My impatience with Ethan Bronner's handwringing is contained in this superb Wall Street Journal historical investigation of how Israel helped spawn Hamas. Hamas is "Israel's creation," a former Israeli official laments. The WSJ is trying to expand American knowledge of the other side of the story through a factual exploration of the Israeli program for Palestinian statelessness. I bet that in his heart of hearts Bronner is a liberalish two-state Jew who knows that the hour is growing late. He should stop agonizing and take his stand, by educating American Jews about the injustices experienced by a stateless people for 60 years. Only by changing American Jewish opinion, and Bronner has that power, will the U.S. and this region move forward. (Phil Weiss)
Related posts:
- Terry Gross interviewed Times’ Ethan Bronner yesterday…
- Carter Is Marginalized by Israel, by U.S., and by ‘Times’
- ‘Times’ stringer El-Khodary’s searing reports from Gaza appear on ‘Al-Jazeera,’ not in the ‘Times’
- Israel and Iran should go out and have a beer to celebrate the dialectical creation of the global Islamic nation! says Mohammad of Vancouver
- The ‘Times’ now owes it to its readers to assign an Arab-American reporter to Jerusalem
{ 45 comments }
It's quite amazing. WSJ is now saying what, in years gone by, used to get many of us called names and banned from some of the more 'mainstream' (right/left, Rep/Dem didn't matter) discussion boards when the topic was broached.
It was always quite uncontroversial, in fact, that Israel funded Hamas in order to create a rival to Fatah. This WSJ article is not of course 'superb', and here Phil relapses into his 'journalists, like dogs, have to constantly lick one anothers' arses' style. The article is in fact simply a recitation of IOF propaganda. Practically every other line contains an emotionally loaded keyword, intended to reinforce the pavlovian conditioned reflex that out there are hordes of dusky, masked 'Islamists', with sneaky but lethal weapons, just waiting for a chance to blow your grandma's head off as she quietly watches her TV.
"When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank."
Pretty LIMITED extent of "Israel's creation".
Another "representative" Mondoweiss headline.
Dear Richard W, Likud has been cited for giving money and quite importantly, during the first infatada the IDF would bulldoze the homes of Fatah parents when their kids threw rocks but would leave the homes of Hamas parents intact. The support of Likud is a huge blot on the true nature of Israel's intentions and clearly shows that the government at the time was NOT INTERESTED in peace and was in fact creating an impossible situation.
The support of Likud is a huge blot on the true nature of Israel's intentions and clearly shows that the government at the time was NOT INTERESTED in peace and was in fact creating an impossible situation.
Are there any examples of when Israel HAS BEEN interested in peace? I can think of none, and their leaders' own words often confirm the fact that they are not interested in peace, rather continued land grabs and constant humiliation/deprivation/outright slaughter in order to achieve their ends.
And yet Hamas and others resisting this brutality are known as the "terrorists" when in fact Israel's actions since its inception are the textbook definition of "terrorism".
But we live in a world of illusion.
Richard, Israel was playing divide-and-conquer with the Palestinians. What don't you get?
Richard, here's a more sensitive perspective on the WSJ article for you.
hey, he's only a troll, don't confuse him with the facts.
Its a stupid exageration of a temporary and conditional relationship.
Definitely an irony, but thats as far as it goes.
Its not as painful an irony as the left excusing Saddam's executions of hundreds of thousands, or Iran's purges during its first three years of revolution.
Or, of the left's current infatuation with Hamas (service and militant wing each).
The lesson of both the irony of Israel "supporting" Hamas and the left supporting Saddam, Iran and Hamas, is that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a false assertion.
The lesson to you, certainly, but not to us. It's you who's losing; we're winning.
@ Witty, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a false assertion."
***** Why, pray tell Richard , was Israel allied to the Christian Phalange in Lebanon who had been allied to Hitler?
You can get Richard to be somewhat forthcoming about Israeli atrocities if you first list some Palestinian atrocities against Israelis.
I challenged him on this in a thread a day or two ago and his response wasn't bad. There's a decent person underneath all the one-sided crap you see in 99 percent of his posts. Unfortunately he's got issues of some sort–I think at this website he feels so under attack all you're ever going to see from him most of the time is the defensive bulls*** you see here. Unfortunately he thinks he's working for peace this way–he'd get a lot further with those of us here who know human beings of all factions commit atrocities if he'd be more forthcoming about Israeli crimes as a matter of course, but he can't do it most of the time.
