Monday, May 30, 2011


Israel's colonization of Arabs

A reminder of inconvenient truths, Courtesy of Simply Jews ----->

***

It appears that, following Obama's speech, the term "defensible borders" has become, in some quarters, a euphemistic synonym for Israel's colonization of Arabs. A scam, a scheme, concocted by Netanyahu, as one enraged poster on TNR keeps telling us. Before we allow such perceptions and terminology to dominate and dictate the discussion, I'd like to remind people of the historical record, as inconvenient as it may be to all those Obama aficionados who cannot bear to have their darling heroic president challenged on his tendency to re-write Israel's history, and Israel-US understandings, in his speeches to the Arab world.

Yigal Allon was Israel's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs since 1974, and a member of the Cabinet since 1961. He was Commander of the Palmach, the striking force of the Haganah before the establishment of the State, and during the War of Independence he commanded successively Israel army operations in Eastern Galilee and on the central and southern fronts.

Here is what he wrote in 1976:

"It is impossible to plumb the depths of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not to speak of formulating proposals for its solution, if no true understanding exists of the full significance of its cardinal characteristic-the extreme asymmetry of its two sides. This asymmetry is manifest not merely in one or two, but in all, of its aspects. It is obvious in such objective data as the comparison between Arab and Israeli territories (of the Arab League states 8,500,000 square miles; of Israel, including presently administered areas, about 28,500); or of the relative population statistics (of the Arab League states 134,000,000; of Israel 3,500,000 citizens); not to mention their contrasting actual and potential wealth.

But of primary importance are the subjective asymmetric factors affecting relations between the two sides. In this respect, there is absolute polarization. Whereas the Arab states seek to isolate, strangle and erase Israel from the world's map, Israel's aim is simply to live in peace and good relations with all its neighbors.

These diverse objectives have determined the war aims of both sides. It is within this context that we should mention the chain of terrorist acts that was designed not merely to sow death and destruction in Israel but also to extend the conflict, and thus embroil the Arab states in full-scale wars. It is almost superfluous, and certainly tiresome, to quote the legion of statements of Arab leaders that represent this aim, ranging from the "Palestine Covenant" to current governmental declarations."

Religious duty to Hate Jews - Not Antisemitism

The double paradox of tolerance
: Not only is intolerance tolerated, but the opposition to the toleration of intolerance is deemed intolerant and prosecutable by law. A harbinger of the way of things to come?

Via Islam in Europe:

"On May 12 the newspaper published the results of a study 'Jong in Brussel' by the Youth Research Platform. In the article Mark Elchardus said that antisemitism among Muslim students was theologically inspired and that there is a direct link between being Muslim and harboring antisemitic feelings.

Vigilance musulmane say that this goes back to the idea that every Muslim is antisemitic. His statements incite the public opinion to hate all Muslim citizens on the basis of their religious convictions. The think-tank say Elchardus' claim violates the anti-discrimination law of 2007 , which forbids discrimination on the basis of 'religious convictions'. "

What I understand the Vigilance musulmane's argument to be is that if you are instructed by your religion that it is your religious duty to to hate Jews, then hate speech laws are irrelevant and invalid. In fact, hate speech laws can be invoked against those who draw public attention to these religious instructions.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Tom Friedman's Respect

(Sycophant: One who approaches Greatness on his belly
so that he may not be commanded to turn and be kicked.
He is sometimes an editor.)

"Lawmakers from both sides of the American political divide are giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a rapturous congressional reception, with frequent and sustained standing ovations. "

"Speeches by foreign leaders to both chambers of Congress are not always well attended, but most senators and House members appeared to make time for Netanyahu’s high-profile address. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had invited him to speak to the joint meeting."

Fareed Zakaria interviews Tom Friedman and asks him about Netanyahu's 29 standing ovations in Congress this week. Israel with Congress, says the Friedman, is like Palestinians at the UN. You will always find a bunch of knuckleheads to applaud them ... "

When the transcript of CNN's GPS is available, I will bring the exact quote.

Update: Here is the exact quote:

"ZAKARIA: But he gets 29, 28 standing ovations in Congress.

FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, there's a parallel between what the Palestinians could get at the U.N. and what the Israelis can get in Congress. They can both stand up and read the phone book and be assured that a bunch of knuckleheads in the audience will stand and give them a -- a standing ovation. "

I'd like to remind you of Fareed Zakaria's view -- expressed in his latest book, whose thesis is explained in shorter form in this article -- that America's decline in the world can be discerned in a number of examples:

"Look around. The world's tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. Its largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. Its biggest refinery is being constructed in India. Its largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi; the biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood... The largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling revenues last year. America no longer dominates even its favorite sport, shopping. The Mall of America in Minnesota once boasted that it was the largest shopping mall in the world. Today it wouldn't make the top ten...."

