The good people at Hezbollah are offering the world another insight into extremist thought. The militant group has banned “The Diary of Anne Frank” from schools as Zionist propaganda by focusing on the plight of some Jews. I suppose when you are teaching kids to blow up innocent people, an account of an innocent victim can appear propagandistic.
What is striking is that the censorship occurred not over the book but simple excerpts from the book shown to school children in a private English-language school in western Beirut. That led to a shrill attack from Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television channel, which asked how long Lebanon would “remain an open arena for the Zionist invasion of education.”
Hezbollah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan criticized the school for exposing the children to a story about a suffering Jewish girl: “These respected, established schools are teaching the so-called tragedy this girl lived, and yet they are ashamed to teach the tragedy of the Lebanese people, the tragedy of the Palestinian people… the tragedy of the people of the south under the hands of Zionist occupation.”
Notably, the Lebanese routinely prevent citizens from reading unapproved material through its censorship bureau, which actually blanked out the chapter in this textbook. However, a student purchased a book privately that had the chapter, which was shown to other students.
There is even a committee for “the ban of Zionist products” that called for the removal of the book. Attorney Naim Kalaani of the committee says that showing the book is a crime. What a wonderful role for a lawyer — criminalizing free speech and possession of a classic book.
For the full story, click here.
A foundation of bigotry is the dehumanization of the subject. In this instance portraying even one Jewish girl in a favorable light upsets the dehumanization. I’ve no doubt that Israeli’s do that as well.
That old marine proverb “you can’t handle the truth” seems to have broader application now.
We have our own militants of the “Party of God” right here in America pushing their agenda of creationism in schools and banning books such as the Harry Potter series!
All bans on literature have the same intent, the prevention of independent thought through the suppression of ideas. Ultimately, of course, all such bans fail. It is remarkable to me, however, that efforts to effect them continue here and abroad given the extent to which the internet has permeated the world. Religious and political tyrants are simply out of touch if they actually believe they can still control the flow of information.
“I suppose when you are teaching kids to blow up innocent people, an account of an innocent victim can appear propagandistic.”
That THAT was true Zionist propoganda right there.
In any case, they have a right, and the real blame lies with all those crazed Zionist Jews who keep using the Holocaust to justify Israeli crimes.
Well, do that and don’t be surprised if your victims don;t want to heart anymore about the Holocaust.
Good for Lebanon.
LOL at Dar.
Further proof that mankind has not evolved an inch from the slime that spawned him.
451 degrees F?
The Obama Administration bans “Fox News” as Republican propaganda.
And to think Mark Twain was banned at one time. Makes me wonder who is really calling the shot. Last call.
“In any case, they have a right, and the real blame lies with all those crazed Zionist Jews who keep using the Holocaust to justify Israeli crimes.”
Dar,
Name five who have made that statement.
“The Obama Administration bans “Fox News” as Republican propaganda.”
John,
Last I looked FOX News is still on cable. Banning them would mean keeping them off cable. You need to be precise in your commentary, lame as it may be. Given that you are probably an avid FOX watcher you’ve absorbed enough of their propaganda to no longer make sense, but it does focus your anger, doesn’t it?
Mike:
Did not the Obama Administration fail to ban one Fox News reporter from interviewing Mr. Kenneth Fienberg?
To Mike Spindell,
If you don’t see how the Holocaust is constantly being used to defend Israel, then you’ve been on Planet Zeta-5 too long.
Israel’s founding is almost always related to “persecution in Europe/by the Nazis”, while Israel’s brutality towards the Palestinians is always about “preventing a second holocaust”, and even America’s crazy support for Israel is also often related to the Holocaust.
Mike Spindell wrote: In this instance portraying even one Jewish girl in a favorable light upsets the dehumanization. I’ve no doubt that Israeli’s do that as well.
Are you suggesting that Israel censors anyone who is supportive of the Palestinians? Do you have any evidence of that, other than anti-Semitism or Political Correctness?
The reality is, there are openly pro-Palestinian organizations, such as B’Tselem, operating in Israel. There are no openly pro-Israel organizations operating in the Palestinian-controlled territories that I’m aware of, and this article convinces me of that.
Or did I misinterpret your last sentence above?
“If you don’t see how the Holocaust is constantly being used to defend Israel, then you’ve been on Planet Zeta-5 too long.”
Dar,
I asked you to name 5 instances backing up your statement. If it was so true I would have thought that to be easy. You weren’t even aqble to name one.
“Did not the Obama Administration fail to ban one Fox News reporter from interviewing Mr. Kenneth Fienberg?”
