I never had any doubts..

And this ordeal triggered a nightmare - a day-mare, if you like. Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English voice of an old man - Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: "I believe it is peace for our time" - a sentence that prompted a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land. There was a move to urge that Mr. Chamberlain should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: "I believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat." He was, in view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down.

[Link: frontpagemag.com...]

I can never get over the fact that the leftists have such a poor knowledge of history.
Years ago I had a discussion with an avowed Marxist who told me that the US had never done anything of value in the world. I countered that the US was very charitable and generous, and that we did many good things all the time. She asked for an example, and I suggested the Marshall Plan.
Completely blank look. Had no idea what the Marshall Plan was or what it did. As far as I can tell, her knowledge of history only went back as far as the last Hate America rally.

Back in 1991, my brother (who's generally an NPR type) said "I knew there would be war when I heard someone say, 'there will be peace in our time'".

Other slogans I wonder if we'll see see revived,

Soviet Power plus rural electrifcation equal communism!
I think we can work with with Uncle Joe!
Burn your bra

Bugs -- likely, she had been fed a Chomsky history. Basically, leave out everything done to America and you get a Chomsky history.

#4. I talked with one who insisted that the Chinese had achieved stunning economic progress during the Cultural Revolution

Honestly, does anyone really expect less from a group of people who carry signs that portray GWB as Hitler while at the same time wearing Stalinist USSR fashion?

You must love the Bull head on Churchill.

We need one of those here you know - and we dont seem to have one.

#4. I talked with one who insisted that the Chinese had achieved stunning economic progress during the Cultural Revolution

I can top that. Did you know that Stalin industrialized and educated Russia even though it took tens of millions of deaths, which was okay? That's what I was told.

History of the Locarno Treaty:

[Link: www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...]

I think the author of that paragraph was just being facetious.

</sarcasm>

Last night I was watching Fox News. Apparently some guy (who's website URL I have forgotten) interviewing random people in one of the anti-war demonstrations. It seems these people are against the war but have absolutely no idea as to an alternative.

If anybody has the link I would be greatly appreciative.

#10, Oh yeah? Well I was told that the Sputnik program proved the superiority of Communism but the Moon Walk did not prove the superiority of capitalism because it was a "government project."

Have you heard the latest, James? Communism really failed because -- get this -- it wasn't really Marxism after all, it was "state capitalism."

I'm still waiting for a sign that blames the J-E-W-S for all this...

Lefty's have no knowledge of history because they believe that the human race is perfectable. Why should they care what happned 60 years ago when all of mankind if moving toward being perfect. What happend in the past has no meaning to them because if it did, it would throw a big curve-ball on that theory.

#13, Cannonfodder - here it is. VERY funny stuff!

[Link: brain-terminal.com...]

BTW, yes, your eyes don't deceive you, it's Ben Noah, always fighting to destroy the juvenile pastime of "First!"..

Thank you for your praise :)

We should round up all the protesters and make them become Iraqi citizens and live in northern Iraq. See how they feel then.

#13

Protesting the Protesters
Armed with the knowledge that war is not the answer, I went to the peace protest in search of answers.

[Link: www.brain-terminal.com...]

#10, Oh yeah? Well I was told that the Sputnik program proved the superiority of Communism but the Moon Walk did not prove the superiority of capitalism because it was a "government project."

LOL that I haven't heard. My father did have to suffer through an accelerated science program in school sparked by the alarm raised by Sputnik. ;-)

Have you heard the latest, James? Communism really failed because -- get this -- it wasn't really Marxism after all, it was "state capitalism."

Marxism can never be disproven because "it's never been tried".

I say, "let's keep it that way".

[Link: brain-terminal.com...]

Try this

I'm confused--has the UN ceded the Sudetenland to Saddam??? No wonder Vaclev Havel had such strong feelings on the subject.

What surprises me is that althought the Arafat keffiyah is very popular at these "anti-war" demonstrations, I did not see anyone with the Palestinian traditional framed photo of Saddam and Arafat.

When will these protestors learn to get with the times?

I happened to be in NYC this past weekend with all the wacko commies rallying around and saw a sign that said..."No new war with Irac."

I think that explains a lot about how seriously we should take these clowns.

#21 James,

Kind of like "real" Islam has never been disproven because it's never been tried, eh?

#14: the Moon Walk did not prove the superiority of capitalism because it was a "government project."

The government? I thought Michael Jackson invented it.

Thank you, thank you, you're a beautiful audience.

No Blood For Ooooiiilll!!!

Oh, it's the thugs for Hugo Chavez, the Mini Castro. It's for 'The Cause'.

Never mind, then. Nothing to see here except us Marxists.

#21 James,

Kind of like "real" Islam has never been disproven because it's never been tried, eh?

You said it, not I. ;-)

imo The best protest sign is the "who needs oild I ride the bus" That says it all.

Thanks to everybody who posted that link.

#15
What, the anti-Israel, anti-Sharon, anti-Zionist, pro-"Palestine" placards aren't enough?! Hey, if only we solve those problems first, the world will be paradise and the Iraq problem will go away. Well, in the meantime, just look for Billy McKinney, Cynthia McKinney's papa who spelled it out that clearly when blaming daughter's defeat on the J-E-W-S. She's at all the rallies.

Re: #7

Yep. And the Great Leap Forwrd didn't starve anyone because it's so much of a success.

In the last couple of days I've had long conversations with three different antiwar supporters. All three are friends of mine and don't represent the "far left," they represent a spectrum from slightly liberal to very liberal, but not at all wacky or extreme. In each case, when I started giving them historical facts and reasoned arguments, their reaction made it clear to me that they had almost no previous knowledge of either history or current events.