Which is a shame, as I do think the comment section here could use some contributions from good-hearted honest liberal Zionists, and while I don't think highly of Zionism, I don't think highly of any form of nationalism and if a Zionist can be honest about the crimes of Zionism, they're doing better than most people in the self-criticism department. Witty, however, can't fill this role.
only idioitic chomskyites believe this kind of crap.
like:
saddam, was created by the usa. FALSE.
like:
the taliban was created by the usa. FALSE.
saddam was a client of the ussr. 99% of his weapons were soviet. reagan sold missiles to IRAN, not saddam; remeber it was called IRAN contra not IRAQ contra.
the usa aided the mujahadeen in their fight against soviet hegemony. the taliban came onb yeasr after the soviets were expelled and the usa gone from the scene, too.
hamas is no different than the countless violent fundamentalist islamist/jihadoterrorist groups emerging all over the globe during th eact same peroid of time – all supported by the saudis or irar – from the philippines thru thailand and turkey and egypt and algeria and kashmir and india and within europe.
they have many doifferent names but their idieology os the same: institute sharia; restore the caliphate; get dhimmis to pay tribute and obey sharia.
jews in israel didn't cause this movenemnt in gaza anynore than buddhist thais caused it in thailand, or christian filipinos caused it in philippines, or modeate muslims caused it in egypt or algeria, or hiundis caused it in india.
higgins uses the analysis of a leftist israeli, and it's as faulty from him as it is from the likes of chomsky and that ilk that would blame the West for an ideology which is intrisically prone to violent jihad.
as proof i ask you to consider irshad manji's argument:
she says that al qaeda-types are literalists and that this is why islam needs a FIGURATIVE REFORMATIION.
by calling them what the jihadterrorists what they are – LITERALISTS – manji is tacitly admitting that islam is implicitly if not explicitly – AND LITERALLY a jihadist creed.
hamas is just reading the hadiths and the koran and doing what it says they should do.
they don't do this because of israel.
or because of any israelis policy.
they do this because their creed tells them they must to ALL infidels.
even fatah, since they are infidels.
when the left gains the intellectual honesty and colurage to call the enmey what they are – then we will win, humanity will win.
civilization will win.
all the best!
note to reliapundit: if you look at most of the posts on this blog you will find them to be honest attempts at discussion, not outright horseshit that you propound
isn't it striking how the most completely pretentious and addled bloggers give themselves names like 'reliapundit'?
In case you didn't hear this on the news,
TODAY MORE CIVILLIANS WERE SHELLED!!!!
African Union troops in Somalia have been accused of indiscriminately shelling a Mogadishu neighbourhood after an attempted suicide bomb attack on their base.
At least 22 people were killed in the car bomb blast and an ensuing firefight on Saturday, witnesses and medics said.
Several homes were hit by artillery fire just minutes after the vehicle blew up, residents of the Hodan neighbourhood said.
"We are civilians – we don't have weapons – yet we are caught in the middle of the fighting from the African troops who allegedly came here for peacekeeping," Adam Abdi said.
"This area was bombed more than six times but there are no military bases here."
Mosques hit
Locals were also angered after two people were reportedly killed and two mosques hit during the violence.
"I appeal to the Muslims and brothers to support their brothers here against their enemies, whether the Ethiopians or from Burundi"
Imam of Nawawi mosque
"First, they hit the minaret, 10 minutes later they shelled the mosque, this shows how much they hate Islam," the imam of the Nawawi mosque told Al Jazeera.
"I appeal to the Muslims and brothers to support their brothers here against their enemies, whether the Ethiopians or from Burundi."
About 3,000 peacekeepers from Uganda and Burundi are in Somalia as part of the African Union mission (Amisom) to stabilise the country.
Nine AMISOM troops have been killed in Somalia since the first Ugandan contingent was deployed in March 2007.
The incident came just days before additional troops were expected to arrive in the Somali capital to bolster the force.
AU denial
Ramtane Lamamra, an AU peace security commissioner, condemned the attempted suicide attack, which he called "a cowardly terrorist act that goes against achieving peace and stability in Somalia".