John,
Refusing to do an interview is not “banning” which in the context you used it would mean keeping the network off the air. The Administrations position, which I believe is correct, is not to feed a wholly biased propaganda entity posing as news.
“Are you suggesting that Israel censors anyone who is supportive of the Palestinians? Do you have any evidence of that, other than anti-Semitism or Political Correctness?”
WRLO56,
If you’re younger than 65 then I would suggest I’ve been a Jew longer than you, as well as an ardent supporter of Israel. To support Israel’s right to exist as an independent Jewish State does not mean ignoring the times when they too are guilty of excess, especially when their government is in the hands of a jerk like Bibi. Secondly, you should know that “anti-semitic” is a term developed by people who felt Jews inferior (the eugenecists) and then embraced by the Nazi’s. The correct term would be anti-Jewish, or any vatiation of same that would not use “semitic” which is a bigoted term.
Mike:
Ok, I agree to disagree. At any rate, do note that Albert Einstein, a Jew, was a eugenicist.
“Dar,
I asked you to name 5 instances backing up your statement. If it was so true I would have thought that to be easy. You weren’t even aqble to name one.”
What do you mean “5 instances”? How dishonest you are, you mean Jews never ever use the Holocaust to justify Israel or shut down criticism of Israel? You never encountered that before? The phrase “never again” is never used by Israelis? Denying this is like denying that Jews use the mythical “Jewish race” card to justify the theft of Palestine in the first place. I suppose you’ll deny that too?
Even Roosevelt in his efforts to justify a Jewish state to King Ibn Saud used the Nazi persecutions to justify it, to which the king rightfully responded that they should then be given German lands (something that Jews would no doubt refuse, not to mention the West, because that would be “stealing”, unlike what was done to Palestinians).
Or what about the silly attempts to link Palestinians to the Nazis by way of the Mufti?
And on and on it goes.
Bottom line, Hezbollah is 100% right to reject this attempt yo impose the “Holocaust/victimhood/right-to-steal-Palestine” line on them, just as thr Palestinians did a few months ago.
When Jews begin to acknowledge that they stole Palestinians land to which they have no right, then maybe teaching about the Holocaust might be fine.
“you mean Jews never ever use the Holocaust to justify Israel or shut down criticism of Israel? You never encountered that before? The phrase “never again” is never used by Israelis?”
Yes of course some Jews have used the Shoah to justify Israel’s existence and perhaps even some government officials, but that has never been the justification for Israel’s existence by Israeli’s. Their justification, which you obviously disagree with, is that they resettled and revitalized the land beginning in the mid 19th Century. Was there a Balfour Declaration, of course, but the return to Israel Movement started by Herzl predates it by many years. As oil became valuable the Brits reneged on Balfour and tried to keep Jews out. Before and after WWII, when Jewish refugees were not allowed into most countries
Israel became a destination and the population swelled.
On May 14, 1948, the British Manadte expired and Israel declared itself a State. It was immediately attacked on all sides by stronger forces both in troops and equipment. The US had refused to assist the Israeli’s, but sympathizers smuggled in weaponry from all over the world. The Arab Legion fom Jordan was even run by a British General. The indigenous Arabs living in Israel were asked to stay, but the surrounding Arab nations asked them to leave so they would have a clear path to drive the Jews into the sea.
Improbably, the Israeli’s prevailed and the Arabs who left were put into concentration camps by their Arab bretheran. Israel has a right to the land by dint of being victorious in battle.People who don’t agree with Israel’s existence use the “Holocaust” mythology for two purposes. One it diminishes the horror of the Shoah, by reducing it to a “realpolitk” excuse and the second is because it is painful for them to admit that a bunch of ill-equipped Jews defeated the “might” of the Arab world.
“Even Roosevelt in his efforts to justify a Jewish state to King Ibn Saud used the Nazi persecutions to justify it,”
Roosevelt was long dead prior to 1948 and was only very mildly interested in a “Jewish State.” His conversations with Saud were mainly about oil and the idea of a “Jewish State” was thrown in to pressure Saud re: oil rights. Ibn Saud himself was a usurper whose clan did not come from Saudi Arabia. He took it over by force, with imperialist assistance and maintained it by making a pact with the Wahabiists to embrace their religious beliefs. Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom by conquest, as Israel is a country by conquest. As far as that goes almost every country in the world has gotten its’ start that way. Why should Jews have different rights? Notice I’m not providing moral justification for Israel, in the world of countries morality is a minor issue.
Though given the way women and ordinary people are treated in the surrounding Arab countries Israel actually rates higher on any impartial moral scale.
“Or what about the silly attempts to link Palestinians to the Nazis by way of the Mufti?”
