Thanks Alex. Personally, after over a year of war, I feel more ready to hear criticism of Israel then I did at the beginning of middle. Balanced perspectives as as these I think are important as we go forward, defending our right to a safe existence, but keeping alive hope for peace, a diplomatic solution and co-existence. Even if those ideals seem impossible, I don't want the ideal of my country to be war, enmity, expulsion etc. Now as much as ever we need to hold both points--co-existence through strength.
I appreciate your counterpoint to my earlier article on this man. I hope it is okay for you that I link to my critique of him. You may have seen it. Maybe your readers have not and comparing your assessment of Alkhatib and mine will give some more material on which they can come to their own conclusions regarding how to view him.
I agree with Sheri and her many points. Subsequent replies indicate well that praise for Mr. Alkhatib as suggested b Alex Stein is but a return to the discredited approach of left-wing Israelis thinking that there is someone to talk to and Israelis should be overjoyed that there is a "Palestinian" who is willing to express some faint words of compromise from the vantage point of America. The fact remains that the ball is totally in the Palestinian camp to offer Israel a peace deal that is ironclad and entails a price Palestinians have to pay for their century old murderous hostility to Zionism. Personally, I do not think they can offer anything acceptable which would guarantee the security of Israeli citizens because no Palestinian person of note is willing to argue politically for that in the "Palestinian National Movement."
But you describe him as someone to talk to, suggesting that there are more people like him, and if enough of them could be found and encouraged, there would be a peace agreement between Israel and some Palestinian state representatives. A. B. Yehoshua, Amos Oz, David Grossman and all their company said the same thing twenty years ago and look where it got them and us. Beneath your discussion is the supposition, as Mr. Alkhatib himself suggested, that Israel too has its share of the blame for the "situation" as Israelis liked to label the horrific and incessant murderous hostility of Palestinians to the Jewish state and its citizens. The situation is far beyond that, and Mr. Alkhatib is more a milquetoast. You can laud him if you wish, but he would be more honest if he said the Palestinians have brought ALL of this upon themselves and should radically change course and stop blaming Israel for anything. Only such a break with the Palestinian discourse and practice will lead to anything useful. Israeli security is not up for discussion any more. And if Jews are to move to Israel they should be assured that they will not be murdered by Palestinians for walking in the street.
Actually had you read the piece more closely you might have noticed the following words: "Of course, Alkhatib would be the first to admit that his positions aren’t representative of the wider Palestinian public." I also didn't say anything about there being a peace agreement if enough of them were found and encouraged. The rest of what you said simply confirms my conclusion regarding apportioning of the blame, about which we will have to agree to disagree. Finally I walk around Jerusalem - a city which is one-third Palestinian - all the time, and so far I've managed not to be murdered. Of course, terrorism remains a major problem that needs to be defeated, but the suggestion that every single Palestinian is seeking to murder Jews is, like so much else that you write, a big fat whopping lie.
Every war is going to be ugly and messy. There is no way to produce the desired outcome of a war, victory, without horrible things happening.
The terrorists keep starting wars. The terrorists refuse to accept anything less than the eradication of Israel despite multiple generous offers of compromise. The entire Palestinian movement is predicated on a series of big lies. It’s a combination of Islamist fanatics and Marxist radicals that Israel is fighting.
It’s useful to understand both sides of an argument, and the death of innocent people is always tragic. But it’s an exercise in futility and dangerous to forget the big picture. There is no two state solution. You can’t have a neighbor who constantly tries to kill you. It’s not sustainable. The terrorists don’t care about your feelings. Why should Israel make concessions to people who wish to murder every last Jew? Stockholm Syndrome is a thing.
The point of the article is that - even if one accepts that the current situation is how you paint it - when one finds interlocutors who want to replace this murderous hostility with genuine coexistence, you should encourage them.
It’s a dangerous game. Nothing wrong with that in theory, but how many times has Israel been told that the Arabs want to negotiate an agreement , then sit together at a table, and make concessions, only to be rewarded with another round of murder. And mayhem? This is not new. Words are cheap, sincere or not. If the events of the last 76 years (and all the murder before that for 1400 years) don’t make these people want a genuine constructive solution, the burden is on them, not Israel to make it happen. The solution has to come from the top. The Arabs have to undergo a reformation of their ideology. Otherwise everything else is just containment. The Abraham Accords are the start. Build on that.