Hard to fathom how the juvenile phallus envy of "mine is bigger than yours" can be cited, and trotted out as proof of an ascendancy or decline of any kind. It does, however, resemble the thinking in certain countries, let's say, in the Middle East. It's not the real thing. It's about appearances, not substance. Zakaria's third world- type of thinking is also reflected in the way he tries to make Israel look big, rich, safe and powerful, almost a super power, with 250 nuclear warheads! (like those alleged nuclear warheads are going to be much use in case of Palestinian terrorist invasions).

As Barry Rubin openly puzzles:

"By the way, since Zakaria and Tom Friedman are both key advisors to Obama on his policy and the State Department speech, and Friedman called for mass Palestinian protests (along Tahrir Square lines) in Jerusalem, does that mean this is what Obama really thinks?"

Saturday, May 21, 2011


Letter to Palestinian refugees

By Ben Dror Yemini

Hebrew source

Link As far as public relations are concerned, you appear to be on a roll. For twenty years, [between 1947-1967] you were under occupation by Jordan and Egypt, yet the world knew nothing about your “Nakba”. It was forbidden to mention it in Jordan. In Egypt people simply forgot it happened. But in the past decade, the picture has changed. The “Nakba” has become the bayonet that spearheads the anti-Israel demonisation campaign.

The world asks us – Israelis – why we cannot feel empathy for Palestinians when they remember their disaster? It is an excellent question. If “Nakba” commemoration were meant to mark the tragedy, there would have been room for empathy. But that’s not really the case, is it? All those celebrations of Nakba, along the borders with Jordan and Lebanon and in Jaffa, had one and one purpose only: The annihilation of the State of Israel.

The disaster that befell the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine came about because their scheme had been folied. Fawzi al-Qawuqji, the Mufti Haj Amin Al Husseini and Azzam Pasha, the secretary-general of the Arab league, three among many – were united in their unambivalent aim to destroy the newborn Jewish state. The first two, al-Qawuqji and the Mufti, fully identified with Nazi ideology. Both had spent time in Berlin and were Hitlerian enthusiasts. After Nazi Germany was defeated, they persisted in promoting the idea of the destruction of the Jews.

And now they are asking us to join in their sorrows, poor dears. Their dream of annihilating the Jews of Palestine failed to materialize, and we are supposed to shed tears for them. After the destruction of Nazi Germany, millions of German ex-patriates were expelled and streamed into the devastated country. The expulsion and displacement of millions have not gained any recognition for the sorrow of the refugees. The free world celebrates the defeat of Nazi Germany. There is no festival to commemorate the “Nakba” that the allies inflicted upon Germans.

Not all Palestine’s Arabs followed the calls of al-Qawuqji or the Mufti. Like those millions of Germans who endured the experience of destruction and displacement, so did the Palestinian Arabs. Those refugees and these refugees were the victims of their respective insane leaderships that fed upon Nazi ideology. Those refugees and these refugees thought the Jews have no right to exist -- either as individuals or a people. Those refugees and these refugees paid a terrible price.

But there is one important difference. Only the insane fringe in Europe – the NeoNazis -- commemorate the Nazi defeat as a day of mourning. Not so in the Arab world. The defeat, known as the Nakba, gained mass and momentum -- not to learn the lessons of past errors, not to express regret for the calls of annihilation, not to turn a new page of peace and reconciliation. Quite the contrary. The Nakba unifies the Arab Street where it wishes to pick up exactly at the point where al-Qawuqji and the Mufti left off. Sometimes they call it the Right of Return; there will always be useful idiots from the Human rights activists who will lend their support. The recent events appear to have been organized by the usual suspects: Assad’s supporters, Khaled Mashal, Ahmadinejad and Nassralah got together to revive an old dream.

Most of Israeli Jews are refugees and children of refugees. Every Israeli ought to feel for other refuges, even if it was the result of their misguided leadership. But there is a gaping difference between empathy for the suffering of refugees and empathy for a campaign aimed at the annihilation of Israel. In the danse macabre of the feted calf of the Nakba, not one expression was there of regret for Palestinian rejectionism, not one hint of self-criticism, not one denunciation of the leaders who promulgated the destruction of Jews. Nothing. Zilch. Zero. And still you dare to demand that Israelis commiserate with your suffering.

Despite the madness we witnessed in the rallies in Jaffa and on the borders with Syria and Lebanon, our message to the Palestinians must be loud and clear: If it’s peace you are after, we will be your willing partners. If it’s a state you aspire to, alongside and not instead of Israel, we will negotiate with you. But, if it’s Right of Return you are seeking, you may find a few nutcases among us who will support such an objective but rest assured: the overwhelming majority of Israelis, Left to Right, will form a unified front to thwart such a insane campaign.