Fact: The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent WWII in Berlin as Hitler’s honored guest. Fact he hated Jews. Fact he supported Hitler in WWII. Fact Yassir Arafat, an Egyptian was the Grand Mufti’s nephew and that was one basis of his claim to PLO leadership, even though he had not been born in Palestine.
“Bottom line, Hezbollah is 100% right to reject this attempt yo impose the “Holocaust/victimhood/right-to-steal-Palestine” line on them, just as thr Palestinians did a few months ago.”
Bottom line, Hezbollah is allowed to use whatever means and propaganda they want to propel their cause. However, they will never unseat the Israeli’s and will continue to assure their people live in misery if they maintain their militant position. This whole thing can be settled with a viable two-state solution. When Hezbollah and Fatah finally think about the misery of their people and not about the “impossible dream” of driving the Israeli’s in the sea, this could all be worked out.
If not, Hezbollah’s and Fatah’s people will continue to be used as pawns of suffering by their leaders and their Arab bretheren who just can’t accept Israel’s existence. This despite the fact that every other nation in the Mid East is also an artificial creation brought about by the fall of the Ottoman Empire. If you really want to get down to it the Turks should have it all because historically they held it for the longest time.
“Ok, I agree to disagree. At any rate, do note that Albert Einstein, a Jew, was a eugenicist.”
John,
The link between Einstein and eugenics is highly debatable. For these purposes, however, let’s say that there was a link and a strong link. So what? Do you believe that all Jews are respondible for the views of all other Jews? Is there anything I’ve written that implies that if a Jew says something it is always right. Would you find this true of all other ethnic groups, races and religions? What exactly is your point. Mine is that 19th Century Eugenics was a racist misinterpretation of Darwin’s theories, that was picked up and run with by the Nazi’s. If one or a thousand Jews believed in eugenics how would that negate my premise?
I suggest banning the following:
The story of Cain and Able as nomadic hearder propaganda.
“Fatherhood” as pro-jello propaganda.
“A Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave” as abolitionist propaganda.
“Down and Out in London and Paris” as propaganda by the lower class.
“Miles: An Autobiography” as jazz trumpeter propaganda.
“The Joy of Cooking” as pro cooking propaganda.
Interesting your use of the word “REsettled”, again implying that the land is somehow always and forever Jewish, and that all those Jews in Europe have a right to it. (because they are the pure-blooded descendants of the Exiled Tribes etc…etc…etc…). Completely dishonest, but not surprising.
Yes, there was some European Jewish immigration to Palestine prior to WWI, but it was the British Balfour Declaration that increased by legally justifying such immigration. Further, under British rule, the British almost always took the side of Jews against Arabs. To ignore all that and concentrate on the White Papers war-time immigration limits is silly.
Further the idea that all those Palestinians who left left vecause the Arab govts. asked them to, is an old and long-debunked myth. But supposing it’s true, so what? It doesn’t deny their right to the land. If someone broke into your home and the police, in confronting him, asked you to leave the house so as to not get hurt, does that negate your ownership of the house now?
And yes, the Mufti allied with Germany, for understandable reasons, they were fighting the people controlling his land, namely the British Empire. His anti-Jewish sentiments are also understandable given the sow take-over of his land he was witnessing.
Yes Israe today exists, but that doesn’t give it a moral right to exist.
Your attacks against the Saudis are more dishonesty. The Saudis are still native to the land. Now IF the Saudi kingdom had been created and settled by, say, Chinese immigrants, then an analogy with Israel would make sense.
Finally, as for all the talk about Israel being here to stay, well, looking at a map of the Middle East today, I can’t seem to find the Kingdom of Jerusalem or the Principality of Antioch anywhere?
Borders to countries are established traditionally by conquest and, ultimately, by the acquiescence of other countries. When one speaks of a “right” to land, it has no meaning outside the context of established law. Regardless of what fundamentalists of all religious stripes pretend, no country exists by virtue of some divine law or because one or more peoples are “native” to it. The only function of an agreed boundary is to delineate an area over which a government may assert sovereignty.
Israel was created because it had to be. And land for that purpose had to be taken from somewhere and from someone. An independent Palestinian state will eventually be created as well because it has to be. The struggles will continue because people lack the maturity to respect cultural and religious differences and because fear of the unknown will always trump reason and principle.