These are college graduates. These are professional people. These are people who are actually interested in world events, although they are busy and don't follow things too closely. But I was amazed, simply amazed, at the level of ignorance. I've never considered myself a history buff, but I've known what "peace in our time" meant for most of my adult life. They didn't seem to know.

With one of them I got into a discussion of Israel/Palestine. This person had no idea that the Palestinians had been offered their own country (not to mention previously having been given Jordan) at the time of partition. No idea they had refused the offer. No idea that all the Arab countries had subsequently attacked Israel in order to obliterate it. This person's eyes got very big when I told her that! Very very surprised; she'd never heard a word of this before. When I got to how the Palestinian camps came to be, she was really stunned. "You mean, the Arab countries set up the camps? Not the Israelis?" She was under the impression the Israelis had somehow set up all the refugee camps long ago and kept the Arabs there. She had no idea there were any Arabs living freely in Israel. And on and on and on...

I say this not to put my friend down. She's not an idiot. She's actually a very bright and thoughtful person. I can't understand her ignorance on world events, though. To her credit, after I talked about all this stuff and recommended a bunch of books to her (Oren, Pollack, Bernard Lewis), she said I'd given her a lot to think about and that she intended to do a lot of reading.

So, I've come to a conclusion about a lot of the peaceniks--not the hard-core ideological ones, of course, but the vast majority of the rest, at least in the US (don't know about Europe). Most of them, perhaps the majority, are neither insane nor stupid, they are simply ignorant and uninformed. I would never have thought it, but that appears to be the case. Something to ponder.

#21

My father did have to suffer through an accelerated science program in school sparked by the alarm raised by Sputnik. ;-)

Tha comment makes feel almost the way I did the first time I heard a young adult say "My Grandfather fought in Viet Nam." I'm a little younger than both situations (although not by much), but old enough to feel they gray hair growing when I hear such comments.

#34,

You are correct. A good many are simply not aware of the facts. An impression has been created that takes some detailed knowledge to rebut. It also takes a receptive audience. My own analogy that I remind myself of is the situation in Northern Ireland. I know very little about it and really couldn't say who started it and who is right etc. (I don't need a history lesson. I won't support terrorism -- period.) The Palestinian refugees are concrete symbols of a very shallow position. Israel concrete symbol is its relative affluence and success. That's both hard to show and worse, a sin, in the eyes of some who will always take the side of the perceived underdog. Israel was fairly popular among the left until they started winning wars.

Good work addict, perhaps she will become one of the many who have opened their eyes.

I have become so accustomed to discussing these issues with like-minded people on these threads, that sometimes when I encounter a person who is ignorant or does not agree with the need to get Saddam out of there, I react with shock.

My wife just last night was debating her 20 year old, "environmentalist" brother and boy was I impressed. It is obvious that her reading National Review and watching Fox News gave her a lot of ammunition against her well-meaning but misguided, "we need to learn how to make more friends" ideology.

It takes effort to learn history and facts, but ultimately there are some who can be convinced, making the endeavor wholly worth-while.

Schröder doesn't speak for all Germans, says German opposition leader Angela Merkel in the Washington Post. Last Sunday, another German "club", Verein Atlantikbrücke (society atlantic bridge), bought a whole page in the NY Times (140.000€) to state their support for the United States. I think Germany is much more divided than e.g. France is; a strong opposition to Schröder is growing here. The Sun thinks Chirac is a worm, by the way. An alternative to the already over-used word "weasel"?

That should read in #37 - her brother's ideology. My wife baruch hashem (thank god) shares my ideology.

My wife baruch hashem (thank god) shares my ideology.

I've wondered how the Mary Matalin/ James Carville marriage works. I can only speculate that they must both be sexual superheros of spectacular proportions.

Pipes refutes some of the commonly held assumptions about Arab-palestinian aspirations: What they really want.

Check out the black guy standing next to the "Peace in our time" sign-holder. It's almost as if he is just noticing the absurdity of the sign next to him, but is too late to prevent himself being associated with it.

#34

they are simply ignorant and uninformed

That may be true for many, but there is a large group of people who are incredibly educated and intelligent, yet still oppose any efforts we make to force Iraq into complience. They tend to have large trust funds, have graduated from some Ivy league school(s), and sit on the board of many charitable trusts. They are in leadership positions on the east and west coasts of the US. They occupy positions of influence in the institutions of media and academia.

They represent the source of information (one might say propaganda) on anti-American power and expansion. They distrust all that US presidents (particularly Repubs) do which may result in the greater power and influence for America.

Because they're world view is so narrow, they simply can't abide the use of American military power against Iraq, even thought it will benefit greatly the Iraqi people, regional stability, the world ecomony, etc...just because the US will benefit as well.

They are the ones responsible for the mess we're in now. Some call them elitists, other call them multilaterilists, still more call them transnational progressives. I call them dangerous.

James (40) - the thought of any woman screwing James Carville makes me violently ill. He looks like the bastard love child from the rape scene in 'Deliverance'.

#34--you are absolutely right. Anyone anti-war/pro-palistinian person that I have talked to has been easily convinced after going through some simple points of history. Media bias is also a very big factor in this. Think of the average working joe who gets their news by reading the NYT for 30 min in the morning. With the obvious anti-israel bias that the NYT displays in its headlines and features, it is not surprising that many people would side with the "poor, poor" palistinians.

I wish everyone wasted as much time as i do at work to read blogs and every news site imaginable.

Oooops!

That's not what Chamberlin said!

Of course, you all realize that Chamberlin did not say "peace in our time" but "peace for our time."