You tried it once, and became refugees. For your sakes, for our sakes, don’t try it.

Unauthorized translation by: The Contentious Centrist

Comments trail

@ Simply Jews: Literary Judge doesn't heart Philip Roth

@TNR:
More Obama, more Netanyahu, so what else is new?

Monday, May 16, 2011

A tale told by a liar ...

At 7:15 AM he posts:

"...he sight was unbelievable. 10 death and dozens injured and the Palestinian guys would not stop. ""

48 minutes later, at

"I am watching it now and as if Israel has not killed and injured hundreds yesterday."

How have the 10 death [sic]and dozens injured turned into hundreds of killed and injured*?

Don't ask him.

Don't bother him with facts, records, history, contexts, consistence, accountability. He has no interest in truth, or ethics, or even a remotely rational position. He is a mass of raging hormones, attached to a megaphone. And as a teacher in academia, he is entrusted with the teaching of young Americans and preparing them for critical thinking, evaluating information and making ethical choices.


Who is "he"?


Why, none other thanformer Scholar-in-Residence at Middle East Institute in Washington DC, former free-lance Middle East consultant for NBC News and ABC News, and now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley.

____________

* What really happened?

"Around 100 Syrian protesters infiltrated the northern border on Sunday and clashed with IDF troops, at one of many flashpoints along the various borders and in the West Bank amid demonstrations marking the Palestinian “Nakba Day.”

At least one Syrian was killed by IDF gunfire. In similar strife along the Lebanese border, conflicting reports spoke of between three and 10 people killed, while the IDF said that most and possibly all of the casualties were caused by the Lebanese Armed Forces"

Do you think the former Scholar-in-Residence at Middle East Institute etc etc etc, and now professor of etc etc etc and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley is ignorant of the facts as reported by J-Post?

Not so. Here he is fulminating against the lousy Lebanese army for shooting at Palestinians:

"This failure of an army--perhaps one of the most failed attempt of armies--shot today at demonstrators against Israeli at the Lebanese border after Israeli occupation war criminals killed and injured protesters. The lousy Lebanese Army said that he does not want to open "a front now" because the situation is critical."

He links to this source for his information. It is in Arabic. Google translation:

"According to sources in the field for "NOW Lebanon" that "after warnings repeated by the Lebanese army to the citizens of Palestinians to stay away from the barbed wire of the alignment of Maroun al-Ras, and after they refused and kept throwing stones at the Israeli side, the intervention of the Lebanese army, and arrived at the alignment of the tape, where he began began shooting in the air to disperse the Palestinians, asking them to return to their places of residence, for their own safety, "pointing to" the fall of the 4 dead and 30 wounded. "

Sources on the ground itself, pointed out that "the Lebanese army determined to execute this mission, in order to preserve the integrity of the first on the Palestinians and to prevent the open front of that region, especially Lebanon and living status critical and difficult on all levels."

So he knows that the IDF did not kill nor injured " hundreds" in this border "demonstrations". But knowledge of the facts does not deter him from making these factual statements. What does that make the former Scholar etc etc and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley etc etc?

A false witness against himself.

Saturday, May 14, 2011


A scene from an Egyptian Spring, Tahrir Square May 13 -->


May 15, Nakba Day

"Let’s keep in mind ... that Nakba Day isn’t about establishing some kind of peaceful Palestinian state outside of Israel’s 1967 borders. It’s a “holiday” that marks and celebrates full-blown Arab rejectionism of any Jewish State anywhere in the Middle East. In 1948 the hope was to eradicate Israel by crushing it with the military power of five Arab armies. In 2011 the hope is to eradicate Israel by overrunning it with 3 million fifth-generation “refugees,” a population drawn from UN camps and routinely identified as the most virulently anti-Israel in the Arab world. This latter scheme, of course, is the famous “right of return,” institutionalized among other places in the Saudi plan.

The meaning of Nakba Day isn’t really up for debate. Elsewhere in Israeli-Arab reality, there’s room for Middle East analysts to insist that the Palestinians don’t actually mean what they say they mean (“sure that Palestinian Authority official just advocated mass genocide of ‘Jewish swine’ and said that the peace process is a two-phase strategy of destroying Israel, but he meant it moderately!”) Nakba Day is impossible to spin. It stands for hysteria about Israel’s creation as such. The giant photojournalism-friendly keys carried around by rioters aren’t allusions to nice villas in Bethlehem. They are references to villages never seen by the refugees’ parents’ parents’ but to which Palestinians still insist they have a right."