“Interesting your use of the word “REsettled”, again implying that the land is somehow always and forever Jewish,”
Dar,
If I intend to say something, I say it. I used resettled because the Jews had been in Israel in numbers up until around 1,900 years ago, not to say that the Jews had as you put it:
“implying that the land is somehow always and forever Jewish,”
I was clear that Israel became a state by dint of arms and their claim to that state has continued because of that. I was clear in stating that that is the general history of every country in the world. You may be confident that those you support will overthrow Israel, but I seriously doubt that will come to pass.
You are so narrowly focussed on what you would cal “Palestinian grievances” that you fail to see the larger picture. The Arab states of the Mid East, primarilly authoritarian republics and kingdoms, who oppress their own people terribly keeping the majority in poverty, need something to distract those people from the truth that the wealth of the region goes to only a very few, who maintain oppressive control. Israel is that necessary “bogeyman” and so while publicly they despise it, privately they cooperate in its’ existence.
The US has never been the “friend” of Israel it claims to be, it exercizes control over Israel which could literally conquer the entire region. Finally, you referred to “never again” but totally miss its’ point. Israel has nuclear arms and the Mid East is not a particularly large region. Israeli’s will die rather than be conquered and in the process a good portion of the world’s oil will be lost for 6,000 years.
Now you can give me all the malarkey about morality you want, but please when you talk of morality, think of the oppression of Arab Women, the poverty of the Arab masses, the intertwining of Islamic religious leaders and wealth, and the lives of children lost who’ve been sold on being martyrs. Suspiciously those martyrs are never made up of those relatives of the powerful people who run Hezbollah, Fatah, or any other supposed fighter for truth. The Arab and Islamic world are the victims of a viscious con game, but the perpertrators are the Arab leaders themselves.
You are expecting from me perhaps the canned arguments of someone who follows AIPAC, but you’ve got the wrong Jew. I don’t enjoy seeing the oppression suffered by Arabs, nor do I view them as anything but fellow humans. However, I’m older than the State of Israel and I’ve got a long enough memory to know that however that group of Arabs got out of Israel, they were sorely used and ill treated by their co-religionists and Arab bretheran, so it is a little late in the game to blame all their misery on Israel. Had Israel never been created they would be oppressed natives of Egypt and Jordan and would be living lives equally as miserable. The irony is that Israel was always the only hope to liberate those who lived in Palestine from their
outside masters and it remains their greatest hope today via a fair two state solution.
To Mike Spindell:
You can’t have it both ways, ignoring ghe moral issue when it comes to Israel, but bringing it up when it comes to the “oppressed” Arab populations.
Nor can both be of equal immorality. Whatever the faults of the Arab govts., that is separate and different qualitatively from the issue of Israel. It’s like those who answer any criticism of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to Saddam Hussein’s and the Taliban’s brutalities. Irrelevant.
Just as the the obvious imperialism of US foreign policy over the past 60+ years, AND the brutal nature of the Soviet Union, were separate issues neither of which negates the other. Did the US use the Soviet threat to justify its wars? yes. Does that then follow that the Soviet Union was not the wicked place it wasmade out to be? No. And vice-versa.
Finally, something you refuse to deny, is that Israel will never be recognized in the region. Not because of the corrupt government, but bevause the people themselves. Look at Egypt, the govt. recognizes Israel, but not the people. This is something you and others like you, whether Left or Right continue to ignore, is that it is the PEOPLE even more than the governments, that reject Israel. Why else is Israel and the US so ken to keep real democracy from the region, is because they know that the people are even more opposed to Israel and to US hegemony, than the corrupt petty rules who can easily be politically/morally suborned.
That’s why Israel is a yet another passing phenomenon, just like the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other Crusader kingdoms (wh I remind you survived a whole 200 years, not just 60, and that was BEFORE mass media and telecommunications made their crimes and presence known to the whole Arab/Islamic, not just the surrounding region). Because corrupt venal rules come and go, but the people remain. I doubt Godfrey de Bouillon could have predicted Saladin or the Mamlukes.
If you wish to ignore this unavoidable future, then fine. To each his own fantasies.
Dar, I have been following your exchange with Mike S. with some interest. As Mike knows, I have been a critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. But I believe that your obvious anger over the injustices has led to some wishful thinking. As I noted earlier, neither morality nor relative moral virtue determine the legitimacy of a state. Legitimacy is conferred solely through the process of political acceptance by other states. The support of the United States for Israel has strong roots and is far more complicated than you appear to recognize. The west will never permit the destruction of Israel because it cannot do so, even should it mean war against the entire Arab world. That is the fact. The two state solution is the only one that makes sense. All of the debating about “moral rights” and “acceptance by the people” accomplishes nothing other than to stir the pot of hatred. The result is merely the continued exchange of retributive violence. Ask the Irish. They wasted over 400 years on it.