If you need to make fun of peace protestors, at least get the facts straight.

Kind of undermines this whole thread, no?

By the way, for those who'd like to see more on what Chamberlin really said:

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/peacetime.ht ml

I expect that many of you will say it is semantics.

I say not.

I say the right is sooo anxious to tie the left to radicals of the past that spinning this as some kind of tie to Nazism is EXACTLY the type of ploy thr right uses to diffuse the conversation of FACTS.

I'd love to hear why Ashcroft wrote a friend of the court brief to stop the NYC march.

Can't stand to see how many Americans HATE the war policy?

#36, James wrote: "Israel was fairly popular among the left until they started winning wars."

A slight correction. . ."until they started winning wars AND abandoned socialist utopian ideals."

I've actually heard Chompskyites say that they would support Israel if it were still socialist -- never mind the "Occupied Territories".

Okay. I'm putting my ego out here to be crushed.

I've only gotten into politics/current events/history in the past couple of years. I'm 29, married, and conservative. I have no idea who Chamberlain is, I don't know what the Marshal plan is. I'm not completely clueless, but I've got a lot of time to make up for.

Can people here give me some good book advice on American history? Books that aren't drier than my sense of humor would be preferred. I honestly don't know where to start. Should I read a general book, or books on specific topics? Which Authors don't try to rewrite history? Etc.

E-mails would be preferred.

Thanks from a public educated computer geek.

#45,

hmmm "Peace with honor". . . wasn't that what Nixon said about the Paris Accords in 1973?

It's good to see that our resident troll/idiotarian Tyler Patterson the MArhsal Petain of LGF is checking the encyclopedias.
P.S. - Marie Antoinette did not say "Let them eat cake" eitehr. Big freaking deal.

James (40) - the thought of any woman screwing James Carville makes me violently ill. He looks like the bastard love child from the rape scene in 'Deliverance'.

Got a better theory, Raj? ;-)

Toilet Paper

Go back and read #2 you moron.

Tyler P.

Nice to see you back.

Dont restrain yourself, rather you should continue to unburden yourself as at least I find your contributions of great value, entertainment wise of course.

TP:

Of course, you all realize that Chamberlin did not say "peace in our time" but "peace for our time."

What with this?

"In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers."

Why didnt you mention this other gem of deep insight from N. Chamberlain?

In the current protest environment, this is a statement worthy of the cause.

Especially in above chronological order.

But...said NC after having met with the nice Mr. Hitler after Munich Conference in 1938:

"… a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word."

Yes Tyler, the same applies to Saddam.

P.S. - Marie Antoinette did not say "Let them eat cake" eitehr. Big freaking deal.

Exactly, and Ingrid Bergman didn't say "Play it again, Sam" but all of these phrases have entered the popular consciousness. I assure TP that the protestor holding that sign had the phrase rattling about in his mind and had no idea of its implications (it would of course be worse if he did).

#45

It is indeed semantics. The phrase has been used both ways countless times since its first disastrous utterance. The effective meaning of is identical.

Chamberlain was hardly a 'radical of the past.' He was a fool who thought appeasement was a valid policy for dealing with ambitious dictators. He was horribly wrong at the cost of a vast number of lives that might otherwise been saved if Hitler had been treated appropriately at an earlier date.

This understanding of history makes it clear why it is suicidal to wait around for another wouldbe conquerer to attack us directly before acting against him.

Alistair Cooke's views on Peace In Our Time as well as a bit about hookers.

It surprise me that they said there should be only 'non-violent and non-inflammatory' catchphrase on the signage.

It seems to me that the idiotic 'No Blood For Oil' fits both of those descriptions.

I'm with Samuel (#47) (although much older!) and need to learn more. One very good book I've read on American History was Peter Marshall's Light and the Glory which fills in the Christian part of our history that's been left out in a lot as of late.

#34 and #44

I tried to have a similar conversation with an "anti-war" friend (my daughters Girl Scout leader) a few weeks ago. The conversation started out as a civil exchange of views. When I expressed my opinions on Israel things got a little nasty. I was genuinely surprised by the ignorance of her arguments. Her complete lack of knowledge about the founding of Israel, the war in '48, '67, and '73. Her complete disregard for facts about Iraq. Her complete trust in the U.N.

She seemed on the verge of slapping me when I said one of the reasons we have these problems is that we've forgotten how to WIN wars, instead we defer and hope for peace ...Korea, Vietnam, Iraq...

The heated discussion continued until she uttered a phrase I had heard only in parody ...

"But at the Sierra Club meeting last night they said ..."

I knew then that all hope was lost.

(P.S. My friend teaches history at a local elementary school)

(P.S. My friend teaches history at a local elementary school)

scary, very scary

#36, James wrote: "Israel was fairly popular among the left until they started winning wars."

A slight correction. . ."until they started winning wars AND abandoned socialist utopian ideals."

I've actually heard Chompskyites say that they would support Israel if it were still socialist -- never mind the "Occupied Territories".

That's true. To that I would add American support (which was fairly lukewarm and understated before 1967). One of the costs of American support for Israel is the loss of leftist support. Considering America is the unipower in the world I guess Israel's security is better bolstered by friendship with the United States even at the expense of Chomsky's dissaproval. Oh well. Can't win 'em all.

Here's a phrase that we should remind people of: Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Why are all of these 'educated' people so woefully ignorant of modern history? Could it be that the educational systems in the western world no longer teach history, but politically correct fairy tales?

#50

Iraq was a very different situation from the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts. For the earlier two we were ultimately fighting the Soviets, and there was only so much escalation that could occur before the Cold War turned hot.

