beginning and the end of the story,
you want to know how the writer went about working a middle for it. You quickly
discover that Benny Avni has talent for fiction. Look what he does to interest
the readers and maintain their interest as he develops the plot: “American and
Israeli officials shrugged off Abbas's warnings that he'd dissolve the
Palestinian Authority … he so often made similar threats, no one took him seriously
… No one, that is except some who started thinking the 80-year-old is finally
thinking of retirement.”
You must admit this is an intriguing cliffhanger, skillfully
designed to stir up the natural reflexes of the audience to wonder: Will he or
won't he? Well, the plot unfolds with four other characters jockeying to be in
the best position to jump into the race and replace Abbas when the right moment
will come. But they cautiously avoid revealing the extent of their ambition
lest they see their heads metaphorically chopped off by an Abbas who may not be
serious about retiring after all.
The plot thickens further by two realities. The first is the
leaking of news to the effect that Abbas is about to launch a UN campaign to
fight Israel
diplomatically. It means he is not retiring. The second reality is that
Palestinian law stipulates the speaker of parliament must take over the
Authority pending new elections. The trouble is that the speaker is a member of
the Hamas group which rivals the party of Abbas. And this is a Palestinian
style conundrum.
All that confusion prompts the author to observe that “such
chaotic political fighting often leads to violence.” Even though he uses the
word “often” he does not cite a single example when this was the case. But that
does not bother him because he has something more serious in mind.
It is that he is unhappy about the UN saying it is human
nature to resist occupation. This legitimizes the Palestinian struggle while
delegitimizing the Jewish occupation of Palestine .
Avni is also unhappy about the US
saying Israel 's
system of justice employs a double standard; one for the Jews and one for the
Palestinians.