To Mike Appleton:
“As I noted earlier, neither morality nor relative moral virtue determine the legitimacy of a state.”
But that’s where you are wrong.TO the extend that you right, it is only because virtually all states in the world are native, meaning that they are founded and largely made up of indigenous peoples (excluding pre-historic migrations), regardless of how one feels about the government.
Syria, Iran, Egypt, etc…, regardless of their exact borders and governments, are valid entities because they are made up of natives. Not true of Israel (or the US for that matter), which is a foreign colony in effect. So there is no need for, say, Syria to morally defend its existence (though it may its particular borders and government), where-as Israel must do so since as colonial states they must the defend morally the legitmacy of having come to the land and taken it from the natives.
The US had no such defence, therefore the US exists by what I call the “fait accompli”-reasonong: It is there and isn;t going anywhere, both by cirtue of power and by virtue of the impracticality of 300 million people going back to Europe/Asia/Africa.
This doesn’t apply to Israel, which is not as militarily secure as the US, nor is it impractical for a mere 5 million to leave and go back to their real homes.
And such moral foundations isn’t just a rhetorical device, it also it what causes peopels to recognize such a nation. As I wrote before, most Arabs don;t recognize Israel even if their corrupt leaders do, precisely because they recognize that European Jews have no moral right to come over and take Palestine from its Arab natives.
Further, you write “Legitimacy is conferred solely through the process of political acceptance by other states.”, but if that’s the case then Israel has less legitimacy that most countries since it doesn’t have the recognition of a few dozen (Islamic) nations.
As for the idea of the US/West not allowing Israel to disappear. I highly doubt that. America maybe, but not Europe. And even for the US it is mostly a threat, but it is doubtful that the US would actually go to a full-scale war is Israel was on the verge of being destroyed. Jewish-Zionist influence on America isn’t THAT strong. Japan against China maybe. Western Europe against Russia/USSR likely. But otherwise I doubt it.
Like the curased states, time is ultimately not on Israel’s side, total-US-support/nuclear-weapons or not.
“You can’t have it both ways, ignoring ghe moral issue when it comes to Israel, but bringing it up when it comes to the “oppressed” Arab populations.”
Dar,
My reason for doing so is that which you find hard to grasp. The issue of morality when it comes to nations is moot. There is no moral nation in the history of the world and there probably never will be. Nevertheless, one can make judgments of a nation on its’ immoral acts. While you believe differently, I would submit to you that the treatment of the PLO’s population has been immoral from all sides. You can justify the mistreatment by their Arab bretheran all you want, but the reality is there. I am capable of admitting, that which you cannot when it comes to your beliefs, that the Israeli’s have done immoral things. You are unable though to likewise admit that terrorism and suicide bombings are equally immoral. Likewise that the treatment of the Arabs leaving Israel in 1948 was morally reprehensible and perpetrated by their Arab bretheran.
Unfortunately, for you Dar I am at least as familiar with history as you are.
“Israel will never be recognized in the region. Not because of the corrupt government, but bevause the people themselves.”
While you may be correct in this I fear your view of humanity is an overly pessimistic one. The “Islamic people” have been been subjected to years of propaganda and slanted news, whose sole purpose was to keep them looking towards a “bogeyman,” while their Governments robbed them and oppressed them. I think average humans eventually begin to understand that they have been fooled.
Now it is true that there are long memroies in the region, but most of those are of slanted historicl views, used to control the population. The Crusades, which as a Jew I deplore, nevertheless no more imperialistic then the spread of Islam after the death of the Prophet. Do you really believe that the Islamic control of Spain and other European regions came about merely by spreading the word of the Qu’ran? Weren’t the Byzantine and then Ottoman Empires Imperialists? Truthfully too,
isn’t the whole Sunni/Shi’a argument an original battle about succession of the Prophet, that has been used by egomaniacal opportunists through the years to bolster their own power.
“Why else is Israel and the US so ken to keep real democracy from the region, is because they know that the people are even more opposed to Israel and to US hegemony,”
If you are debating with me then you are mixing apples with oranges. Your view, the incorrect one I believe, is that the US is a friend of Israel. My view is that the US has never been Israel’s friend, despite the diplomatic pretenses and serves as
a control over Israel going its’ own way. You also follow the myth of US hegemony, when the truth is that the US does the bidding of the Saudi’s, OPEC and the Oil Companies. The first Iraq invasion proved that the US troops were little more than a hired army of the Saudi’s. THe US government is unfortunately controlled by its’ wealthy elite and has for years done their bidding, as relayed from the Saudi’s in the Mid East.