Here is some agreement from the former Scholar-in-Residence at Middle East Institute in Washington DC, former free-lance Middle East consultant for NBC News and ABC News and now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley,
aka Angry Arab:


"On this sad day, one should pledge to the people of Palestine that: We shall not forget; we shall not forgive, ever. That we shall count your dead and injured, one by one. That we know that all Israeli crimes are registered in notebooks--as Mahmud Darwish had said. We pledge that we are committed to: No peace with Israel. No Negotiation with Israel. No recognition of Israel. That all the deeds and treaties by Arab tyrants represent their oil and their polygamous ruling families and the external backers they have. That they don't ever speak for the Arab people. We pledge full return AND compensation. And when Palestine is liberated, we should ensure a safe and peaceful and democratic and secular transfer of power. All flags of Zionist occupation will be discarded but can be used as bathroom mats--we should commit to recycling in liberated Palestine. "

In this TVO, courtesy of Ibishblog, at 42 minutes into the vid, the conversation turns of justice and dignity for the Palestinians.

Take a look and listen carefully. The honourable panelists all agree that Palestinians long for that kind of acknowledgement from Israel. Really? Is this the impression you get from reading the message that emanates from the Arab nutcase quoted above? Is "
peaceful and democratic and secular transfer of power" his suit, you think? And why should we care what he says? Because, as I indicated several times before, it is his positions, his incontinent bile, his implacable hatred, that most truly represent that mindset of the Arab Street. If you don't believe me, if you think I overstate the matter, all you need to do is have the guts to look up editorials written in the Arab media, visit Arab blogs, venture into Muslim-Arab message boards, in order to check for yourselves whether my reading is correct.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Watching Angry Arab

According to the professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley, Daniel Barenboim is an irredeemable war criminal. Why?

Here is the answer:

"Can an Israeli redeem himself/herself?

I am often asked that question since I adhere to boycott of all things Israeli. The answer is yes provided 1) the person refuses to serve in the Army or the intelligence service of the state as part of military service; 2) the person must leave the house he/she occupies and the land on which he/she stands on because chances are the house is occupied, in the literal sense, and the land is occupied, in the literal sense; 3) the person must engage in armed struggle against the terrorist state of Israel. If an Israeli person fulfills those conditions, he/she should be acceptable from a pro-Palestinian point of view. So by my definition, Daniel Barenboim has not met any of those conditions.

PS Playing a musical instrument before a Palestinian audience does not qualify--not even if the instrument is Dirbakka."

Reflected in the passage I highlighted in red are the conditions this particular Arab -- who can serve as an representative example of the mindset in the fabled and much feared Arab Street -- is the kind of peace envisaged by Arabs (and their supporters) when they speak of peace in the Middle East: Israeli Jews disarmed of their weapons, becoming defenceless, ethnically cleansed and mass massacred.

In other words, Israel must commit geno-suicide.

The professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley yearns for the days when Jews were kept in their place as dhimmi in the medieval Muslim Khalifate. The question uppermost on my mind is; how come such a person gets to be a professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley? And how come he gets to propagate such fondness for genocide in universities and in front of students' bodies?

Keeping an open mind ...

In an article in Al Messa, Egypt, the author struggles to present his conspiracy-inclined thinking as a mind open to possibilities.

"There is ambiguity surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Qaida. The U.S. president announced the news himself, and many factions have accepted it as truth, while many other factions have denied it, especially after the announcement that the corpse was buried at sea. If the assassination is not true, claiming that it is will be political suicide for Obama. If it is true, Obama’s popularity will increase and he will secure another presidential win.

The various reactions to bin Laden’s death — that is, if he truly was killed — are now visible. There were people saddened by bin Laden’s death; they have described him as the “Lion of Islam.” There were also those who were pleased, who gloated about bin Laden’s death and called him the “Killer of History” and the “Arab Hitler.” Between the grief and contentment a third group was dedicated to silence.

The operation to assassinate bin Laden, as viewed by Western media, was massive; it ended a 10-year chase. The question is now what? If the assassination did occur, expect actions of revenge against American interests in many countries of the world. This is widely known. If the assassination did not occur, then America has taken its right from bin Laden, who was accused of masterminding 9/11, which took the lives of 3,000 innocent people. Still, the accusations about 9/11 are strongly doubted. A century could pass without the publication of the facts — a situation similar to what happened after President John F. Kennedy's assassination 47 years ago.

The whole world doubts the official 9/11 story and still doubts that a single man like bin Laden could commit 9/11. He could very well be an instrument, but the planning and logistics extended beyond his skill and knowledge. Our thoughts take us to the CIA, which already announced its involvement with bin Laden at the time of 9/11.