The AU shelling reportedly hit homes in the Hodan neighbourhood [Reuters]
A spokesman for the Uganadan military said that the AU forces had not opened fired after the blast.
Somalia is wracked by violence with near-daily attacks on troops loyal to the largely powerless UN-backed transitional government.
Much of the country is controlled by armed opposition groups who have captured many of the towns and villages seized by government and Ethiopian troops from the Islamic Courts Union in late 2006.
The interim government has failed to bring stability to the Horn of Africa nation, where more than 16,000 people have been killed in the past two years and one million others driven from their homes.
Some analysts have said the the recent withdrawal of Ethiopian troops could create a power vacuum as opposition forces scramble for control.
My anonymous critic.
You shouldn't pretend to represent those that post here. They are of all kinds, with all kinds of prejudices and some with very deep unconditional animosities.
I don't comment on what I don't know.
So, for example, early in the Gaza military effort, I did not know if Israel's military effort was excessive or not. I felt that it was necessary and just in some form.
I currently feel that it was excessive in execution, but not in purpose.
I remain very critical of Hamas, and critical of those that appear to support Hamas, stating inanities like "they had no other choice".
I do feel that my proposal and my engagement in the issue is informed (far moreso than most that post here, INCLUDING informed of the history of the region, peoples and even most inflammatory incidents.)
I urge people to read from multiple perspectives, so that you understand the events, the perspectives of the events, and then can make informed comments on the prospects for change.
I do NOT believe that change will occur by South African parallel boycotts and condemnation. And, I do NOT believe that change will occur by encouraging Hamas to not compromise in action or in ideology.
I contest that any ideology that is not primarily humanist will result in more harms than good. And, as odd as it sounds to you, I believe that the majority of Zionist ideology is as a flavor of humanism, moreso than preferential.
Obviously, the status of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank (very different current status), are difficult and suppressed, and those that are committed to human welfare will work (talk, write, and actually help) to improve their physical and community state.
To claim that I have "blinders" is an ignorant statement about me.
There is potential common ground on effort, but I offer no "existential condemnation" of Israel. I do NOT generalize that a policy is the same as identity. It is reasonable, NEEDED, to criticize policy, but to the extent that there is any implication of "Zionism is racism", I will object.
If you can't distinguish vigilantly between criticism of a policy and demonization of a people or even a state that is dear to a people, then you are a neglectful dissenter.
For all the talk of Israel "spawning" Hamas, this really is not nearly as controversial or nefarious as you suggest.
Israel, as the occupying power administering the territories, was SUPPOSED to encourage and work with local organizations. This included village councils, religious groups, and the like.
As the article notes, Israel allowed the charitable groups to incorporate and do their work, and did not take a role in the intra-Palestinian fighting. The former is a clear duty of the occupier, the latter is a bit trickier, but most people would agree that an occupying power shouldn't try to take sides in such a fight.
As for creating a counterweight to the PLO, the PLO was an outside organization committed to the destruction of Israel. It only received the legitimacy it did because the Arab nations insisted that it was the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." This mantra was said like a ritualistic incantation for years. It was largely done so because it allowed the Arab nations to take a rejectionist front.
There were many local leaders such as traditional tribe heads that worked with Israel to improve the lives of the residents without also insisting that Israel destroy itself. These groups were inevitably branded as traitors and collaborators.
When Israel finally DID agree to recognize the PLO, not surprisingly there are those who now insist that the PLO has sold out and now Israel must work with Hamas. And if Israel somehow agreed to work with Hamas, whose charter explicitly quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then inevitably some other group even more extreme would pop up.
Going "back in the day," if Israel did not work with Hamas, you inevitably would have people squealing that Israel was abusing its authority as the occupying power by failing to work with those swell religious and social service groups by that pious group Hamas. And inevitably there would be the hand-wringing today that "Israel brought this upon themself" by not recognizing and working with Hamas earlier.
The problem is simple. For many people, including Mr. Weiss, the only legitimate Palestinians are those that hate Israelis as much as he does.
TO jim byers":
INSTEAD OF NAME-CALLING, WHY NOT CITE ONE THING, ONE FACT I'VE MISSTATED.
OR EFF OFF.
Witty wrote: "Its not as painful an irony as the left excusing Saddam's executions of hundreds of thousands, or Iran's purges during its first three years of revolution."