Iraq was different. For the first time we tried to let the UN do what it was created to do. It failed miserably because too much of the UN is composed of nations desparately in need of a little regime change themselves. As such it's pretty much impossible to get them to agree on getting rid of Saddam-types instead of police actions that only delay the problem for a decade or so at great expense. (BTW, I strongly beleive the Kuwaitis should have been required to pick up the tab for the Gulf War. $45 billion would have been a literal drop in their bucket.)

Thank the "peace" protesters:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 19 -- President Saddam Hussein's government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors, according to inspectors in Iraq.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

The education system in the U.S. is one of the main reasons that these peaceniks think the way they do. They are taught what to think instead of how to think, and taught how to feel emotion.

Emotion cloulds judgment. That's why socialist programs don't work - they rely on good intentions, not good results.

This was mentioned on another thread, but the guy interviewing the peaceniks on Fox is a great example. Or, the morons who Jay Leno talks to on the street. The ones who can name all of the Simpsons, but doesn't know what century the Civil War was fought in.

If I had any kids, I wouldn't even allow them to VISIT a public school.

TV

I've also had reasonably good results in personal conversations in getting reflexively "no war" people to reconsider their positions based on facts. These conversations are really worth having; and it's important to approach them in a spirit of actually trying to change the audience's mind, keeping the vitriol to a minimum.

Of course there are the "Bush is Hitler" types who are beyond reason, but they show their colors pretty quickly.

#61 Jocelyn It's not so much that none of them knows history, they just prefer their own revisionist history. A power trip or something for them.
[Link: www.washingtontimes.com...]

Now all they need is a sign saying "Why not just give Saddam the Sudatenland?" These people are not just ignorant but incredible fools.

#49: Also, Sherlock Holmes never said, "Elementary, my dear Watson!" The exact quote, I believe, was, "My dear Watson, the solution is elementary."

And Captain Kirk never said, "Beam me up, Scotty!" He'd whip open his tricorder and say, "Scotty, X to beam," where X were the number of people in the away team.

There's a handful of other famous misquotes like that. Really kinda amazing that people get remembered for phrases close to but not quite what they said.

Of course, this means I fully agree with you. :) The quote "Peace in our time" is attributed to Chamerlain and reflects his sentiment, even if it wasn't his exact words.

"But at the Sierra Club meeting last night they said ..."

Out my way, a local politician (who is Republican and Jewish) compared the Sierra Club chapter to Al-Qaeda (!) and said they were little better than a terrorist organization --- mainly interested in inflicting injury and property damage.

One of the more moderate opinions I've heard; but then, he's considered to be pretty "liberal".

For many of them the attraction is the idea that we've been indoctrinated by false information and an "alternate viewpoint" is like secret knowledge that they can possess. One of the more popular books by this set is Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present". A typical mindset is expressed in the quote "Americans have been taught that their nation is civilized and humane. But, too often, US actions have been uncivilized and inhumane." The idea is that these outsider histories are "what really happened" and that's attractive to some people. I can't remember the exact title, but another popular history book is called "Everything You Were Taught In School Was Wrong" or something like it. The premise is the same as these "now it can be told" sensationalist tabloids and television exposes. Trashy scholarship for the conspiracy minded soul. The best of these pseudo-scholars don't usually lie, they highlight bad stuff, interpret things that can sometimes be viewed different ways in an exclusively bad light and never, ever mention anything good about the United States.

I should also add that the phrase "but, too often" in the phrase "but, too often, US actions have been uncivilized and inhumane" is the cover by which they canplausibly deny that they are anti-American. After all, "too often" does not mean "every time".

My question is why they criticize the United States not "too often" but "every time".

#44 JK, you waste time at work reading blogs, too? I am screwed if anyone finds out what I am really up to.

Omedalus (68):

"And Captain Kirk never said, "Beam me up, Scotty!" He'd whip open his tricorder and say, "Scotty, X to beam," where X were the number of people in the away team."

Sorry to nitpick, tricorders were for scanning for things. Communicators were used for talking to Scotty, etc.

If there was a green chick with big knockers around, Kirk would probably whip something else out, but this is a family blog.

OK, so I'm a geek...

Blogaddict #34 -

So, I've come to a conclusion about a lot of the peaceniks--not the hard-core ideological ones, of course, but the vast majority of the rest, at least in the US (don't know about Europe). Most of them, perhaps the majority, are neither insane nor stupid, they are simply ignorant and uninformed.

Sorry, but I just don't buy this, and I think you are being far, far too kind.

These people, although many of them may be "nice" on a personal level, simply have no excuse for their abysmal ignorance. The U.S. is an open society with more freedom than some people know what to do with. The information on virtually any and every topic is out there just waiting to be accessed.

Any reasonably intelligent person who really wanted to educate him/herself about Israel and its history and the current situation could find enough stuff to keep him/her busy for years. Yes, it would require some blundering about and some false starts, but so what? Instead of mouthing arguments, these people could and should ask around for suggested sources on both sides of the issues.

These people are content merely to swallow and regurgitate what the leaders of "the movement" say about the geopolitical situation. This amounts to an indefensible abdication of personal responsibility to educate oneself before one shoots off one's mouth. If one hasn't put in the time and effort to become reasonably well-informed, then one has the obligation to SHADDAP until such time as one has done so.

I feel much better now, thanks.

Sounds like the protestors need to read some of Thomas Paine's [i]The American Crisis[/i]:

"I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty."

Thomas goes on to say that America, due to its sheer distance from Europe, has little to do with foreign nations but trade with them--which I wished was true anymore. It's a smaller world now, and we have new crises to address. That said, his wisdom on the issue of 'peace in our day' is timeless.

