Photo Credit: courtesy

{Reposted from the SATIRICAL website, PreOccupied Territory}

Jerusalem. July 15– Ministry of Health pronouncements governing public behavior during the current second wave of the coronavirus pandemic in Israel have nearly the same level of consistency, clarity, and persuasive power as any argument for a sovereign, independent, Arab Palestine, a new study has found.

Advertisement



Researchers examining the comparative compelling elements of the case for Palestinian statehood and the public health guidelines, such as they are, for managing the newest cycle of COVID-19 infections have found that both bodies of rhetoric contain much in the way of theatrical bluster and little in the way of good-faith, ingenuous arguments in support, with arguments for Palestinian statehood perhaps a shade more on the convincing side by simple dint of being around much longer and settling into the popular consciousness. The study came to light in the most recent issue of the journal Studies in Palestinian Undertakings and Ramifications of Israeli Operations for Unilateral Solutions (SPURIOUS).

The SPURIOUS article detailed an analysis demonstrating that on-again, off-again lockdown measures; arbitrary limitations on customers per establishment; no adjustment in limitations in accordance with available space; no announcement of how long specific restrictions will remain in force; incoherent exceptions for certain industries; draconian mask-mandate enforcement in certain locales, such as among Hareidm, vs. nonexistent enforcement among others, such as Negev Bedouin or South Tel Aviv migrant workers; and repeated violations of announced restrictions by high-profile political figures, among other facets of the situation, have resulted in a polity even less convinced by governmental coronavirus “policy’ than by the notion that letting those responsible for tens of thousands of violent Israeli deaths in a declared effort to commit genocide against the Jews of the Holy Land might form the basis of a sound strategic approach.

“We find slightly more support for the idea that Israel should rely on existential enemies to help guarantee its security,” the SPURIOUS article observed, “but the difference barely cracks the threshold of statistical significance. One could credibly deem the coherence and persuasive power of either set of ideas more or less equivalent, which is to say, close to nonexistent.”

The SPURIOUS research team aims to follow up this study with an examination of the credibility of Palestinian claims not to tolerate living under Israeli law with claims that anything Israel does that appears counter to declared Palestinian interests will result in unprecedented violence and permanent closure of any remaining avenues toward resolution of the conflict.

 

Advertisement