We will consider that bin Laden killed 3,000 in the World Trade Center in New York and we will consider that his assassination yesterday was a service to justice and retribution. We also want our rights from George W .Bush and Tony Blair, who have killed a million Iraqis in an unjustified and illegitimate war. We also want our rights from Sharon, Obama, Peres, Olmert and Netanyahu, who killed thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese. I demand our rights from every Israeli leader starting from Levi Eshkol, Ben Gurion even Golda Meir and Menachem Begin, who have committed innumerable massacres and stole an entire country. Isn’t that justice, Mr. Obama, if your own goal in hunting bin Laden was to serve of justice? We are waiting for the truth on bin Laden’s death and how justice will be achieved by the righteous."

Why are conspiracy theories so quick to spread in the Middle East?

One possible answer:

"Conspiracy theories are also a natural response when you live in an authoritarian state: you're powerless, and in many ways the government really is conspiring against you. [...]

...Unfortunately, if you've been cast in a conspiracy theory, there's not much you can do about it. Counterargument is exactly what the conspiracy theorists expect from you -- in fact, it may make the theorizing more intense. The best thing to do, Gray concludes, is ignore the conspiracy theorists: "Most anti-Catholic and anti-Mason conspiracies in the United States have atrophied this way."

My own speculation is that cultures and societies that are prone to superstitions provide fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

This research, done by t
he University of Texas at Austin and published in Science, proposes that:

"Individuals who lack control seek to find and impose order in the world through superstition, rituals and conspiratorial explanations ...

The research was done by lead author Jennifer Whitson, an assistant professor at the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin, in collaboration with Adam Galinsky, a professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. Through a series of six experiments, the researchers showed individuals who lacked control were more likely to see images that did not exist, perceive conspiracies and develop superstitions.

“The less control people have over their lives, the more likely they are to try and regain control through mental gymnastics,” said Galinsky. “Feelings of control are so important to people that a lack of control is inherently threatening. While some misperceptions can be bad or lead one astray, they’re extremely common and most likely satisfy a deep and enduring psychological need.”

According to Whitson and Galinsky, that psychological need is for control, and the ability to minimize uncertainty and predict beneficial courses of action. In situations where one has little control, the researchers proposed that an individual may believe that mysterious, unseen mechanisms are secretly at work. "

So, with the liberation of Egypt from Mubarak's yoke and people gaining more control over their life and systems of governance, can we look forward to a time when an article such as the one quoted about will be laughed at by the Egyptian public?

Sunday, May 08, 2011

Double Standards - a thought experiment with real people

Courtesy of the sly imagination of Snoopy the goony simple Jew

"4 helicopters landed in Beirut suburb under the cover of darkness. A team of Israeli soldiers from the "Sayeret matkal" emerged. They've penetrated a very well guarded building, and after 40 minutes of firefight left with the corpse of Hassan Nasrallah. After DNA testing the corpse was positively identified on board and then, "in full accordance with Islamic tradition", thrown into the Mediterranean Sea. Together with Nasrallah another three men were killed, as well as his 148th wife that tried to protect him with her body."


63 years of Jewish Independence
and going strong ...


Happy Birthday Israel!

"On the eve of its 63rd Independence Day, the state’s population has surpassed 7.7 million, a growth of 2 percent since this time last year, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics.

The figures, published on Sunday, show an increase of 155,000 citizens.

Jews makes up some 75.3% of the population, or 5,837,000 people, while the Arab population has reached 1,587,000 (20.5%).

Non-Arabs and non-Jews make up 4.2% of citizens, or 322,000 people.
Link

Since Independence Day last year, 178,000 babies were born, while some 43,000 people died. Close to 24,500 immigrants arrived, of those 6,500 were ex-pat Israelis returning home.
"



HaReut ( The Friendship)
... this friendship, we carried you wordlessly, grey, stubborn, and silent, from the nights of horror, you remain great and fierce ...


" Veulahy" (Maybe) ...and maybe these things never happened ... were you real, or was it just a dream?


"Ma omrot eynaich" (What is it your eyes are telling me?)
... who is dreaming of you in a distant and orphaned military post?

Hayu leylot ( nights)

Labels:

News from the Arab Spring

"Muslim mobs attack Christian churches ...
Egypt's caretaker government has held crisis talks after attacks by Muslim mobs on Coptic Christian churches in Cairo left at least 12 people dead and drove the country's growing religious tensions to the brink."

