Friday, September 12, 2014

West is the sole enemy of humanity and its bludgeon is the United States of America

It is always enlightening to climb into the mind of a bona fide Arab intellectual writing to an audience presumed to be of like-minded inclinations. This is one of those articles where it is laid out, ironically with some European garnish, without any attempt at concealing its raw message. What interests me is the contempt for international law and legitimacy openly declared here which makes it clear that those most likely to pass condemnations upon Israel presumably based on International Law are exactly those who have no use for such law.

Also interesting is the conclusion that the tyranny of non-western powers would be more tolerable because it will an nakedly honest tyranny based on unfeathered And untethered economic interests and such.

You have to read to believe:

"The late thinker Hadi al-Alawi had a negative view of the essence of the West, that is, he argued that there was something inherently “evil” and belligerent at the core of Western civilization, culture, and historical development. Alawi further described the West as “the sole enemy of humanity, whose bludgeon in its sustained assault on humanity is the United States of America.”
[-]
Reconciliation with the United States, for example, means that we should forget about Palestine and liberating it,
[-]
In the past two decades, the hegemony exercised its influence, and waged its wars and invasions under universal legal and humanitarian pretenses, which always portrayed its actions as the embodiment of international legitimacy, justice, and public interest. Naturally, many elites in the Third World reproduced these concepts about “international legitimacy” and “international community,” bought into them, and incorporated them into their own cultures and worldviews. However, with the decline of Western power, these “principles” and norms have started to unravel, in parallel with the decline of the dominant power.

The late Hadi al-Alawi assumed that the demise of Western hegemony was enough, per se, to change the course of human civilization, and open new possibilities for human life that are less materialistic and more liberal. But in line with our aversion to essentialism, we will assume that people are similar everywhere, and that there is no guarantee the new world being formed today would be better and more moral than the old world. Indeed, at some level, dealing with countries like Russia and China is not radically different from the relationship with the Western powers. The Russian, Chinese, Iranians, and others are not ultimately that different from the West in their pragmatism and quest to fulfill their interests, and in their ability to assault and do harm. But when they do so, at least, they will most probably not impose it on us in the name of justice, legitimacy, and civilization."

Wednesday, September 03, 2014


The Selective Radical Anarchist

  Prof. AbuKhalil admires Chomsky:

It amazed me when I came to the US in 1983 to discover that Noam Chomsky's name is far bigger outside of the US than in the US.  But then again, it is the US. 

Here he is on record as being quite pleased when  Chomsky suggested he was somewhat familiar with him:
 Saturday, February 27, 2010

Noam Chomsky on Angry Arab

Mahmood sent me this (I cite with his permission): "In case you care, a friend of mine asked Noam Chomsky what he thought of your work, and he said this: "I've read some of his work, and liked it. Didn't know about his anarchist inclinations. Should become more familiar with him." "
***

 I.
"Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful,[1][2] or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[3][9][10] voluntary associations."

II.



III.
AbuKhalil:  

"I don't like flags, and I don't like nationalisms but for Palestine and the Palestinians, everything and anything. "

Imagine No'am Chomsky saying something like the quote, with one tiny alteration:
I don't like flags, and I don't like nationalisms but for Israel and the Jews, everything and anything.

This is how much Prof. AbuKhalil either admires Chomsky or understands what a genuine anarchist is. To untangle this cognitive dissonance it would be useful to read about some of AbuKhalil's fantasies:

Saturday, August 23, 2014

The Lies of Khaled Mashaal

Watch and learn.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Claude Lanzmann:

 "In "Tsahal" I also knew exactly what I wanted to tell: the creation an army, the construction of an army, the creation of courage. This army represents a victory of the Jewish people over themselves. There had never been a Jewish army before. My film tells how Jews took their fate into their own hands to avoid ever become victims again. I show how they overcame the victim role and overcame a mental predisposition.