#45 TP

Of course, you all realize that Chamberlin did not say "peace in our time" but "peace for our time."

How so? If you're going to make a statement like this:

Kind of undermines this whole thread, no?

you'd better explain how it makes a difference, because I see none.

I think that people supported Israel more til it started treating Palestinians like subhumans; that's why there's an anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian movement.

Chamberlain was a poor hijo de puta who got a raw deal because his predecessors in 1919 had decided to apply harsh reparations (rather like post-Gulf war sanctions) on Germany, which ground it down and made it a breeding ground for dangerous extremisms. Compare with post-45 the BRD, which had aid not punitive levies and as a result recovered without there being a fourth reich or any other such thing. Chamberlain was left to clean up the mistakes of Versailles, by which time it was too late to simply negotiate and the pugnacious Churchill had to wade in. We're still in a position where that step doesn't have to be taken. This isn't 1938 yet. It's more like the 1920s under Gustav Streseman.

And tio, I'm a Star Trek geek too. Can't help feeling if Kirk behaved like Bush does at the moment, then Worf wouldn't be in TNG because Starfleet would have carpet-bombed the Klingons out of existence at the start of The Undiscovered Country. Don't you think?

#77 belter

I think that people supported Israel more til it started treating Palestinians like subhumans;

You'd better be able to back that statement...

#77

Your analysis of history is lacking. There is no valid comparisons between the Versilles Treaty and the UN sanctions on Iraq. One was punitory, the other was an attempt to pursuade good behavior that never appeared.

As for the Star Trek analysis, Kirk didn't need to do anything but containment. The Klingons were dying on their own, making it more of a parallel to North Korea. If the Klingons hadn't been propped up and allowed to maintain their delusional empire they wouldn't have gone on to be such pains in the ass on the later seasons of DS9.

Itworks out the same. Appeasement never works.

Belter:

You know what is interesting in your capsule rendition of why Chamberlain should be pitied? That there is not one mention of Hitler, not one mention of the Nazis, not one mention of any German flaws.

If anything suggests a remarkably deterministic, pre-ordained view of history, where people don't matter, only events (by people??), it would be your remarkable history.

Yes, perhaps this is the period of Strasemann. Except, of course, that Strasemann was elected. That Strasemann did not authorize any invasions of neighbors. That, possibly, under Strasemann, Germany actually still had not remilitarized (although the Reichswehr was clearly already engaged in experiments in the Soviet Union for early forms of blitzkrieg).

One wonders, however, if perhaps this might not be closer to von Papen? With scheming efforts at negotiation, and a misguided belief that YOU are in charge, rather than some silly, easily manipulated, ex-enlisted man. Be careful who you underestimate.

And, if we presume that the comparison of the two Germanies is valid, it is also worth remembering that the levying of punitive reparations that you refer to is, again, incomplete.

1. The Soviets (you DO remember them, don't you?) were remarkably punitive. Indeed, they stripped eastern Germany of its entire physical plant, and shipped it home to the USSR. As "reparations". Might that breed resentment towards them? Why the absence of forethought?

2. The Allies in WWII chose the path of "unconditional surrender," something not done in WWI. Thus, the Germans were also utterly devastated. And your comparison w/ Iraq would be? And before you say that we devastated them in '91, you might want to look at pictures of Essen, Koln, Berlin, and find comparable pictures for Iraq. Lots of luck.

3. That policy of "unconditional surrender" was chosen b/c Germany was not only devastated by the reparations, but also by the average German's belief that, somehow, they had not "lost" the war, but had been "stabbed in the back" (namely by the Jews). There was no occupation, and the bad news of German reverses at the front were generally not reported at home. So, the occupation (which was fairly stringent) and the unconditional surrender were aimed at ensuring that the Germans knew, to their bones, that they had been defeated. Some today would deride this as "humiliation." Perhaps, but it contributed as well to the more peaceful BRD.

So, to draw the proper analogy, having failed in '91 to fully conquer Iraq and teach them that they had, indeed, been defeated, the Allied powers instead imposed leaky disarmament and excessively punitive levies. Consequently, the leadership, which unlike Germany's NEVER changed or reformed, was able to act as though it had not been defeated. The Allied powers engaged in appeasement, supported by many pacifists who refused to recognize the nature of the opposition in Iraq (for analogy, see Oxford Resolution, 1939). When war did come, it was more prolonged, more devastating, than if it had been launched earlier, when the enemy was weaker and did not have the advantages (Skoda works in 1938, WMD in 2008).

I can live w/ that analogy, if not necessarily the projected outcome, Belter. How about you?

"There is no valid comparisons between the Versilles Treaty and the UN sanctions on Iraq. "

There aren't any valid ones between Munich and now, either. At least, no more valid than the Versailles ones.

And the Star Trek thing was a joke.

"We come in peace, but shoot to kill,
Shoot to kill, shoot to kill,
We come in peace - shoot to kill,
Shoot to kill, shoot to kill, men."

- "Star Trekkin'", The Firm

Appeasement might not work; but what's going on right now isn't about appeasement unless it's about appeasing the US, who want to have their 'moment in the sun'. Just because it's a hegemony as Gramsci would define it rather than a totalitarian one, doesn't make it any better.

Hegemon, Schmegemon

Tyler Patterson delivers a history lesson (for free!):

Of course, you all realize that Chamberlin did not say "peace in our time" but "peace for our time."

Well, holy smokes, Tyler! The incorrect preposition totally changes the meaning of the words, and therefore this discussion is moot! Thank you for clearing it up!