I followed Ahmoud Fouad Alkatib when he was on Linked In and engaged with his content. One thing your essay omits to describe is a post he wrote accusing members of the IDF of shooting Gazan children in the head at close range based on an opinion piece by a known Jew hater in the New York Times. He defended his stance in a later post when the NYT defended theirs. It’s one thing to criticize Israeli policies. It’s another thing to spread outright lies. That does nothing to advance the cause of peace. He has many times accused the IDF of indiscriminate bombing endangering civilians. This is all based on footage from Gaza although the press is not allowed into Gaza which leads me to question what we are even seeing. There is no veracity to any information coming out of Gaza because the source is exclusively Hamas. So basing accusations of Israel in it is disingenuous. I think he is desperate for there to be a “both sides” here so Israel can also be blamed. This dilutes his credibility.
My understanding of the New York Times article is that it wasn't an op-ed but a piece of reporting. And at the very least, the claim that it was "outright lies" is contentious. But my point is that one can have reasonable disagreements with him while supporting his overall position of conciliation and pragmatism. If one's position is that a Palestinian interlocutor can't be taken seriously unless they solely blame the Palestinians while exonerating Israel of any blame for the situation, then one should admit that they seek permanent subjugation and defeat of the Palestinians rather than the possibility of any kind of understanding.
"And at the very least, the claim that it was "outright lies" is contentious."
Several forensic experts have explained in detail why the images presented in the article are a complete impossibility. Thus those images were fabricated. If that not spreading outright lies, then your definition of "lie" must be very elastic.
You seem engaged on many topics and here's evidence where the author you presented presented lies and you disengaged, obviously time has passed but presenting an Arab as a honest mediator who's been shown to be dishonest is lamentable and your views seem to indicate that you still want to present the Arabs as reasonable when the Arab versus English language factor and whose world they are speaking to as we've experienced for decades continues onward.
I'm of the view that 22 Arab nations are enough and they need to show a urge to civilize as Trump urged them to in 2017, without that self push from the Arab Islamic world it's all futile
That’s an absurd response. I don’t know how you go from my saying his message of peace is diluted by unsupported accusations against the IDF to my wanting to permanently subjugate Palestinians but I’ll let you be you.
HI Dena - you may have noticed the words "But my point is" (i.e. the point I am making in the article) and "If one's position" (not "If Dena's position is..."). Let me put it another way: Do you think anything he has written about the IDF doesn't dilute his "message of peace" (I didn't use that phrase)? Are Palestinians allowed to criticise how Israel has fought the war? Or is no criticism permitted?
It’s not that I think there is never any basis to criticize Israel but I do think Palestinians are solely to blame for this situation as a whole. And i definitely don’t want to subjugate them- honestly I just want them to stop killing Jews. Israel does not want to be in Gaza, they have to be in order to protect Israelis from being killed and try to find the hostages. I’m sure numerous mistakes have been made by the IDF. How can they not be under the insane circumstances in which they are forced to fight? But I believe the IDF when they say that they analyze every strike based on expected military gain vs. civilian casualties. I also do not believe anything that comes out of Gaza because I don’t believe Hamas. Bottom line is I think one needs to be careful when criticizing the IDF because of the source. I think Ahmed is sincere but I also think he accepts outlandish claims about the IDF uncritically.
That's fair enough - and I think these are fair criticisms to take up with him. But I don't think he deserved having his Linkedin account remove because of sharing this article, or other criticisms he has made.
I agree. I didn’t know he lost his account until you mentioned it here. I know a lot of people who had the same thing happen but they fought and got their accounts back up.
I don't quite get the main idea of this article.
If the idea is that I would feel sorry for the people of Gaza and, impressed by this, I will talk to you about the "two-state solution", then the hero of your article "A proud American, a native of Gaza, originally from Ramla and living in Saudi Arabia" seems strange.
Those facts about 60,000 subscribers, family members killed by "Israeli bombing" (thank you for not using the words "carpet" and "indiscriminate") were supposed to soften my brain so that it would believe in the idea of two states again? This narrative is heard several times, and I understand that you want to talk about it? Let's talk about it. But then what does the story of your hero have to do with it?
That is, I do not understand the idea of the article, if there is one at all. But if you just feel sorry for the people of Gaza once again (for the umpteenth time) and criticize Israel, because that's the way it is done, then everything is clear.
Yeah, I certainly don’t agree with this guy on everything but the more outspoken Palestinian doves who want to live in coexistence with Israel the better.
🙏👍🏿💙😊😢🥰💪🫂
Thanks Alex. Personally, after over a year of war, I feel more ready to hear criticism of Israel then I did at the beginning of middle. Balanced perspectives as as these I think are important as we go forward, defending our right to a safe existence, but keeping alive hope for peace, a diplomatic solution and co-existence. Even if those ideals seem impossible, I don't want the ideal of my country to be war, enmity, expulsion etc. Now as much as ever we need to hold both points--co-existence through strength.