Excuse me I have been active in left wing politics since 1980. I recall no such "excusing". Do you just make this crap up?
Richard—
I wasn't speaking for everyone here. Some are antisemites. Some are anti-Arab bigots. Some are people like me, very critical of Zionism, but not with any delusional notion that Zionism is worse than other forms of nationalism–most forms of nationalism can be used to justify atrocities and self-centered attitudes. Sometimes the first two groups turn the comment section here into a sewer of hatred.
There are also a few people I can't figure out.
You, I think, are what I've said–well-intentioned, but in this website you spend nearly all your time criticizing the critics of Israel and you ought to have figured out by now how that comes across. At other websites well-intentioned people are generally quite clear and upfront about their belief that both sides do terrible things–you have to do this, or you're going to be taken as an apologist for the worst crimes of the other. Again, you're a big boy–why haven't you figured this out?
I suspect you are still too much of an apologist for Israel for my taste, btw, but not nearly as bad as you come across most of the time.
Though, of course, you're not the only problem with this website. The crazed Jew-haters are terrible, but they're also not remotely close to having their views reflected in political circles (thank God). It's the Israel can do no wrong crowd that dominate American politics and the crazed Arab-haters that also exist around here are much closer to the American political mainstream.
Rowan B:
"The lesson to you, certainly, but not to us. It's you who's losing; we're winning."
Richard Witty gets his butt haded to him here on a regular basis, along with truckloads of idiotic garbage dumped on his virtual lawn. He's losing in that sense, but his affinity group isn't, and polarizing things isn't the path to victory.
If winning is driving violently excited crazy people into an exitless corner – crazy people with nuclear weapons and quite possibly the strings of control to a very shaky world economy in their hands, not to mention coercive blackmail-ready info on most of the contemporary political landscape's prominent figures; crazy people who've shown an increasing willingness to engage in the most depraved inhuman behavior; who already have made it clear they have no interest in co-operation or compromise with anyone; and who traditionally valence their morality on themselves exclusively and their own survival exclusively – okay yeah, in the p.r. conflict "we're" winning. If it comes to a democratic vote we're gaining on them every day. More people waking up, realizing how late it is all the time. Just like the 2006 US elections demonstrated the public was done with Iraq, and their representatives were sent to Washington with a mandate to end it immediately.
Which didn't happen though. Because the real villains in the piece still had power to spare.
Now they're losing, getting exposed, argued down, and the truth is winning, desperately as they try to keep the dullwit audience amped on fear, using patently obvious deceit and propaganda, including this wonderful article in the BBC, now widely disseminated:
BBC resisting pressure over Gaza
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7849616.stm
Which seems to be saying the BBC, having caved to Zionist pressure not to run an ad for charities targeting the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, is now valiantly resisting pressure from decent folks everywhere to reverse that coerced decision and run the ad. Jewish humor.
Only a core audience of simpletons and emotionally blind lunatics buys that nonsense. So yeah we're winning.
But winning what? You can't possibly believe these guys are going to assess reality, and their own failing as human beings, and go quietly into a world where they're forced to answer for their depravity and make restitution to their victims and all the other moral responses winners demand of losers, when the winners are out for a moral rather than simply a military victory.
Or is it just about kicking ass? Then what's the difference between the two sides? Aside from they have all the worst weapons and we have all the best music.
Either way it looks like short-term satisfaction at the expense of anything long-term, including plain survival of the species, is still way too popular.
Humiliating defeat of people like that may not be the winning we were looking for, considering the balance of real power here.
Consider the foundational myth of Jewish presence in the world, the Passover. What's it about?
The death of the enemies of Israel, through biological weaponry.
Or look at Jericho, the wall came down – Gaza, the wall goes up.
Otherwise same difference.
Crazy violent people with God on their side, and nothing too obscene or immoral that it can't be justified, if it helps them win.
Poking them with verbal sticks can be cathartic, and a clear demonstration of superior power, but real winning may require a more subtle touch.
Like making them not crazy.
i am just waiting for the shit to keep the fan and then come slamming back down on the zionists in america.
a smell im sure they are quite aquainted with since their souls must reek within them of the same odour.
watching and waiting in america.
i have a dream today, that one day americans will recognize that shitty little country in the middle east for what it is, a myth. i have a dream today and everyday for that this will happen in america to zionists.