If you need to make fun of peace protestors, at least get the facts straight.

I don't really need to, but boy is it fun.

And the facts are straight, thank you. Nitpicking at infinitesmal trivia is not what I would call disputing the facts. For example, you misspelled Chamberlain's name above, which is why it's highlighted for you. Are we to assume that your whole argument is therefore devoid of any merit?

I expect that many of you will say it is semantics.

No, it's less than that. Semantics is arguing over precise meanings of words. This is incorrect substitution of an unimportant word that changes the meaning in no way whatsoever.

I say the right is sooo anxious to tie the left to radicals of the past

Chamberlain was a radical? Now that would be a new fact.

that spinning this as some kind of tie to Nazism is EXACTLY the type of ploy thr right uses to diffuse the conversation of FACTS.

It's not a tie to Nazism, and I don't believe anyone ever accused Chamberlain of that. It's a tie to a failed policy of trying to appease a genocidal dictator, which, incidentally, is completely apropos and on point. Granted, it LACKS a certain something when you DON'T write things in CAPITAL letters.

I'd love to hear why Ashcroft wrote a friend of the court brief to stop the NYC march.

Probably because it'd have been a freaking nuisance. Believe it or not, a lot of people in New York didn't give a half a rat's ass about your message, and didn't need to have the "peace" marchers annoying them.

(Gee, I wonder why the city of New York blocked the march route to begin with. They must all be Ashcroft's warmongering tools. Of course, it's actually Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, and Rumsfeld that decide whether to go to war -- not Ashcroft -- but FACTS apparently NEVER get in your WAY.)

Can't stand to see how many Americans HATE the war policy?

Saw it. Don't care. Trying to keep Saddam from getting power, not be popular with everyone. Next.

belter #77,

I think that people supported Israel more til it started treating Palestinians like subhumans;

Is that right dear belter? Let's see reams of proof. 'Cause here's just a bit off the top of my head about what's wrong with your friends the "palestinians": It is truly horrible the way that the palestinians are committing atrocities against the Israelis by sending a never-ending stream of genocide bombers to kill Jews. It is horrible the way that their media incites them to kill Jews. It is horrible the way that their official textbooks and websites suggest that all of Israel is theirs for the taking. It is horrible the way they cynically put children in front of their gunmen to make a nice picture for European journalists. It is horrible the way that they lynch Israeli soldiers, literally tearing them apart, and then threaten the reporter who videotaped it with his life. It is horrible that they have executed over 30 women for having their honor defiled in the last year. It is horrible the way that they execute "collaborators" in order to solve age-old tribal conflicts. It is horrible the way the Christian population in palestinian controlled areas (such as Bethlehem) has dropped to a shadow of what it once was due to all of the harassment from Arafat's goons. It is horrible that they send mothers with bombs dressed up as babies. It is horrible that they use ambulances to transport weapons. I could go on.

Belter - if you're going to claim that the Israelis have treated the "palestinians" as subhumans, you have to beat this.

#45 Tyler Patterson

"I'd love to hear why Ashcroft wrote a friend of the court brief to stop the NYC march."

I herd the Mayer tried something but I didn't here about Ashcroft.

This sounds like BS. Can some one provide a link.

#81:

unless it's about appeasing the US, who want to have their 'moment in the sun'.

(wiping laughter-induced tears from my eyes) no, belzer, we don't actually need to overthrow Saddam Hussein in order to have our "moment in the sun". We're already an hyperpuissance, remember? We're going after Saddam for other reasons; and the world will be better off when we're done.

Just because it's a hegemony as Gramsci would define it rather than a totalitarian one, doesn't make it any better.

Surely you don't actually believe that? "Doesn't make it any better"? Please arrange to have a long conversation with, say, a Romanian over the age of, say, 35, and tell him/her your theory about how totalitarianism essentially doesn't matter. See how he/she reacts.

Maybe you should go and have that conversation.

Ask the Romanian about the postcommunist restitution laws. (Check out Filippo Zerilli's article on "Restitution and Conflict in Postsocialist Romania", for example)

Go and ask the people of Talpa in Bulgaria about life after communism.

And going back to what I said, by what kind of yardstick would you compare Gramsci's hegemony and a totalitarian one?

La B

belter writes:

Chamberlain was a poor hijo de puta who got a raw deal because his predecessors in 1919 had decided to apply harsh reparations (rather like post-Gulf war sanctions) on Germany, which ground it down and made it a breeding ground for dangerous extremisms.

Which wouldn't have mattered at all, had England and France chosen to enforce the Versailles treaty when Hitler started re-arming Germany. That would have meant invading and re-occupying. They chose to be "sophisticated" about it, to preserve "peace."

Extremists arise in all environments. (Witness the Earth Liberation Front wackos in the U.S.) The trick is not to keep extremists from sprouting up, which is impossible -- it's to keep extremists from gaining power. Which is exactly the idea behind forcibly disarming Iraq, which the French and British should have done to Germany circa, say, 1934-35. Waiting will only make things worse.

Compare with post-45 the BRD, which had aid not punitive levies and as a result recovered without there being a fourth reich or any other such thing.

Wow, that's an awfully filtered view. After 1945, both Germany and Japan were fully occupied by the Allies. Their societies were essentially destroyed and re-built from the ground up. American forces remained on their soil for decades, as both countries were not allowed to have more than token militaries. The Marshall Plan helped, but it was hardly the key to turning the Axis powers into pacifists.

If it helps, we'll rebuild (or, rather, build) Iraq after occupying it, too.

We're still in a position where that step doesn't have to be taken. This isn't 1938 yet.