As I previously said if Israel had never existed the lives of the Arab peoples would be no better, perhaps much worse considering the means that would have to be used to control them without a “bogeyman.” Well at least that could be tempered by using Western Culture as the “Bogeyman.”
Now as to your reference to “Godfrey de Bouillon” and his ouster by the Egyptian Saladin, himself a seeker of empire, it took him long enough to unseat that so-called “Kingdom” considering the inordinate difference in manpower and the superior arms of the Egyptian’s forces. Israel has already fought off opponents far superior in manpower and equipment. Perhaps you don’t realize it but US arms were kept from Israel, yet supplied to the Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudi’s. Israel has developed its’ own arms industry and is an atomic power.
The sadness of this is that peace is actually attainable and it could be a peace that accomodates both sides. However, Islam and the great Arabic masses, both of which represent magnificent cultural achievements and human advancement, have been captured by a piggish elite determined to maintain their power at the expense of their people. They foster a sense of victimhood and grievance, in a culture that should more profitably focus on its capabilities and they take a religion that is fundamentally beautiful in its’ simplicity and distort it in the service of power. The solution to this situation will far exceed either of our lifespans and so neither of us will ever know who is right.
Now I’m willing to keep debating this with you and will do so if that is your wish, but there will be no resolution or triumph for either of us. I’m willing to do so even with the fact that I am limited in the debate because I don’t see your side as inherantly evil, while you view my side in just those terms.
“Syria, Iran, Egypt, etc…, regardless of their exact borders and governments, are valid entities because they are made up of natives.”
With the exception of Iran, who were after all the Persians, you are historically incorrect. There is much evidence that Egyptians were originally Africans and that Syria’s population is so intertwined with Greeks/Romans as to make the cultural strains impossible to sort out. The entire history of the Mid East and the world for that matter has been one of indigenous people, being replaced by new cultural/ethnic/racial strains.
By the way could somebody clue me in on why my name is coming out as Miconoclast? It is something to do with wordpress and I don’t know how to change it. My original user’s name in wordpress was Miconoclast and now for some damned reason it’s showing up like that.
Mike A.: “As I noted earlier, neither morality nor relative moral virtue determine the legitimacy of a state. Legitimacy is conferred solely through the process of political acceptance by other states.”
Epistemically speaking, exactly how does the world (eyes of the world?) ‘judge’ or ‘consider’ and ‘conclude’ that a state is ‘legitimate?’
Lottery?
To Mike Spindell:
I’m sorry, but you and I are so completely on opposite sides of virtually everything.
You equate the mistreatment of a people by (essentially) a colony, with the mistreatment of a people by other natives.
Yes, the Egyptian and other local govts. mistreat the Palestinians. But there can be no more equivelency between mistreating an ethnic minority loving in your land (bad as that is), and the occupation and take-over of a people’s land by foreigners. This is much like those who try to minimize America’s treatment of the Native Americans by pointing out (correctly) that the tribes used to fight brutal wars among themselves anyway.
Your assertion that the US doesn’t support Israel strikes me as something out of the Twilight Zone. Name me any other nation in the world that received as much military, financial, and political/diplomatic support as Israel? Name me any other nation it the word that receives as much fawning over by American politicians as Israel? Name me any other country in the world that receives as much positive propaganda by the American press as Israel? No one eklse even comes close.
Your view on Saudi Arabia is, obviously something straight out of Michael More/Greg Palast (especially the latter). Pro-Saud sentiments in America’s media, population, and Washington is virtually nil when compared to the total support for Israel.
How many Saudis or Saudi-Americans or even Arab-Americans or Muslim-Americans do you see in the US government’s foreign policy establishment or foroeing-policy-minded “think tanks” and media, today? How many of the so-called “neo-cons” were of Saudi-descent? Now compare that to how many open Zionist Jews in all those areas? Last I checked Richard Pearl, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Ledeen, Normal&Bill Krtistol, Normal Podhoretz, Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Robert Kagan, etc…, were not Saudis nor Arabs.
Finalyl, as for your views on history, I am at 180 degrees. If you really believe what you wrote about the ancestry of Syrians, Egyptians, etc.., then nothing I can write will change that.
But I should point out that without US support Israel wouod not survive because without US financial/military/political support, Israel would have to be entirely self-reliant, something which it cannot be. Israel’s native military industries cannot be maintains without the nearly $3 billion each year, nor would Israel be able to survive political/economic sanctions over its behaviour which are normally “vetoed’ by America. In the short term maybe, but definitely not in the long term.