Dear reliapundit, to start, your presentation of the US involvement in the Iran-Iraq War is wrong. Iraq was our client but we had secretly armed Iran via Iran-contra boondogle earlier. I just checked your website and noticed that it is merely jingoistic propaganda. http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/
what stinking drivel!!
ABC news just ran a story about Israel's use of phosphorus, with pictures of children suffering from phosphorus burns. It seemed so routine, but I haven't seen anything like that before on a network.
My anonymous critic,
If you read back, you will notice that everyone that responds to me with any degree of respect and sincere inquiry into my assumptions, I respond in kind.
I think that I've been clear about my perspective, goals, areas of willingness to acknowledge and/or compromise.
I consistently oppose language that is a generalization, and will continue to.
I just saw Thomas Freidman on Meet the Press (on the web, no TV in my house). He stated that the crazies control the range of possible negotiation for a mutual better status, and by crazies he referred to specifically Hamas and the settlers that are xenophobic. (My sense is that he respects the wing of Hamas that emphasizes social services.)
He's right. Phil only sites the settlers. You complain that I only site Hamas.
My sense is that I am more accommodating and acknowledge the elements of potential good within Hamas, than Phil or others are about settlers.
A minority of settlers engage in harrassment of Palestinians, their actions are against the law and periodically prosecuted.
In contrast, NO member of Hamas that I'm aware of has been publicly censured or tried or punished for excess towards Israeli civilians.
A minority of settlers engage in harrassment of Palestinians, their actions are against the law and periodically prosecuted.
Name one. Produce one link.
In contrast, NO member of Hamas that I'm aware of has been publicly censured or tried or punished for excess towards Israeli civilians.
Israel assassinates them. (Like Nov 4, 2008)
and by crazies he referred to specifically Hamas and the settlers that are xenophobic.
The settlers are by and large the Russian émigrés who wanted to go to the USA after they got out of Russia, but got stuck in the West Bank. Avrum Burg allowed non-Jewish Russians to emigrate during the 90s, before he got 'holocaust religion', as he explained to Ari Shavit in an interview a few years ago. Israel needed to get its population up so it could get more Yankee dollars. Haaretz also did a story on the rampant anti-semitism in Israel caused by these émigrés.
Consider the foundational myth of Jewish presence in the world, the Passover. What's it about? The death of the enemies of Israel, through biological weaponry.
You might start reading the Bible like a Jew, instead of a Christian.
As I remember it, God made it quite clear that His efforts in behalf on the Israelites did not pay off satisfactorily, and made it quite clear that until something about the Jews changed significantly, such help was not to be forthcoming. In fact, He withdrew His Presence and refused sacrifices, too.
He also specifically directed the Jews to NOT form a state.
In order to be a Zionist, you need to keep as far from the Jewish religion as you can. Judaism simply does not allow for Zionism without God's assistance, and as far as I can see, He isn't putting a single shekel in the Blue Box for the megalomaniacs and their chumps, the Schlemiels and Shlamazels of Israel.
Or does Mr. Witty contend that God favors Israel?
Mr Witty (funny, it doesn't sound…) for a Jew there is really only one question What can a Jew do for God in Israel, that he cannot do for God anywhere else?
And of lesser importance: What can God do for Jews in Israel that He cannot do for them anywhere else?
Or does Mr. Witty think that Jews are somehow obligated to be his shock troops against Islamic terrorists?
JIM JIM JIM JIM BYERS:
YOU WROTE:
"Iraq was our client"
WRONG.
SADDAM WAS A BAATHIST – THAT SOCIALIST, AND HE GOT 99% OF HIS WEAP[ONRY FRON THE USSR.
THE IRAW AIR FORCE FLEW MIGS.
HIS ARMY HAD SOVIET TANKS.
THEY USED AK47'S.
AND IRAQW WAS AN ALLY OF THE USSR.
STOP SWALLOWING THE BS OF THE LEFT WHOLE.
IT'S WRONG – AND YOU'RE WRONG.
I WAS A LEFTIST ONCE: RAISED BY CARD-CARRYING COMMIES WHO MARCHED FOR THE ROSENBERGS.
I WAS RAISED DEEP IN RED-DIAPER-DOPER LAND.