No? Let's see -- Hussein has a completely totalitarian regime: check. Mass murders: check. Attempt to invade an annex a neighboring country: check. Trying to build up an arsenal that would make him far more powerful than his neighbors: check. Sorry, but I don't plan to wait until he declares that he's ready to go. I'd rather not have a repeat of 1939-1945, thanks.

And tio, I'm a Star Trek geek too. Can't help feeling if Kirk behaved like Bush does at the moment, then Worf wouldn't be in TNG because Starfleet would have carpet-bombed the Klingons out of existence at the start of The Undiscovered Country.

Aww, cripes, there goes another one, with rantings about some nonexistent genocide the U.S. has in store for Iraq. Really, no such thing is about to happen. There's a lot of middle ground between "leave them alone to develop a nuclear arsenal" and "nuke them until they are glass." The idea is to hit Hussein when he is weak, remove him from power, destroy the Ba'ath power structure, and rebuild the Iraqi society into a functioning liberal democracy that respects human rights and isn't a danger to the neighbors. I don't know if all of those will get accomplished, but the first two definitely can, and even that would be good enough.

Belter writes:

Ask the Romanian about the postcommunist restitution laws. (Check out Filippo Zerilli's article on "Restitution and Conflict in Postsocialist Romania", for example)

Go and ask the people of Talpa in Bulgaria about life after communism.

Translation: since the societies that succeeded it aren't perfect, Eastern Europe would have been better off under the Soviet boot.

Somehow I doubt most people in those countries would agree.

And going back to what I said, by what kind of yardstick would you compare Gramsci's hegemony and a totalitarian one?

I prefer looking at the results. So some good measures would be things like:

1. Amount of freedom of expression.

2. Standard of living.

3. Number of people killed and tortured for their political views.

4. Number of people killed and tortured for being of the wrong color/ethnic group/tribe/religion/etc.

Those are just off the top of my head, and not necessarily in that order.

Peace in OUR time. Screw all future generations. So selfish.

I'll even one up you Ariel.

Between 1967 and Oslo, Palestinian infant mortality plummetted; standard of living was better than any Arab country, Life expectancy increased, literacy increased, there was a free press and then Arafat came "home."

In just 10 short years Arafat has managed to erase all of the gains made by Palestinian society. Now 60% of Palestinians are unemployed and most of the employed ones work for the PA or UNRWA and are basically on Europe's dole. Let's look at who the real occupier is, it is that Egyptian who used to live in Tunisia.

J. Lichty:

Why in the world would you cite infant mortality statistics or health statistics as a metric on life in Palestine? There's more to life than health care, you know?

Except, of course, when Cuba's dictatorial government is mentioned ("BUT they have free health care!").

Oh, and except when discussing the Soviet versus Russian situation (Russia is worse than the USSR, because their health care now sucks).

Er, and when lauding Mao's China (Chinese barefoot doctors provide health care even to villages!).

So, uhm, er,

NO BLOOD FOR OIL! FREE MUMIA! BUSH IS EVIL!

I *have* had the conversation, belter. The upshot; Romania is no paradise now, but it sure beats Ceaucescu. And gosh, no, I haven't read Fillipo Zerilli's article. Never even heard of him, in fact. So perhaps you can summarize: does his article demonstrate that there is no difference between living in a relatively free society and living in a totalitarian state? It doesn't? So then why did you bring it up?

Even if you want to define the US using the badly-abused word "hegemon", can you seriously assert that there is no difference between a "hegemonic" free society asserting power, and a totalitarian hegemon asserting power? Did you ever notice during the Cold War that the escapee traffic over (or under) the Berlin Wall was 99% in one direction?

As for the "yardstick"--well, E.Nough sums it up rather nicely in post #89.

89

"Translation: since the societies that succeeded it aren't perfect, Eastern Europe would have been better off under the Soviet boot. "

???

You should be a professional translator, with an ability like that.

"1. Amount of freedom of expression.

2. Standard of living."

Measured how?

93

Ask the Romanian about the postcommunist restitution laws.

I'd be really interested to hear what he/she had to say about them. It would certainly tell you where they stood politically.

Belter,

I can assure you that, just as there are folks in Bulgaria who oppose the de-collectivization of farms, so, too, there were people in the PRC who opposed Deng Xiaoping's decollectivization.

So what?

At the end of the day, China's food production soared, to the point that it is now pretty much self-sufficient in food production, and certainly in little danger of famine. Would retaining a collectivized process be somehow better, because some people supported it?

Indeed, your apparent defense of collectivized agriculture (despite the disastrous effects it has consistently wreaked in places as diverse as North Korea, China, Ethiopia [under Mengistu], and the USSR) is about as apposite as your earlier references to Chamberlain.

I've little doubt that SOME people benefited from the Yezhovschina under Stalin. If a few million kulaks died, nonetheless, SOME people benefited. That just makes it all worthwhile, nu?

Belter, it is about appeasement. A foe was defeated and given a set of terms to which he must comply to retain his position. He hasn't complied and still enjoys absolute power over the lives of millions. This is an example of appeasement instead of definitive action.

The hegemony argument is nonsensical. The US has had numerous opportunities to seize control of major chunks of the world following their defeat or defense at our hands. We've walked away every time, usually after great effort and expense to render those places capable of functioning as modern peaceful nations.

Today an Iraqi is effectively committing suicide if he publicly speaks against Saddam. The same would not be true of an Iraqi speaking against the US in an US-occupied Iraq. Little things like being able to express an honest opinon without fear of retribution to one's self or family is a big deal when you never had that right.

Will the post-war Iraq be transformed into a mirror image of America? Extremely unlikely but it is extremely likely that it will be a far better place for Iraqi and rest of the world than what it is today.