I don’t believe in a two-staet solution, for I don’t believe that this conflict can be resolved peacefully. When a foreign colony is established and under-goes a slow ethnic cleansing of the locals, and above all is motivated in all this by a very specific racial-nationalist ideology (which is ultimately what Zionism is, just the last-surviving of the late 19th-early 20th century European racial-nationalist ideologies), then compromise would not be possible (a precondition for peace). The occupied won’t compromise because that would mean their destruction as a people, and the colonists won’t compromise because their ideology dictates total take-over. Even the Crusader kingdoms had a better chance for peace.
Dar,
Obviously our views are diametrically opposed. As for Saudi influence in the realpolitik of this world influence comes in the form of money and power. The Bush family for instance is closely entertwined with the Saudi’s and the Bushes are the junior partners in the relationship. This goes back 3 generations. THe Dulles Brothers going back to the 30’s were also Saudi supporters and in business with them. Weinberger and Schulz of the Reagan Administration were former Bechtel employees and Bechtel was in busines with the Saudi’s. That’s not the half of it, but essentially it is meaningless to you.
“I don’t believe that this conflict can be resolved peacefully.”
This essentially sums up our divide. Your belief is that the destruction of Israel, is ultimately the only solution. I don’t.
With your belief goes the continued need to keep your people in oppressive misery in order to prepare for that final, victorious battle. So your protestations of immorality of treatment are lacking in compassion for the actual human suffering involved. You are a true believer and those are the ones who usually get people killed for the “purity” of their vision. From my point of view you are deceiving yourself and so awash in your own opinions, that you are unable to understand that of those who disagree with you. A closed mind has the logic of tautology and so is unable to even grasp their opponents viewpoints. The great military leaders, however, were always able to understand the beliefs of their enemies. This tautology of logic is why i believe your elimination of Israel will fail.
However, you debate honorably and for that I respect you.
Shalom Aleichem.
To Mike Spindell:
Very well, but history is on my side ultimately, and this cannot be denied.
Further, your attitude is unusual, since had this been the case the Crusader states would still be around, then where would your wonderful Israel be today?
I don’t believe in war for tis own sake, but because the very nature of the whole Zionist enterprise in Palestine was such that it couldn’t be accepted or survive for long. Such colonialism may have been accepted in the 17th or 18 centuries, but to do so in the early century, to create a racial-religious ideological colony right after the horrors of WWII which detroyed so much of the old-way of thinking, was bound to fail.
But anyway, ultimately you and I have diametrically opposite views on the very moral-foundations of the world. For you “fait accompli” is enough, and human suffering in and of itself is bad, where as I don’t believe in the former, and don’t regard the latter as sufficient by itself without looking at the context (it’s like murder: murder is bad but murder for robbery is not of the same immoral quality asmurder in self-defense).
Norman Finkelstein: I was of course happy to meet the Hizbullah people, because it’s a point of view that’s rarely heard in the United States. And I have no problem saying that I do want to express solidarity with them, and I’m not going to be a coward and a hypocrite about it. I don’t care about Hizbullah as a political organization. I don’t know much about their politics, and anyhow, it’s irrelevant. I don’t live in Lebanon. It’s — It’s a choice that the Lebanese have to make — who they want to be their leaders, who they want to represent them. There is a fundamental principle: People have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers, and people have the right to defend their country from invaders who are destroying their country. And that, to me, is a very basic, elementary, and uncomplicated question.
My parents went through World War II. Now, Stalin’s regime was not exactly a bed of roses. It was a ruthless and it was a brutal regime, and many people perished. But who didn’t support the Soviet Union when they defeated the Nazis? Who didn’t support the Red Army? In all the countries of Europe which were occupied – who gets all the honors? The resistance. The Communist resistance — it was brutal; it was ruthless. The Communists were not, you know, it wasn’t a bed of roses, but you respect them. You respect them because they resisted the foreign occupiers of their country. And if I’m going to honor the Communists during World War II, even through I probably would not have done very well under their regimes, if I’m going to honor them, I’m going to honor the Hizbullah. They show courage. They show discipline. I respect that.
Interviewer: That is an accurate description of the situation before 2000, but after 2000, the Israelis withdrew from South Lebanon. There was a rift within Lebanon between the Lebanese political players on the issue of the future of the weapons and the issue of the resistance. This rift, which has taken place… You are now taking sides. After all, you are saying that you are only visiting Lebanon, but you don’t see the ramification of the July war for the people.