I VOTED AGAINST REAGAN.
BUT REAGAN AND THATCHER WERE RIGHT.
I SAW THE LIGHT.
YOIU CAN TOO.
BTW, Mr. Weiss, a great deal, almost all the Hasbara blathering of Mr. Witty could be made ridiculous by simply putting a simple map of the area on your blog's front page.
It's pretty hard to posit Hamas as some kind of danger to Israel, let alone anybody else, when the size, position, and status of Gaza is clearly delineated by a map.
I have more than once seen confirmed Israel-firsters completely unmanned by a map of Israel and the Occupied territories. They very often have the relative sizes and populations of the areas completely reversed. And since it fits in with the "poor persecuted Jews" canards they somehow find so endearing, they never question it, until it's in front of their face. You should (if you don't mind me suggesting) do so.
Very interesting observation Mooser, I hadn't realized that some supporters were so deluded. I thought they looked at Israel and then the surrounding Arab nations (since so many want the Palestinians to simply dissolve into the larger Arab identity.)
reliapundit.
We supported Iraq with weapons both metal and biological. Three labs in the US transferred chemical weapons to Iraq during the 80s. There was a Senate hearing chaired by Kennedy that you cant get from the Govt Printing Office anymore detailing the labs and the exact bio-weapons involved. I had this hearing but loaned it to someone who didn't return it. It was 1988. One of the labs was owned by George Bush Sr. It was identified as such in the doc. This doc may be identified, but it was removed and classified after I got a copy of it.
The National Security Archive will explain it better than you do. and oh, BTW, around here we dont publish in ALL CAPS.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
RELIAPUNDIT
TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAGICALLY MAKE YOUR GARBAGE TRUE.
The Baathist movement was more of an Arab nationalist movement, at first allied with the U.S.S.R. but since the mid-70s realigned with the West, especially after the Iranian Revolution, when the West's best friend was deposed.
Have you forgotten those pictures of Rumsfeld visiting Saddam, the new BFF whom the U.S. could use to bully the region and bog down the new Iranian regime in a meaningless war?
But from the things you type, it is clear you don't seek to engage or understand, rather troll and spew your hatred.
Citing Irshad Manji is just one give-away. I wonder why Muslims don't use the phrase self-hating Muslim, I know that's how any Jew who spoke of his or her erstwhile religion would be referred to.
Did anyone else see Bob Simon's report on "60 Minutes"? After at least three stories in which Simon tried to demonize Iran, Simon actually reports on a few of the horrors committed by Israelis on Palestinians.
The question Simon poses is whether the [fundamentalist] "settlers" have destroyed the two-state solution. Simon breaks every corporate, neo-con rule:
1. He shows a MAP with the relative sizes of Israel and the Occupied Territories.
2. He interviews Dr. Mustafa Barghouti
3. He shows IDF troops commandeering a Palestinian house and terrifying its "owners".
4. He shows the Israeli theft of Palestinian water,
5. He points out the checkpoints and the Israeli refusal to let Palestinians travel even short distances.
6. He touches on the barbaric injustice of the Wall that steals more land and separates Palestian people from their own land,
and more….–too much to list quickly.
Phil and Adam are right: barriers are opening and people are questioning Israel's very legitimacy in a whole new way.
Bob Simon – That crazy Jew? He must have not gotten his marching orders this month!
ONE OF YOU ASSHOLES WROTE THIS:
The Baathist movement was more of an Arab nationalist movement, at first allied with the U.S.S.R. but since the mid-70s realigned with the West, especially after the Iranian Revolution, when the West's best friend was deposed.
Have you forgotten those pictures of Rumsfeld visiting Saddam, the new BFF whom the U.S. could use to bully the region and bog down the new Iranian regime in a meaningless war?
THIS IS BULLSHIT.
SADDDAM WAS AN ALLY OF THE USSR.
GOT 99% OF HIS WEAPONS THWERE; THEY RAINED HIS ARMY AND AIR FORCE. AND HIS TANK FORCE.
RUMMY NET WITH HIM ONCE. HATED HIM.
IRAN-IRAQ WAR WQAS 1980-1988 DURING THE TIME THE USSR BACKED SADDAM.
BAATHISM IS SOCIALIST.
WE GAVE SADDAM ABOUT 1% OF HGIS ARMED FORCES SUPPLIES.