But don't lose heart. There are good news coming out of the New Egypt:

"Foreign Minister Nabil Elaraby has called "shameful" Egypt's decision to close the Gaza border in 2007. Such a description would never have been publicly uttered under the Mubarak government. It is a sign the leadership is readjusting international policies to be more in line with public sentiment. The Rafah crossing is expected to reopen soon. Cairo's 1979 peace treaty with Israel remains unpopular in Egypt. Islamic ultraconservatives, w.hose voices have grown louder since the fall of Mubarak, have called for scrapping the treaty That is unlikely given the shared economic interests between the two countries and the prospect that such a move could jeopardize the $1.2 billion Egypt receives in annual aid from the United States. But Israel has grown increasingly irritated by Cairo's actions. "We are witnessing a sequence of Egyptian moves that do not bode well, including comments that the Camp David agreements have run their course and public opinion polls showing support for undoing the peace treaty," Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told Israel Radio. "We must prepare for change in reality concerning Egypt and indeed the Middle East."" Notice that Western journalists assume that only the fundamentalists in the Middle East are opposed to Israel. "


Comments trail:

@ Bob's
: Racist? Or merely ironic and not to be attempted, lest the pathological ideologues mis- (or dis-) construe?? That's the question! (Or, to borrow from the Coen Brothers', intelligence is relative ... )

@ TNR: Animalizing as political commentary
Link
@
Pyramidion: The amateur Egyptian historian-blogger opines about the Holocaust, Zionism and Passover, but refuses to provide factual support for his thunderous claims. What can he mean?

My opinion? It's cognitive dissonance; he really really wants to deny the Holocaust but is too timid to do it, so he opts for the second best option: trivializing it by claiming "the Zionist media" inflates the horror:

"Dr. Ashraf Ezzat permalink

We have live witnesses to the holocaus, [sic] we have documents, photos and even films.
But none of that would match up to the overstreched lip service of the Zionists about it. Telling stories is the jew’s [sic] best natural gifts my dear."

Link
@ Terry Glavin's: The proletariat celebrating Bin Laden's disappearance from the known universe while a highbrow representative of the newly invigorated, second-largest Canadian party to emerge from the recent elections, -- the NDP -- is agonizing over the international legality of the assassination.

@ TNR: Galston demurs, and FWIIW, I concur ...

I do not agonize over International Law when it comes to the killing of the mass murderer, but I do not go celebrating. Because schadenfreude is simply irrelevant, because it is not a seemly sentiment, because it goes against Jewish (and Israeli) ethics:

Proverbs 24:17-18 says:

"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles;
lest YHWH see and it be evil in His eyes,
and He turn away His wrath from him."


Commentary on these verses:

"17: At the fall of your enemy, do not be happy, as there is a difference between simcha, happiness, and ghil, joy. Simcha, happiness, is constant and refers to a permanent thing, while ghil, rejoice, relates to temporary or renewed things such as a good message, etc. Hence, says the verse, do not be happy permanently at the fall of your enemy from his stature, and even when he stumbles, which is the beginning of his fall, do not rejoice temporarily, upon news of the beginning of his fall. 18: Lest God sees, and it will be bad in His eyes, as God will see your cruelty and your measure of revenge, and will compare your enemies deeds to yours, and He will look unfavorably at your deeds, and He will turn his wrath from your enemy unto you."

Saturday, May 07, 2011


The Chomsky and the Tomahawk

"Historical analogies are never exact but sometimes useful. If they are to be useful, then the precedent needs at a minimum to be stated accurately" (Oliver Kamm)

It was too much to hope that Gnome Chomsky would restrain his outlandish analogies in the wake of Bin Laden's assassination:

"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic."

And another quote, from the same putrid mind that produced the above::

"Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”

Is it? Does the great linguistic expert of MIT -- decipherer of the secrets of all mythologies, Universal Grammar -- really NOT get it?

According to wikipedia:

Apache:

"The Apachean tribes were historically very powerful, opposing the Spaniards and Mexicans for centuries. The first Apache raids on Sonora appear to have taken place during the late 17th century. In 19th-century confrontations, the U.S. Army found the Apache to be fierce warriors and skillful strategists."

Tomahawk: " type of axe made and used by several Native American tribes."

Geronimo:
"After an attack by a company of Mexican soldiers killed many members of his family in 1858, Geronimo joined revenge attacks on the Mexicans and later against the United States. He became known for bravery and daring feats and was revered by the Apaches as a warrior with spiritual powers."

So why do you think
the US military likes to name its weapons after these mythological figures symbolizing fierce resistance, bravery and sheer force? Is it because they loath and despise them, or because they admire and assimilate them into the great American narrative?

Based on this simple, basic, straightforward knowledge and understanding of history and its meaning in our modern culture, is there any reason why the
Luftwaffe would call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy” , both of which names have become synonymous with the ultimate defencelessness and weakness of victims who were stripped of any dignity, power or even the minimum of moral agency?