I agree. It's one thing to be realistic, another thing to think that we're fated to live like this for all eternity.
I appreciate your counterpoint to my earlier article on this man. I hope it is okay for you that I link to my critique of him. You may have seen it. Maybe your readers have not and comparing your assessment of Alkhatib and mine will give some more material on which they can come to their own conclusions regarding how to view him.
https://ozsheri.substack.com/p/ahmed-fouad-alkhatib-proud-american
Maybe you should write a new piece in response to mine :)
I think the two stand well one beside the other. No need for another.
:)
I agree with Sheri and her many points. Subsequent replies indicate well that praise for Mr. Alkhatib as suggested b Alex Stein is but a return to the discredited approach of left-wing Israelis thinking that there is someone to talk to and Israelis should be overjoyed that there is a "Palestinian" who is willing to express some faint words of compromise from the vantage point of America. The fact remains that the ball is totally in the Palestinian camp to offer Israel a peace deal that is ironclad and entails a price Palestinians have to pay for their century old murderous hostility to Zionism. Personally, I do not think they can offer anything acceptable which would guarantee the security of Israeli citizens because no Palestinian person of note is willing to argue politically for that in the "Palestinian National Movement."
Hi Stephen - the article is about a single person and the reactions to him, rather than the Palestinian national movement as a whole.
But you describe him as someone to talk to, suggesting that there are more people like him, and if enough of them could be found and encouraged, there would be a peace agreement between Israel and some Palestinian state representatives. A. B. Yehoshua, Amos Oz, David Grossman and all their company said the same thing twenty years ago and look where it got them and us. Beneath your discussion is the supposition, as Mr. Alkhatib himself suggested, that Israel too has its share of the blame for the "situation" as Israelis liked to label the horrific and incessant murderous hostility of Palestinians to the Jewish state and its citizens. The situation is far beyond that, and Mr. Alkhatib is more a milquetoast. You can laud him if you wish, but he would be more honest if he said the Palestinians have brought ALL of this upon themselves and should radically change course and stop blaming Israel for anything. Only such a break with the Palestinian discourse and practice will lead to anything useful. Israeli security is not up for discussion any more. And if Jews are to move to Israel they should be assured that they will not be murdered by Palestinians for walking in the street.
Actually had you read the piece more closely you might have noticed the following words: "Of course, Alkhatib would be the first to admit that his positions aren’t representative of the wider Palestinian public." I also didn't say anything about there being a peace agreement if enough of them were found and encouraged. The rest of what you said simply confirms my conclusion regarding apportioning of the blame, about which we will have to agree to disagree. Finally I walk around Jerusalem - a city which is one-third Palestinian - all the time, and so far I've managed not to be murdered. Of course, terrorism remains a major problem that needs to be defeated, but the suggestion that every single Palestinian is seeking to murder Jews is, like so much else that you write, a big fat whopping lie.
Every war is going to be ugly and messy. There is no way to produce the desired outcome of a war, victory, without horrible things happening.
The terrorists keep starting wars. The terrorists refuse to accept anything less than the eradication of Israel despite multiple generous offers of compromise. The entire Palestinian movement is predicated on a series of big lies. It’s a combination of Islamist fanatics and Marxist radicals that Israel is fighting.
It’s useful to understand both sides of an argument, and the death of innocent people is always tragic. But it’s an exercise in futility and dangerous to forget the big picture. There is no two state solution. You can’t have a neighbor who constantly tries to kill you. It’s not sustainable. The terrorists don’t care about your feelings. Why should Israel make concessions to people who wish to murder every last Jew? Stockholm Syndrome is a thing.
The point of the article is that - even if one accepts that the current situation is how you paint it - when one finds interlocutors who want to replace this murderous hostility with genuine coexistence, you should encourage them.
It’s a dangerous game. Nothing wrong with that in theory, but how many times has Israel been told that the Arabs want to negotiate an agreement , then sit together at a table, and make concessions, only to be rewarded with another round of murder. And mayhem? This is not new. Words are cheap, sincere or not. If the events of the last 76 years (and all the murder before that for 1400 years) don’t make these people want a genuine constructive solution, the burden is on them, not Israel to make it happen. The solution has to come from the top. The Arabs have to undergo a reformation of their ideology. Otherwise everything else is just containment. The Abraham Accords are the start. Build on that.
Well this article highlights someone who wants to reform the Palestinians.