Norman Finkelstein: Listen, if you want to close your eyes and believe it was all over in May 2000, you can do so. You can play that game. But the reality was — and everyone understood it — that the Israeli attitude was: We’re going to knock out Hizbullah. And they began planning for a new war right after they were forced to leave in 2000. They found their excuse, their pretext, in July 2006, but there’s no question among rational people that Israel was never going to let — let that victory go by, the Hizbullah victory go by. They were determined — They were determined to teach their –
Interviewer: The war could have been avoided.
Norman Finkelstein: So — So — No, it could not have — it could not have been avoided. There is no way that the United States and Israel are going to tolerate any resistance in the Arab world. You want to pretend it can be avoided? You can play that game. But serious people, clear-headed people, knew there was going to be a war sooner or later.
[...]
You think there is not going to be another war? You think Israel is going to allow that defeat in July 2006? Do you want to pretend it’s Hizbullah that’s causing the trouble? No, there will be another war, and the destruction will probably be ten times worse — maybe even more — than July 2006, because Israel is determined, with the United States, to put the Arabs in their place and to keep them in their place. Now, how can I not respect those who say “no” to that? You know, during the Spanish Civil War there was a famous woman — they called her “La Pasionaria” — Dolores Ibárruri, from the Spanish Republic. And she famously said, “It is better to die on your feet than to walk crawling on your knees.” Now I –
Interviewer: But that is up to the Lebanese people in its entirety.
Norman Finkelstein: I totally agree. I’m not telling you what to do with your lives. I’m not telling you. And if you’d rather live crawling on your feet, I could respect that. I could respect that. People want to live. How can I deny you that right? But then, how can I not respect those who say they’d rather die on their feet? How can I not respect that?
[...]
Israel and the United States are attacking, because they will not allow any military resistance to their control of the region. That’s the problem. If Hizbullah laid down its arms, and said, “We will do whatever the Americans say,” you wouldn’t have a war — that’s true. But you’d also be the slaves of the Americans. I have to respect those who refuse to be slaves.
Interviewer: Is there no other way than military resistance?
Norman Finkelstein: No. I don’t believe there is another way. I wish there were another way. Who wants war? Who wants destruction? Even Hitler didn’t want war. He would much prefer to have accomplished his aims peacefully, if he could. So I’m not saying I want it, but I honestly don’t see another way, unless you choose to be their slaves — and many people here have chosen that. I can’t really say — I can understand it — you want to live. I can’t really say I respect it. You know, so many dead, so much destruction, before the bodies are even buried, before the buildings are even rebuilt, the person who’s responsible for it all — you can’t wait to welcome him. You can’t wait to roll out the red carpet. I can’t respect that.
In that respect, I like the Jews much more. I like their attitude. Do you know what the Jewish attitude is? Never to forgive, never to forget. And I agree with that. Why roll out the red carpet less than two years after your whole country was destroyed by them? The Secretary of State said it was the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.” That’s the statement of a freak. A human freak would compare the birth of a child with the destruction of a country, and yet, there are people here who are so anxious to welcome her. They’re trying to figure out, What are the Americans are thinking? They can’t wait for their banquets. How can anyone respect that? I respect the Jews a thousand times more — never to forgive, never to forget. All the death and all the destruction — and you can’t wait to welcome him.
Interviewer: Norman…
Norman Finkelstein: It’s disgusting!
[...]
Who the hell cares if Bush is coming?
Interviewer: But you say there will be another war.
Norman Finkelstein: You should have declared him persona non grata. He’s not welcome here. He destroyed your country. He was responsible for the war. You know full well that resolution could have been passed three weeks earlier. He destroys your country, and you can’t wait to greet him. You have no self-respect. How can you expect other people to respect Arabs, if you show no respect for yourself?
[...]
If the Lebanese people overwhelmingly vote to let the Americans and Israelis have their way, I guess you have to accept that. I could see that. And I…couldn’t possibly say that they don’t have the right to make that choice. Listen, in Nazi-occupied Europe, you have to remember, most of the populations made the choice to live under the Nazis. All this talk about a French Resistance is just a joke — it never happened. The French Resistance — about 20% of the French population read the Resistance’s newspaper. There were maybe 10% of the French who resisted. The rest said, “Don’t resist,” because the Nazis were ruthless. You resist — four hundred are killed for each soldier that’s killed. That’s how the Nazis operated, so that most of the French said, like you, “We want to live.” “Don’t resist.” But now I have to ask you, in retrospect: Who do we honor? Do we honor those who say: “Let us live,” or do we honor those who said: “Let’s resist”?
[...]
Leaders come last. There will be a leader who comes into power in Israel, who is willing to make the concessions, after the conditions have been created — namely, Israel has to suffer a defeat.
So are you suggesting that Mein Furheur was not correct in his views? I am talking to the motherland about your statements.