The only time I ever saw a Jew wield an tomahawk in the company of an apache against his enemy was in Quentin Tarantino's revenge-fantasy film "Inglorious Basterds":

"Lt. Aldo Raine:

* Now I'm the direct descendant of the "Mountain Man", Jim Bridger, that means I got a little Ingen in me, and our mission will be that of the Apache Resistance.

* Thats Sergeant Donny Donowitz. But you might know him better by his nickname... the Bear Jew... Now, if you heard of Aldo the Apache, you gotta heard about the Bear Jew."

So why would a venerable super-intelligent professor suggest such a ridiculous, impossible and empty analogy? Might it be that he lives in a fantasy universe?

Angry Arab watch

The former free-lance Middle East consultant for NBC News and ABC News, and now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley

-- whose politics of hatred can be summed up in this kind of statement: "I am not satisfied with somebody's criticisms of Israel here and there: the task is to categorically reject the Israeli racist project, without equivocation. Anything short of that is a form of endorsement of racism and war crimes." --

provides a quote from Churchill:
Link
"Churchill on Hitler“I have always said that if Britain were defeated in a war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among nations.”


It is supposed to tell us something about Churchill that diminishes his giant footprint in the history of the free world.

Here is the real story behind and around this quote, which the professor etc., in his devout adherence to academic standards, chose to exclude from his blog. Churchill's comment on Hitler was in response to Hitler's speech to the Reich­stag in early Novem­ber 1938, in which Hitler had attacked Churchill and oth­ers who had objected to the Munich Pact by name and describ­ing them as “war­mon­gers.” Churchill's response starts with the statement Dr. As’ad AbuKhalil provided, but is just the introductory note in a short speech that follows :

"What Churchill then said has often been quoted out of con­text to sug­gest that he was an admirer of Hitler. A par­tial quo­ta­tion is in Churchill by Him­self, the “Peo­ple” chap­ter, Hitler, page 346. But just so there’s no doubt, I have sup­plied all the words rep­re­sented by ellipses in my book:

I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our right­ful posi­tion among the nations. I am sorry, how­ever, that he has not been mel­lowed by the great suc­cess that has attended him. The whole world would rejoice to see the Hitler of peace and tol­er­ance, and noth­ing would adorn his name in world his­tory so much as acts of mag­na­nim­ity and of mercy and of pity to the for­lorn and friend­less, to the weak and poor.

Since he has been good enough to give me his advice I ven­ture to return the com­pli­ment. Herr Hitler also showed him­self unduly sen­si­tive about sug­ges­tions that there may be other opin­ions in Ger­many besides his own. It would be indeed aston­ish­ing if, among 80,000,000 of peo­ple so vary­ing in ori­gin, creed, inter­est, and con­di­tion, there should be only one pat­tern of thought. It would not be nat­ural: it is incred­i­ble. That he has the power, and, alas! the will, to sup­press all incon­ve­nient opin­ions is no doubt true. It would be much wiser to relax a lit­tle, and not try to frighten peo­ple out of their wits for express­ing hon­est doubt and diver­gences. He is mis­taken in think­ing that I do not see Ger­mans of the Nazi regime when they come to this coun­try. On the con­trary, only this year I have seen, at their request, Herr Bohle, Herr Hen­lein, and the Gauleiter of Danzig, and they all know that.

In com­mon with most Eng­lish men and women, I should like noth­ing bet­ter than to see a great, happy, peace­ful Ger­many in the van­guard of Europe. Let this great man search his own heart and con­science before he accuses any­one of being a war­mon­ger. The whole peo­ples of the British Empire and the French Repub­lic earnestly desire to dwell in peace side by side with the Ger­man nation. But they are also resolved to put them­selves in a posi­tion to defend their rights and long-established civ­i­liza­tions. They do not mean to be in anybody’s power. If Herr Hitler’s eye falls upon these words I trust he will accept them in the spirit of can­dour in which they are uttered."

When someone provides a quote bereft of any additional information surrounding it, the reader ought to be on his guard that he is being taken for a fool.

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Sniffing Coffee Beans

A Pride and Prejudice Moment: Darcy's disgrace

Well, I'm reading Jane Austen's novel, again, for a discussion course. Reading with a special attention for ironical twists (irony being very much on my mind recently).

As I came upon this famous moment (6 minutes into the vid):


"Elizabeth Bennet had been obliged, by the scarcity of gentlemen, to sit down for two dances; and during part of that time, Mr. Darcy had been standing near enough for her to overhear a conversation between him and Mr. Bingley, who came from the dance for a few minutes to press his friend to join it.

