COMMENT
344
Said does not mention Israel's security needs; or the fact that
the entire Arab world is bent on the destruction of Israel; or that
the Arab countries have used and have not helped the
Palestinians; or that they were sent out of Egypt, Morocco, and
elsewhere without compensation; or that the Jews now have
nowhere to go if they lose their homeland.
But it is not so much the matter as the manner of Said's ar–
gument that is surprising. The three academics who disagree
with Said are polite, respectful, almost deferential. And they go to
some lengths to indicate that they are not hawks and that they
agree with Said in some respects. Yet Said assaults them with
abuse and savage irony. Here are some examples: "His response
to me is therefore the verbal equivalent to the Israeli occupation,
an equivalent whose specious arguments and time-wasting
verbosity cover up the shameless killing and oppression of
Palestinians." And: "...he should... keep decently silent until (if
he is a human being) ... or if he is (as I suspect) a political
invention, dissolves himself as an enterprise and announces his
withdrawal from a discussion he has degraded." And: ".. .even a
mediocre eighteenth-century specialist such as he will
understand me." And: "...he has neither the wit nor the moral
courage... " And: "...the massive ravings of ... incoherent pages."
Now, it is natural that as a Palestinian, Said should express a
Palestinian view. But one would expect of a sophisticated writer,
trained to see different sides of a question, that he would at least
be aware of Israel's difficulties in trying to balance the need for
survival with the moral problems connected with the occupation.
One has to wonder why Said is so vituperative. Could it be
that his anger breaks into his prose? Or perhaps he is high on a
sense of power, because his viewpoint has had such wide accep–
tance. As Robert Griffin writes in the same issue, ".. .the fact that
the editors [of
Critical Inquiry]
up until now received no responses
to Said [to his original piece] carries special significance .
It
signals, or can be read as signaling, that the literary and critical
establishment has reached a consensus and that liberal supporters
of Israel in our discipline have retreated from the field."
* * *
