To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
- Definition of “doublethink” from George Orwell’s 1984
There can be no peace without freedom. Economic growth is impossible without integration in the free global economy. Tragically, this simple logic eludes us in the Middle East.
The young generation, which makes up most of the region’s population, insists on equal rights, access to education and the jobs created by science and technology. These, not armies or land, are the new sources of national strength. And none is attainable without freedom.
The yearning for freedom lies at the core of human history. The defining moment for my own people occurred 3,000 years ago with our exodus from slavery and journey to freedom in our homeland. Similarly, the Pilgrims who sailed aboard the Mayflower sought freedom in their new promised land. This common quest for liberty forms the cornerstone of the deep friendship between Israel and America.
Still, the longing for liberty is far from fulfilled. It perseveres in many parts of the world, and nowhere more courageously than in the Middle East. My heart goes out to the brave citizens of Syria, who each day risk and even sacrifice their lives to achieve freedom from a murderous regime. We in Israel welcome the historic struggle to forge democratic, peace-loving governments in our region.
Yet no struggle for freedom in the Middle East can succeed without relieving the poverty that drains people’s will. To achieve that will require fundamental transformations in society, giving priority to education and ending discrimination against women. There is no liberty where it is denied to half of the population.
In Israel, a land lacking in natural resources, we learned to appreciate our greatest national advantage: our minds. Through creativity and innovation, we transformed barren deserts into flourishing fields and pioneered new frontiers in science and technology. We are eager to share our experience with our neighbors as they harness their vast human potential.
Our potential, though, cannot be completely realized without peace. Peace is not merely a national necessity, it is a moral imperative.
- Shimon Peres, Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2012
gag me with a spoon
Ditto that.
My head explodes every time I see this kind of double think/ double speaking.
>> Definition of “doublethink” from George Orwell’s 1984
It sounds an awful lot like Zio-supremacism, especially this part: “to repudiate morality while laying claim to it”.
Shimon Peres has been speaking to the dumb goys in the US about peace for over 40 years, during which time he was voting for YESHA, signing off on Israel’s nukes, lobbying for YESHA, securing funding for YESHA, signing off death squads, approving the bombing of Qana, promoting YESHA, approving CAST Lead and all the while turning up at AIPAC
Peres is the lying Zionist par excellence.
Where Israel is headed, however, lies won’t cut the mustard.
I wrote LA Times a long email and sent it to all the decision-makers over there when I canceled my subscription (after 30 years) a few years ago – in concluding I told them what tipped me over to not wanting to read (nor pay for) their paper anymore was the clear bias and over-representation of israel and zionsim in their pages. I pointed out that Africa has some 50 countries and in a typical week you might see one column inch on any part of Africa, nothing on Pacific Islands, nothing on Australia and New Zealand, very little on Asia, and so on. But I told LA Times that a friend and I would often talk on the phone while we read the paper and count how many stories – each day – there were on israel, zionism or jewishness and it was always over 5 and sometimes as many as 20 – again, per day. And I’ve read subsequently in the media that israel and pro-zionists think LA Times is somehow not supportive of israel and is too progressive on I/P. Just as “conservatives” in the US rarely step out of the Fox News echo chamber, many pro-israel jews in America (and particularly L.A.) rarely step out of the pro-zionism echo chamber to see how much one slice of jewish political perspective so totally dominates information and debate here. The Peres piece was a mild entry which can be filed under par-for-the-course
Would somebody please take the dead flies out of Mr. Peres’s soup? Or clean his glasses.
“There is no liberty where it is denied to half of the population.”
At first I thought he was talking about the Palestinians and the occupation. Instead it’s feminist washing. “We’re morally superior because we treat our women better”.
There is no liberty where it is denied to half of the population.
Interesting how the same phrase Peres uses to describe the situation of women under Islam also accurately depicts the situation of Palestinians under Israeli apartheid.
Great juxtaposition.
But recognize the LAT publishes more good stuff on this issue than any other big paper. If you’re in the mainstream media business, you have tack with the wind a bit. Let Shimon spout some propaganda. Meh.
Thanks for the quotes, Adam. Outstanding! Peres illustrates, yet again, why he’s so much more cunning and dangerous than Netanyahu. Then again, the times are changing. Peres’ fraudulence is so obvious, his column had to be understood as satire by at least half the people who read it.
Peres’ citing the exodus myth as the defining moment in Jewish history and equating it with the landing of the pilgrims is intended to elicit the “hey, them Israelis, they’re just like us americans” sentiment from LA Times’ readers, and never mind that there’s little if any historical (as opposed to fairy-tale biblical) evidence that the trek out of Egypt ever took place. Likewise the one about “transforming barren deserts into flourishing fields”, while it makes for romantic imagery, is nothing but an adaptation of Zionism’s infamous lie about “a land without a people for a people without a land.”
With all due respect, that is kind of a cheap shot against the LA Times. Its coverage of the the IP issue is an order of magnitude better than either the NYT or WP. The fact that it published an op-ed from Israel’s president reflects balancing viewpoints not an adoptation by the Times of Peres’ views. Here’s some recent examples of articles, op-ed and editorials published in the LA Times. The first two are Peled’s op-ed on the consequences of the 6 Day War, a hasbara letter in response, and then a long reply by Peled to the hasbarite. There is also an excellent review of Peter Beinart’s book. The Times Washington bureau chief, David Lauter, and Times reporter Edmund Saunders do some very good work. The Times seemed to turn a corner last year on the I-P issue as have many of its readers as reflected in the many letters opposing Israel’s actions. I’ve been surprised at the Times independence on this issue as Los Angeles has a huge and vocal Jewish population from which voices of dissent are rarely heard.
LA TIMES ON ISRAEL
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-peled-israel-palestine–six-day-war-20120606,0,3821348.story
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to latimes.com
link to opinion.latimes.com