WE GAVE HIM NO JETS, NO BOMBS, NO TANKS, NO ARTILLERY, NO AMMO AND NO MONETARY AID.
WAKE UP OR SHUT THE F*CK UP.
YOU ARE ALL JUST REPEATING THE LEFTIST BULLSHIT I GREW UP ON.
LOOK A LITTLE DEEPER – YOU CAN AND WILL SEE THE LIGHT.
SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS.
I USE IT BECAUSE I KNOW IT PISSES OFF LITTLE MINDS!
ahmed, would it shock you if I told you that most of the people I talk to, who are typically no more badly misinformed than average on most subjects think that Palestinians are occupying parts of Israel!
And as far as the relative sizes, and resources of the protagonists, they have them reversed!!!
Just a simple map would show how ridiculous the contentions of the Hasbarists are. It is hard, really hard to appreciate just how misinformed Americans are on this subject.
Try putting the map here, and watch how many people will write in to tell you it can't be that way. Hasbarists usually show Israel in relation to all the "Arab" countries and posit that all are allied against Israel. Show them a map, and they won't believe it.
Mooser, it would shock me! I could imagine Christian Zionists thinking that, seeing as how they believe Jews need to have the entire Holy Land. But then I wonder why I am shocked, most people believed Saddam had a role in the 9/11 attacks.
well, i just watched the 60 Minutes segment, and Simon shows a huge map putting the territories into perspective. The best thing about the segment was that it was devoid of the usual Israeli spinmeisters… there is a crazed settler, and then toward the end he asks an overly-made up Tzipi Livni how she plans to make good on her promise to remove settlers from the West Bank.
That is the key, to begin with an Arab voice, and not let the hasbara folks set the paradigms of the discussion.
BBC’s Scottish HQ Occupied
I have just received news from activists that they have occupied the Glasgow offices of the BBC. The backlash against the BBC has been unprecedented. Having first slavishly followed the Israeli propaganda line, the BBC is now denying the collection of much needed aid for the long-suffering denizens of Gaza . This is not a trivial matter: as Tony Benn put it, people will die as a consequence of the BBC’s choices. And this in this case, its choices have been dictated by the Israeli embassy.
Update: Here is press statement from those occupying the BBC’s Scottish headquarters in Glasgow which I would encourage all to forward to their media contacts:
Around 5pm this evening between 30 and 50 demonstrators occupied the BBC Scotland headquarters at Pacific Quay in Glasgow in a protest over the failure of the BBC to broadcast the DEC appeal for Gaza.
Scottish Television (based just next door) have refused to cover the story citing a policy not to cover demonstrations at rival media institutions.
Police were called and threats of arrests were made.
For more:
Nicola Fisher 0795 2452906
Keir McKechnie 0772 7050698
Breaking News: BBC’s Scottish HQ Occupied
Last night (25 January), saw our inspiring occupation of the BBC in Glasgow. We simply managed to walk in to the lobby of this sleek glass building and unfurl our banners, flags and placards before the police arrived in a panic to seal off the main doors. We also let some other late arrivals in through a side door.
Spirited chants filled the lobby as staff and police considered what to do. The message was aired loudly that the BBC are complicit in the war crimes against Gaza, and that their decision not to allow the DEC Appeal shows them in their true establishment colours.
After an hour or so, a senior police inspector announced that we had 15 minutes to leave or be arrested. We refused, explaining that this was a peaceful, moral protest in support of the 1.5 million already imprisoned and suffering in Gaza.
Various media outlets, including Sky and the Independent, started calling on mobile phones and arriving outside the locked doors – such publicity being the principal point of the occupation. Yet, ignoring our calls, the BBC had itself still failed to put any of its reporters on the story. The irony hardly needs stating: no need for the BBC to arrive when they’re already in the building.
At this point, Tony Benn called to express his support and his words were read out over a mobile to loud cheers. Other calls of support were received from George Galloway, Stop the War, and activist groups all around the country.
Eventually, Ian Small, the BBC’s Head of Public and Corporate Affairs was brought in to handle the matter, and our group nominated five people – including myself – to speak with him. As expected, Mr Small offers perfect insight into how such people get to be where they are at the BBC.
