Abbas Speaks Again with Forked Tongue

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas gave an interview to Israeli Channel 2 television in which he suggested the he would be willing to give up the “right of return” and that he believes that the Palestinian State would only contain the lands liberated by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. Israeli President Peres was very quick to laud with great compliment the statements made by Abbas and stated that the statements were a positive sign and revealed that Israel indeed has a man of peace with whom they may reach a negotiated and lasting agreement. I can only forgive President Peres as he has invested much of his life in the folly of Oslo and is still to this day the dreamy eyed optimist who grabs onto any morsel to prove that his part in instigating Oslo was not in vain. Unfortunately for over a thousand Israelis all that Oslo brought was the Second Intifada and death and we dare not forget the thousands more who have suffered permanent serious injuries and that almost no Jew in Israel has not been touched by the violence spawned by Oslo and Yasser Arafat and his close second in command, Mahmoud Abbas. It was less than a day later when Nabil Abu Rudeineh published a clarification refuting everything stated or implied by Abbas. Every concession implied by Abbas now stands refuted and withdrawn excused as a simple misstatement or misunderstanding.

 

This ploy by Mahmoud Abbas is the same one used by Yasser Arafat and by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian negotiators in the matter of their nuclear program. This method is to offer forth an olive branch then refute that the offer was made and put it up to a misunderstanding, a miscommunication and was not what they had actually stated. They then will claim that the other side is making false claims and that such lies make any agreement or negotiation impossible. This is done with complete faith that as reasoning people who value life above almost everything else their adversaries will offer up concessions if only the talks are resumed and pledge this time to be more lenient to the Palestinian or Iranian claims. Then the talks are scheduled and often called off due to Islamic holiday or other difficulties or the Palestinians schedule an election which never materializes but delays negotiations. The aim is to wear down the opposite side and slowly gain concessions even if they are but an inch at a time, knowing that the inches will eventually mount and yield miles of advantages. These tactics work as the West and Israel both suffer from the same malady, they honestly wish for peace and will do almost anything to avoid conflict and especially avoid war. As long as there is no penalty for such deceptions and as long as the Western and Israeli leadership are willing to grasp at even the suggestion that a solution is possible and is just around the next corner if only they talk and offer that little bit more, then the feints and false offers will continue and the negotiations will go nowhere and the willingness of the West and Israel to continue to be taken in is used as propaganda at home to cast them as fools who are too ignorant and dimwitted to catch on to the sophisticated maneuvers being played upon them. The sadness is that eventually the lies and the ploys will be refuted and refused and on that day there will be a reckoning for all the time and efforts wasted over their deceit. It will be said in the history that the West and their allies were slow to anger and had unimaginable patience but once that patience was worn out, then they answered with definitive force and truth. Such will be a terrible reckoning but it is inevitable as is the fact that the lies and deceit will continue to mount and no true peace will ever be found.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Gaffe Patrol

The first thing we must realize is that there are Gaffes and then there are gaffes. The problem, or the fun, in discerning the difference is the reality and crux of the argument. The way we should judge the difference between gaffes is whether a gaffe deserves to be capitalized or simply passed by left with all un-capitalized letters. Then there are those rare and often repeated gaffes that are all capital letters, italicized, underlined, and flashing neon red and are immortalized. Some of these are simply lies such as Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook” or “You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore” which he stated before he ran successfully for President, or a more recent one for our younger readers, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” spoken by President Clinton.

The first property one need analyze of any given gaffe is simple, is it true or is it a lie, and if it is a lie, how severe a lie or stretch of the truth is the statement. The bigger the lie, the more massive the gaffe, especially if it is a lie that can be recognized by everybody. The above gaffes fit the lie model. The next property is was the statement disparaging or hurtful of people you had no call, reason or need to insult. Romney’s London Olympics gaffe, “The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials — that obviously is not something which is encouraging,” is a perfect example of this type. Then there are those gaffes which are technically true but so against logic and the common belief. President Obama’s gaffe stating, “Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own,” is an example of this kind. There are likely as many traits to gaffes as there are gaffes, but these are some of the major properties. There is a final property which all gaffes must contain in order to qualify. A Gaffe must be an offense in some manner or perceived as such by the person hearing it in order to be a gaffe. This means that gaffes are very personal. This begs a question, who gets to decide what is a gaffe and what is not?

To be truthful, we each decide for ourselves which statements are gaffes and which are simply unpleasant truths or commentary. Let’s compare two recent “gaffes” made by our two main Presidential candidates. We have President Obama’s gaffe stating, “Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own,” and we have Mitt Romney’s gaffe stating, “It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.” Both statements technically have a kernel of truth at their core but are interpreted to be false by some segments of society and are thus considered gaffes. Those who support Israel having Jerusalem as their capital city as they define it will not believe Romney committed a gaffe while those who are ardent believers in the fact that government is an integral partner in all we do will not believe that President Obama committed a gaffe. So, gaffes are extremely personal and it can be said that one man’s gaffe is another man’s core belief. Often, what makes a statement into a gaffe is not so much what was said but how what was said was worded. If Romney had claimed, “Jerusalem, Israel’s proclaimed capital,” or President Obama had stated, “government has its place in all things,” then they likely would have passed with a lot less scandalous indignation. Still, the main component in both of these gaffes is whether or not they will matter to each individual in the long-run. It is likely that Obama supporters will not have seen a gaffe serious enough to change their vote while Romney supporters will pass his gaffe off as a truth which some object to and will still vote for him. So, in the end, a gaffe needs to have a lasting effect or be so notable that they are universally accepted as a true gaffe, a rare gaffe indeed, to become a permanent gaffe in our lexicon.

The sad truth is that the initial determination of a gaffe has been relegated to our news cycle and the press. So, gaffes will be dependent upon where you get your news just as much as what was said and who said it. A gaffe that the New York Times will use as its top of the fold headline is very likely not the same gaffe as the Washington Times would have as their top of the fold headline. The true source of gaffes would have a top of the fold headline which included both gaffes from the New York Times and the Washington Times. Gaffes are very slanted and often carry a huge political component making determining gaffe from rallying cry a matter of pure politics. This has been made obvious by the number of conservative outlets beating the “You did not make that” drum endlessly since the President made that comment while the “Great London Olympics Insult” has filled the liberal airwaves. So, go on out there and rate your gaffes and maybe we can make this into the fun game it is for the presstitutes who live and die on quotes they can transform into the embarrassment known as a gaffe.

Beyond the Cusp