Has the NY Times response to the complaints about Ethan Bronner led it to be even more forceful in pushing its pro-Israel agenda including getting the US to attack Iran? Apparently so. In today’s op-eds, they’ve imported the thoughts of a British Jewish professor, Efraim Karsh, (another Bernard Lewis, and a Nakba denier) who uses his abbreviated paternalistic version of Islamic history to conclude that the Arabs countries will not object to the US attacking Iran. And, in passing, he welcomes Washington’s less "imperious" attempts at bringing Israel to the bargaining table:
So, if the Muslim bloc is just as fractious as any other group of seemingly aligned nations, what does it mean for United States policy in the Islamic world?
For one, it should give us more impetus to take a harder line with Iran. Just as the Muslim governments couldn’t muster the minimum sense of commonality for holding an all-Islamic sports tournament, so they would be unlikely to rush to Iran’s aid in the event of sanctions, or even a military strike.
Beyond the customary lip service about Western imperialism and “Crusaderism,” most other Muslim countries would be quietly relieved to see the extremist regime checked. It’s worth noting that the two dominant Arab states, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have been at the forefront of recent international efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
As for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the idea that bringing peace between the two parties will bring about a flowering of cooperation in the region and take away one of Al Qaeda’s primary gripes against the West totally misreads history and present-day politics. Muslim states threaten Israel’s existence not so much out of concern for the Palestinians, but rather as part of a holy war to prevent the loss of a part of the House of Islam.
In these circumstances, one can only welcome the latest changes in the Obama administration’s Middle Eastern policy, which combine a tougher stance on Iran’s nuclear subterfuge with a less imperious approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He’s making a straw man argument, in that no one is claiming that a ramping up of “Islamic solidarity” is the main negative consequence of the American attack on Iran he plainly yearns for. Vulnerability of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, huge spike in oil prices, destabilization of Saudi Arabia (which had more or less killed off their local Al Qaeda) these are among the realist worries. It’s why one of the world’ leading Al Qaeda experts recently said that the group “prays every night” for an American attack on Iran. Once again, Israel supporters and Osama bin Ladenites are on the same page.
What I find more hilarious is how he shoots his argument in the face before he even makes it.
He states that the “Islamic countries” are incapable of doing anything to stop an attack on Iran because of their inability to even put together a sporting event.
He then goes on to say that these same “Islamic countries” are hell bent on the destruction of Israel, and that for this reason Israel cannot make peace with the Palestinians.
If these countries are so incompetent, then why should Israel even worry right? I’m sorry but if writers for the NYT are allowed to make racist arguments I’m allowed to be facetious.
Anyway, never mind, the other big myth in his argument.
As for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the idea that bringing peace between the two parties will bring about a flowering of cooperation in the region and take away one of Al Qaeda’s primary gripes against the West totally misreads history and present-day politics. Muslim states threaten Israel’s existence not so much out of concern for the Palestinians, but rather as part of a holy war to prevent the loss of a part of the House of Islam.
uhm wtf? Are we still in the Middle Ages? I guess even retards can get PhD’s these days. What about the simple fact that the Arab League promised Israel full peace and regional cooperation if it merely allowed for the creation of a VIABLE Palestinian state in the 67 borders. DEBUNKED.
I find it disgusting that this piece was allowed to be published in any news paper much less the NYT. Instead of accepting the fact that Palestinian grievances towards Israel stem from Israels military occupation, blockades, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, Karsh instead insists that he knows the true motives of the people of the Middle East without stating any proof of this whatsoever.
He’s on the same level as nutjobs like Daniel Pipes, Emerson, and that Jihad Watch guy who cite the legal codes of various Medieval Middle Eastern states as if those laws and viewpoints were still the primary driving force of what happens today in the Middle East.
Its the equivalent of trying to determine the foreign policy of China by merely reading the works of Confucius (in a very selective manner of course; find all the stuff that goes against modernity, and pretend the good stuff doesn’t exist or downplay it).
If you really want to get a feel of what a lot of Europeans know about what’s wrong with the USA, here’s a very revealing series of interviews and news clips that escalate the sense of oppression felt by Washington DC and other US regime top spots regarding anything touching on Israel. It’s a Dutch documentary (done in English) in the wake of publication of W & M’s book. It starts slow, with Mearsheimer talking–by the end of the (gulp) 51 minutes I felt the oppressive
atmosphere–the interviewers got some insider people to talk I bet you never have heard or seen before. It goes into some examples and details on how the Lobby operates that haven’t been sufficiently talked about or discussed.
link to vodpod.com
The Times is as committed to dumbing down the public as Fox TV. Imagine the contempt Times’ editors feel toward their readers.
Karsh is an egregious propagandist masquerading as an Historian.
He was a speaker for the now defunct Benador Associates along with those princes, Perle, Ledeen, Krauthammer, Gaffney etc.
Sorry, forgot to close blockquote.
These individuals like Karsh contribute to the deterioration of academics, making the US a third class entity for purposes of propaganda. The old orientalism was bad enough, but it did have some form of expertise extent, now it is nothing but a complete laughing stock. Not even some of the subtleties that Dr. Said spoke of exist any longer, but the purpose is ostensibly the same, that is why you can always turn to this –
ORIENTALISM
I watched the movie Lions for Lambs again last night, after having seen it when it first came out in 2007, and the message of the movie is as pertinent today as it was then. Most likely, it will remain so for a few decades. And it goes back to what George Carlin used to say about power in America. The elite in the US, comprised mainly of selfish delusional armchair generals and corporations, own the country. The president is a mere puppet used to give the masses the illusion that they participate in power when they vote every four years. But, in essence, corporations, big business, special interest groups are the real forces in power.
What is unfortunate in this case is that the US academia, and to some degree the British one, as well, have allowed such propagandists who having nothing but contempt for the scientific and academic process, to gain a platform from which they can brainwash generations to come, manipulate think tanks and various “studies” to justify whatever policy “initiatives” they may have.
Agreed Avi.
The President is merely the spokesman for these asshole.
Karsh reminds me of two famous quotes – one by Mahatma Gandhi on June 1, 1947: “when Mahatma Gandhi in response to the question, “What do you feel is the most acceptable solution to the Palestinian problem?” – had replied: “The abandonment wholly by the Jews of terrorism and other forms of violence” – quoted in Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s new book This Time We Went Too Far.
The other by Gen. Nehemia Dagan, Israel Army (Reserve): “What is happening in Israeli Army is far more dangerous than most Israelis realize…..The morals of battlefield cannot come from a religious authority. Once it does, it’s Jihad. I know people will not like that word, but that’s what it is, Holy War. And once it’s Holy War, there are no limits”.
Israeli ‘Jihad’ against Islam
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
When the chief Rabbi of the IDF published a handbook in which he sanctioned the killing of women and children and that handbook was circulated by the army to all the units that participated in the Gaza massacre, it leaves little room for doubt that Israel has crossed the line and engaged in a religious war.
David Bloom informs me that Karsh is not a Brit but Israeli-born and bred. The question occurred to me, however, what does it matter since, in practice, there is no discernible line between Jewish advocates for Israel whatever their birthplace. That a number of Israeli columnists, most of them of the extreme right wing emigrated from the US or the UK while a number of their co-Zionist religionists remained in those countries to spread the same pro-Israel propaganda, seems to be more of a battle tactic on their part designed to give the appearance that their efforts have broader appeal than what is actually the case.
Zionism — single-handedly making one of the worst anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews foreign agents in the countries of their birth, come true.