``Come, Darcy,'' said he, ``I must have you dance. I hate to see you standing about by yourself in this stupid manner. You had much better dance.''

``I certainly shall not. You know how I detest it, unless I am particularly acquainted with my partner. At such an assembly as this, it would be insupportable. Your sisters are engaged, and there is not another woman in the room whom it would not be a punishment to me to stand up with.''

``I would not be so fastidious as you are,'' cried Bingley, ``for a kingdom! Upon my honour I never met with so many pleasant girls in my life, as I have this evening; and there are several of them, you see, uncommonly pretty.''

``You are dancing with the only handsome girl in the room,'' said Mr. Darcy, looking at the eldest Miss Bennet.

``Oh! she is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld! But there is one of her sisters sitting down just behind you, who is very pretty, and I dare say very agreeable. Do let me ask my partner to introduce you.''

``Which do you mean?'' and turning round, he looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till catching her eye, he withdrew his own and coldly said, ``She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me; and I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men. You had better return to your partner and enjoy her smiles, for you are wasting your time with me.

Mr. Bingley followed his advice. Mr. Darcy walked off; and Elizabeth remained with no very cordial feelings towards him. She told the story however with great spirit among her friends; for she had a lively, playful disposition, which delighted in any thing ridiculous."

"I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men."

Of course the irony is that Darcy was the only man at that ball to have slighted Elizabeth Bennet, by this very statement and his adamant refusal to engage in the happy activities of the evening.

Mr. Bingley, fully aware that the extent and depth of this slight to the fair maiden is tantamount to a slander, later tries to mend some of the harm inflicted by his haughty and unfeeling friend. How do we know it? Mrs. Bennet informs us, as she reports to her husband when they get back home that night:

``Oh! my dear Mr. Bennet,'' as she entered the room, ``we have had a most delightful evening, a most excellent ball. I wish you had been there. Jane was so admired, nothing could be like it. Every body said how well she looked; and Mr. Bingley thought her quite beautiful, and danced with her twice. Only think of that my dear; he actually danced with her twice; and she was the only creature in the room that he asked a second time. First of all, he asked Miss Lucas. I was so vexed to see him stand up with her; but, however, he did not admire her at all: indeed, nobody can, you know; and he seemed quite struck with Jane as she was going down the dance. So, he enquired who she was, and got introduced, and asked her for the two next. Then, the two third he danced with Miss King, and the two fourth with Maria Lucas, and the two fifth with Jane again, and the two sixth with Lizzy, and the Boulanger --''
As we can see, after dancing with Jane for the second time, Mr. Bingley rushed to ask Lizzy to dance.

How do we know that? In the conversation between them, Bingley referred to Jane as "my partner" and Darcy, insistently uncivilized, urges him to " return to your partner and enjoy her smiles". This should signal to the attentive reader exactly how the evening proceeded from the moment Darcy snubbed Elizabeth.

Austen, of course, conceals, in her Machiavellian way, this useful nugget of information in Mrs. Bennet's stupid and inconsequential prattle.

Angry Arab moment:

"... the hypocrite ... bears false witness against himself."
(Hannah Arendt)


The former free-lance Middle East consultant for NBC News and ABC News and now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley, Dr. As’ad AbuKhalil, outlines a principle about judging reliability of documentation of information:

"When New York Times reports on Hamas

First, it is amusing when the Israel chief propagandist at the paper, Ethan Bronner, is assigned to write a story dealing with Palestinians. Secondly, look at this level of documentation for information on Hamas: "But Amr al-Azm, a Syrian historian at Shawnee State University in Ohio, who is in frequent touch with people in Damascus..." (He has been cited in the paper regarding developments in Syria too. But hell: if Sarah Palin can see Russia from Alaska, Mr. Al-Azm can see Syria AND Hamas from Ohio)."

Let's look at a few posts from the same intellectual sceptic who claims that it is impossible to form opinions based on information gathered by someone who resides in the US from people who actually live in in the locations where the events he reports take place:

"Stop lying to me


"The body then was placed on a prepared flat board and eased into the sea." Eased into the sea? You think we are going to believe that? Unless by ease you mean "kicked into the sea." What is next? They will now claim that US soldiers kissed him on the forehead before delicately lowering his body? Why these lies?"


"The new Egypt?

A new ban on kissing and embracing scenes on Egyptian TV. Is that a revolution or Salafite coup? (thanks Ahmet)

This report has been denied. (thanks Mohammad)"

"Bahrain update:


From one of my reliable sources: "23 doctors and 24 nurses will be tried in military court. They have been forced to confess to things they never did."


There is plenty more where these examples come from.