During our meeting – which we insisted take place in transparent observation of our group rather than the back room he had demanded – Mr Small was reminded of our movement’s previous letter passed to him itemising the BBC’s brazenly pro-Israel coverage of the Gaza crisis. We then asked him to explain the BBC’s decision to disallow airtime for the DEC Appeal.
What we got, predictably, was a set of template assurances that ‘our concerns would be registered’ with BBC Director Helen Boaden et al – a useful moment to relate, in turn, my own experience of this token procedure. While accepting that the BBC ‘doesn’t always get it right’, Mr Small denied my assertion of deep institutional bias, resorting again to standard claims of BBC ‘impartiality’.
Listening to Mr Small uphold the BBC’s statement on the DEC Appeal – while declining my request to have him air his own view on the matter – brings home the quite alarming capacities of such people to defend the utterly indefensible.
Our more pertinent demand was that the BBC come and report the protest occurring inside their own building. Mr Small agreed to convey this request to the newsroom, but could not, he said, guarantee that the protest would actually be covered. It would be “unethical”, he thought, to try and exert such influence.
A further meeting with senior BBC Scotland directors was secured. But, personally, I see little purpose in sitting in plush-panelled rooms speaking to power in this way. The real point of this action was, and is, to maximise support for Gaza and shame the BBC over its brazenly partial decision.
Having voted to leave the building, our objectives achieved, a number of press outlets – including the BBC – were waiting outside to cover the emerging, cheering crowd.
This action illustrates the real value of direct, peaceful civil disobedience. It also alerts us to the ways in which organisations like the BBC seek to manage dissent through such sham consultation.
John
Dear reliapundit. I am so sorry you had such an unhappy childhood. Get over it.
public service italic html break
"If winning is driving violently excited crazy people into an exitless corner – crazy people with nuclear weapons … "
damn right it is. fuck their muclear weapons. you prefer slavery to death, fuck you too.
Witty: I contest that any ideology that is not primarily humanist will result in more harms than good.
Meow: Yes. Key word of art: primarily. Discuss.
Witty: And, as odd as it sounds to you, I believe that the majority of Zionist ideology is as a flavor of humanism, moreso than preferential.
Meow: You are projecting: it even sounds odd to you, methinks.
To us, "odd" is not the right word, which is "mendacious."
Witty: Obviously, the status of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank (very different current status), are difficult and suppressed, and those that are committed to human welfare will work (talk, write, and actually help) to improve their physical and community state.
Meow: Yes. Very obvious. But not to most Americans since they are fed AIPAC talking points by the MSM and congress, and
White House–for about a half century. The USSR would simply kill public dissenters, whereas here, such dissenters are slandered
as anti-semites, and risk loss of their jobs, or even getting one–unless it's as a day laborer.
Witty: To claim that I have "blinders" is an ignorant statement about me.
Meow: A blind horse is know by its conduct.
Witty: There is potential common ground on effort, but I offer no "existential condemnation" of Israel.
Meow: Yes, always potential common ground, but I offer no "existential condemnation" of giving the Palestinians the right of return to the home of their ancestors, and with reparations.
Witty: I do NOT generalize that a policy is the same as identity.
Meow: Two different nouns. Policy. Identity. Yes. Not the same.
Reality: Even a serial killer's sense of self-identity, gives such a one his or her POV enabling that human's conduct. Reality is
not revealed by grammar. It's made by the nexus, something suggested by the legal concept in USA civil tort law of proximate cause.
Witty: It is reasonable, NEEDED, to criticize policy, but to the extent that there is any implication of "Zionism is racism", I will object.
Meow: res ipsa loquitur. "Any implication." How does one criticise
policy without drawing on historical precedent? Dispute whether or not an analogy, direct or implied, is "on all four" legs of the
stool, but to not even imagine, consider even one leg? Recipe
for blindness. Translation: Only zealot goys can be racist. Let's just ignore whatever Israel does that brings memories of times past. Let's also ignore the Torah. How about totally ignoring
any implication that everybody on the official hit list is a resurrected Hitler?
Witty: If you can't distinguish vigilantly between criticism of a policy and demonization of a people or even a state that is dear to a people, then you are a neglectful dissenter.
Meow: Arab Americans, and increasingly, American taxpayers and
military families, agree. What do you do with a state government that is a neglectful assenter?
Comments on this entry are closed.