I've read it and, though I thought it was a good piece of journalism, was not particularly impressed because it offered no thoughts as to solutions. Much too bland and detached. The subject calls for more.
So what if there exists an ineffective aristocratic Christ Church educated avuncular Palestinian scholar interested in medieval Islamic history married to an English scholar's daughter who hems and haws about suicide bombings and gets death threats for his criticism of Arafat? The man was ineffective before the second intifada and he is doubly so now. Arafat is using him as his moderate foil in Jerusalem.
The rest of the article was in the same vein--it did not scratch beneath the surface. Yeah, I don't need to be told that both sides are angry at each other. Though it was a good read, it was not valuable to me. Was not thought-provoking, though it did make me feel a kind of fuzzy "Oh, dear, what a shame" emotion which is utterly invaluable.
I think the title of the article was filched from Fallaci's far superior, much more opinionated, article in Correre de la Serra, Rage and Pride. Now that's journalism! Perhaps not your taste but it certainly is mine. Can't wait for another real journalist, Ryzard Kapuscinksi, to get his arms around the subject.
All simply my opinion, of course. |
