I did not change the subject, I just disagreed with your interpretation of Barak's remarks. The question is not whether Arafat lies. Of course he does. The question is, what political context does he come from, that he succeeds by telling such continuous and implausible lies.
Barak's answer is that Arafat operates in a political culture that condones and even requires continual lying in support of one's side, a culture in which there is not the slightest duty to tell the truth to the world. Now, there is no question of whether I "now agree" with whether Barak said this, I always did agree. The question is only of how we interpret the remarks.
It is your interpretation that the remarks are an "objectionable judgement about Arab culture" and justify "giving up on Barak's arguments". It is my interpretation that the remarks are, generally speaking, true, with regard to Arab politics in general and Arafat in particular, and helpful to explain Arafat's behavior to an American. That is why I said "truth is not libelous". Not a change of subject at all. I used to the quotes to try to illustrate that Arafat's pattern of lies is substantially different from even the least trustworthy of American politicians.
In short, you cannot get from the assertion that Arafat lies, to an observation that something called "Arab culture" has no concept of truth.
I am not using Arafat to smear "Arab culture". I am using some knowledge of "Arab culture" to try to explain Arafat's behavior. That knowledge tells me that while Arabs do have a concept of 'truth' (saying they have 'no concept of truth' misinterprets Barak's remarks), they have a much stronger concept of 'face' and 'official truth' which maintains face. As Patai says, Arabs know perfectly well the difference between mundane reality and the ideal, they are just more emotionally invested in the ideal. The necessity of maintaining face and official truth takes Arab politicians to whole new realms of fantastical lying, beyond what Western politicians normally do, who have some cultural duty to tell the truth, even if they usually don't.
Of course, if you really believe that Barak's remarks about Arab culture condoning lies are just objectionable, completely false insults, you won't accept this argument.
You said A&M made no substantive objections to Barak, just nibbled around the corner. Guess what, that last sentence is a substantive objection. Now you complain it lacks a source.
No, it's not a substantive objection. It's a claim about how Barak described his offer afterwards to the Israeli right. It makes no statement about the actual content of the offer. A&M do not dispute the content of Clinton's offer at Taba, nor deny Barak's acceptance of it. |