I followed Ahmoud Fouad Alkatib when he was on Linked In and engaged with his content. One thing your essay omits to describe is a post he wrote accusing members of the IDF of shooting Gazan children in the head at close range based on an opinion piece by a known Jew hater in the New York Times. He defended his stance in a later post when the NYT defended theirs. It’s one thing to criticize Israeli policies. It’s another thing to spread outright lies. That does nothing to advance the cause of peace. He has many times accused the IDF of indiscriminate bombing endangering civilians. This is all based on footage from Gaza although the press is not allowed into Gaza which leads me to question what we are even seeing. There is no veracity to any information coming out of Gaza because the source is exclusively Hamas. So basing accusations of Israel in it is disingenuous. I think he is desperate for there to be a “both sides” here so Israel can also be blamed. This dilutes his credibility.
My understanding of the New York Times article is that it wasn't an op-ed but a piece of reporting. And at the very least, the claim that it was "outright lies" is contentious. But my point is that one can have reasonable disagreements with him while supporting his overall position of conciliation and pragmatism. If one's position is that a Palestinian interlocutor can't be taken seriously unless they solely blame the Palestinians while exonerating Israel of any blame for the situation, then one should admit that they seek permanent subjugation and defeat of the Palestinians rather than the possibility of any kind of understanding.
"And at the very least, the claim that it was "outright lies" is contentious."
Several forensic experts have explained in detail why the images presented in the article are a complete impossibility. Thus those images were fabricated. If that not spreading outright lies, then your definition of "lie" must be very elastic.
Can you share the pieces where the forensic details explain this in detail?
https://twitter.com/CherylWroteIt/status/1844907195953185093
https://twitter.com/er_tramonto/status/1845056445818994821
https://twitter.com/TizkoretZe/status/1845073525427605606
You seem engaged on many topics and here's evidence where the author you presented presented lies and you disengaged, obviously time has passed but presenting an Arab as a honest mediator who's been shown to be dishonest is lamentable and your views seem to indicate that you still want to present the Arabs as reasonable when the Arab versus English language factor and whose world they are speaking to as we've experienced for decades continues onward.
I'm of the view that 22 Arab nations are enough and they need to show a urge to civilize as Trump urged them to in 2017, without that self push from the Arab Islamic world it's all futile
That’s an absurd response. I don’t know how you go from my saying his message of peace is diluted by unsupported accusations against the IDF to my wanting to permanently subjugate Palestinians but I’ll let you be you.
HI Dena - you may have noticed the words "But my point is" (i.e. the point I am making in the article) and "If one's position" (not "If Dena's position is..."). Let me put it another way: Do you think anything he has written about the IDF doesn't dilute his "message of peace" (I didn't use that phrase)? Are Palestinians allowed to criticise how Israel has fought the war? Or is no criticism permitted?
It’s not that I think there is never any basis to criticize Israel but I do think Palestinians are solely to blame for this situation as a whole. And i definitely don’t want to subjugate them- honestly I just want them to stop killing Jews. Israel does not want to be in Gaza, they have to be in order to protect Israelis from being killed and try to find the hostages. I’m sure numerous mistakes have been made by the IDF. How can they not be under the insane circumstances in which they are forced to fight? But I believe the IDF when they say that they analyze every strike based on expected military gain vs. civilian casualties. I also do not believe anything that comes out of Gaza because I don’t believe Hamas. Bottom line is I think one needs to be careful when criticizing the IDF because of the source. I think Ahmed is sincere but I also think he accepts outlandish claims about the IDF uncritically.
That's fair enough - and I think these are fair criticisms to take up with him. But I don't think he deserved having his Linkedin account remove because of sharing this article, or other criticisms he has made.
I agree. I didn’t know he lost his account until you mentioned it here. I know a lot of people who had the same thing happen but they fought and got their accounts back up.
He also managed to get it restored.
I don't quite get the main idea of this article.
If the idea is that I would feel sorry for the people of Gaza and, impressed by this, I will talk to you about the "two-state solution", then the hero of your article "A proud American, a native of Gaza, originally from Ramla and living in Saudi Arabia" seems strange.
Those facts about 60,000 subscribers, family members killed by "Israeli bombing" (thank you for not using the words "carpet" and "indiscriminate") were supposed to soften my brain so that it would believe in the idea of two states again? This narrative is heard several times, and I understand that you want to talk about it? Let's talk about it. But then what does the story of your hero have to do with it?
That is, I do not understand the idea of the article, if there is one at all. But if you just feel sorry for the people of Gaza once again (for the umpteenth time) and criticize Israel, because that's the way it is done, then everything is clear.
I'm sorry you weren't able to understand it.
Yeah, I certainly don’t agree with this guy on everything but the more outspoken Palestinian doves who want to live in coexistence with Israel the better.
Great piece.