Elroy, Rubin isn't blaming the other guy, he's just describing how things work in Pal politics. From long, long observation.
That they work in such a way as to lock in the power of the most extreme is just how it is. As he mentions, there are plenty of Palestinians who would like to change it but they can't. The 'Rules' make sure of it.
He's diagnosing the situation. Diagnosis is not blame. Does the doctor "blame" the patient when he says "you're turning yellow because you have jaundice?" If the doctor has a cure, he is ethically bound to offer it. But he can't make the patient take it. And he may have no cure. Even if there is no treatment, or only one that the patient won't take because he won't change his lifestyle or diet, diagnosis still isn't blame.
What Rubin doesn't say explicitly, but is implicit in his piece, is that if the majority of the Palestinians have any serious objections to the 'Rules', they haven't voiced them. So the moderates can't find a base to work from, and will be declared traitors the minute they speak up. No surprise, they stay quiet.
As for not suggesting how to improve things, why do you think anybody outside of the Palestinians themselves could or should make the improvements? Rubin is noting that the system is locked into place by the Palestinians themselves, how can outsiders change the minds of the Palestinians in power?
By offering enticements? Let's check the Rules: nope, enticements can only be accepted if nothing is given in exchange. The Pals are perpetual victims and deserve everything.
By threatening hardships or violence? Let's check the Rules again: nope, it is better to persist with a terrible status quo than to give up long term demands for short term gains, even a state. Never give up the goal of total victory over the Jews.
Have you considered the possibility that the situation may not be improvable until the Pals themselves decide to chuck the Rules? |