In the Israeli army life is valued higher than anything else. And yet every soldier in the Tsahal is prepared to give his life. Unlike other armies of the world, the soldiers of the Tsahal do not die for the glory of their fatherland, they die for life alone. You should not forget that the genocide of the Jews in the Second World War was not just a murder of innocents. It was also a genocide of the defenceless. My film describes the path to overcome defencelessness. It describes how the Jewish people empowered themselves with weapons and it describes the psychological metamorphosis that the people had to undergo, in order to build an army like the Tsahal, in order to be able to defend themselves, to be able to kill.

For decades, young Israelis have been growing up with the insecurity of knowing that no-one can guarantee that "Israel will still exist in 2025".

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

The price of truth telling is you have your ass kicked. Is Amnesty International a sacred organization whose activities are beyond ironizing? I can understand the discomfiture caused by an intemperately explicit tweet but really, to characterize it as "unconscionable" and "abhorrent" is to suggest that AI and its missions are beyond criticism. Is that really the case? Why the beatification of an organization that tends to apply the meaning of "human rights" with in-built selective pre-determined judgmentalism? 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/think-tank-blames-intern-for-tweet-telling-amnesty-internati?bftw=pol#4k4ap1v


The Rooster's Crow and Kenneth Roth's Evil

Highly disturbing statement from Kenneth Roth, of HRW:



Hamas tunnels may have also been intended against civilians but they've  "caused a huge number of military fatalities" 


It is an open and declarative attempt to reverse cause and effect in the service of whitewashing Hamas. IDF inserts its soldiers between Hamas and Hamas' civilian targets, which explains why there are fallen soldiers in this war but very few civilian victims. Kenneth Roth takes this fact and re-baptizes it as "reasonable doubt" ("Hamas tunnels may have also been intended against civilians") that Hamas actually targets military personnel and not necessarily civilian population. This is the product not of a confused mind but a malevolent cynical manipulator of facts who reverses the reasonable order of cause and effect. He is turning the effect, large  proportion of fallen IDF soldiers in Israel's war toll, into an explanation of the cause: they were the intended targets.

It has the same children story illogical literary device of placing two facts in a certain proximity, correlation and order and then deliberately drawing wrong conclusions to amuse kids and stimulate their thinking. For example, the rooster crows at dawn. We have two activities going on more or less simultaneously: sunrise and the rooster's crow. The creative author may suggest that one act triggers the other: if the rooster doesn't crow, dawn will not be break. It amuses kids to be regaled with this kind of illogic, but it does not serve as a scientific explanation of the phenomenon. That's exactly the kind of device Kenneth Roth tries to employ in his attempt to cleanse Hamas of its well-recorded and unimpeachable history of targeting civilians anywhere and everywhere in Israel. He turns the numbers of dead soldiers into an apriori intent, thus removing the verifiable, scientific element from his "analysis".


And it is done not to amuse, as in the case of the children's story, but to confuse and inflict further pain upon Israeli. 

Says Paul Ricoeur:

Evil is, in the literal sense of the word, perversion, that is, a reversal of the order that requires respect for law to be placed above inclination. It is a matter of a misuse of a free choice and not of the malfeasance of desire. The propensity for evil affects the use of freedom, the capacity to act out of duty – in short, the capacity for being autonomous.”

Ricoeur speaks of law and inclination. The inclination is Hamas intent to harm civilians. The law is the presence of IDF soldiers between Hamas and Israeli civilians. To turn that lawful force that acts out of profoundly justifiable duty into the intended target of Hamas is to lie about Hamas' fully declarative inclinations and intentions. It is, simply put, evil.

Friday, August 15, 2014

“The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.”

― Eric Hoffer

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Nietzsche on Jews:

Consider Jewish scholars in this light: All of them have a high regard for logic, that is for compelling agreement by force of reason; they know, with that they are bound to win even where they encounter race and class prejudices and when one does not like to believe them. For nothing is more democratic than logic; it is no respecter of persons and makes no distinction between crooked and straight noses..
(Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 348)