J Lichty #91,

Don't bring up FACTS though. Might confuse our target of torment.

You might also add that all seven universities built for the Jordyptians were built under Israeli occupation.

Put in the simplest terms: Communists are very bad at agriculture.

Belter,

One thing which amazes me is the way "anti-war" folks are completely incapable of discussing anything without making back-handed slaps at the J-E-W-S. I do believe that you were the first to bring it up in this thread; it is a pattern that I've seen repeatedly. Dear Belter, would you entertain us with what evil the J-E-W-S have done to you that you feel that they deserve your derision?

I quote from William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
"'My good friends,' he [Neville Chamberlain] said, 'this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it it peace IN our time.'"

Books are an amazing resource.

I wasn't particularly talking about collectivisation.

I think we each just know different Bulgarians. What's interesting is I know my friends are far from fervent Communists; but they can see the bad side of what's been happening under "Phillip Kennedy" and the UDF.

"The hegemony argument is nonsensical. The US has had numerous opportunities to seize control of major chunks of the world following their defeat or defense at our hands. We've walked away every time, usually after great effort and expense to render those places capable of functioning as modern peaceful nations."

And the act of "rendering them" has included the inscribing of a certain notion of cultural hegemony. A woman's tongue could get tired of saying "Antonio Gramsci."

Apart from having a funky look about him (especially the hair), he opposed Mussolini two steps ahead of his time, he predicted that without action against Il Duce, Italian democracy would get it in the *ss. The fascists threw him in prison for his troubles.

There Gramsci worked out a theory of hegemony, being political power that flows from intellectual and moral leadership, authority or consensus as distinguished from armed force. A ruling class forms and maintains its hegemony in civil society, i.e. by creating cultural and political consensus thru unions, political parties, schools, media, the church, and other associations. Hegemony is exercised by rulers over allies and subjects. Force is used by the ruling class only to dominate or liquidate hostile classes according to Gramsci.

In a world where the UK's Labour Party Chairman is saying, "We should listen to the people about not going to war. But then they cannot come running to us when they suffer the consequences", it's clear that the current people at the top see a Gramscian difference between themselves-as-rulers and us-as-ruled, where you might hope they might see themselves as our democratic servants and representatives.

b

belter asks:

"1. Amount of freedom of expression.

2. Standard of living."

Measured how?

1 is easily measured by whether the government will jail or kill you if you say something that displeases it. For example, that the dictator-du-jour is a thug, or that not everyone should be of the state religion.

2 is measured by material prosperity. You can argue differences between say, Sweden and France, but things like "mass starvation" or "constant shortages of basic supplies" are good indicators that perhaps something isn't working.

Congratulations, Belter!

You've now successfully managed to weave a completely separate thread out, probably to your dissertation topic?, on a Gramscian analysis of the constructs of power, as seen in the American effort to rally support on the Gulf War!

Never mind the references to Chamberlain that E. Nough and others have tried to get you to address. Never mind the gratuitous reference to the Palestinians/Israel. Never mind the inappropriate comparison of Saddam Hussein to, of all people, a Weimar Republic leader.

No, we're going to be treated, from here on out, to your views of how soft American power has created hegemonic influences!

Mazel tov, mazel tov.

I don't think the jews have done anything worthy of derision; I'm very interested in a certain Jewish heritage of thought that you find in, say, Aby Warburg, Gerhard Scholem or Walter Benjamin.

I think the branch of Jewishness that led to Zionism wasn't the only one, and it's a mistake to entirely equate Jewishness and the Zionist movement as one and the same.

Back in the day in Vienna, I'd probably have been looking suspiciously at Herzl from over Karl Kraus' rather more sceptical and sensible, but equally Jewish, shoulder.

Anyway, can you guess where I'm heading? I'm concerned about the actions of the State of Israel, not insofar as it's a Jewish state, but insofar as it is guilty of wrongdoings. I really don't care what race bad guys are and am equally happy to condemn Palestinian wrongdoing as Israeli, and equally unwilling to absolve either of blame.

I hope I've worded that carefully enough so as to avoid giving any offence while still being true to my views.

"You've now successfully managed to weave a completely separate thread out, probably to your dissertation topic?, on a Gramscian analysis of the constructs of power, as seen in the American effort to rally support on the Gulf War! "

What?

I was trying to respond to Eric, wherever his post is now, somewhere up above.

Thanks, Yossarian. We can finally dispense with that particular straw man, thank goodness.

As for the crack about treating Palestinians as subhumans, all I can say is that the Palestinians were not only not treated as subhumans (they were, in fact, treated much better by the Jews than they ever were by their Arab "brothers"), but it takes a special kind of chutzpah to act like a subhuman and then to complain that others are treating you like one.

Arafat has made every place into which he has dragged his stinking carcass another Beirut. He sits like a bloated spider in its web, paying off his cronies and his terrorist minions.

belter, was there a point buried somewhere in #102, or are you just fond of saying "Gramsci" a lot?

In a world where the UK's Labour Party Chairman is saying, "We should listen to the people about not going to war. But then they cannot come running to us when they suffer the consequences", it's clear that the current people at the top see a Gramscian difference between themselves-as-rulers and us-as-ruled, where you might hope they might see themselves as our democratic servants and representatives.

Sorry, I don't see the connection. An elected government's job is not just to take polls and run the country according to referendum. Their job is still to lead and make decisions on their own, which includes decisions that tick off (portions of) the populace in the short term. That's why there is a government in the first place, with periodic elections, instead of just a few secretaries taking popular tallies on every policy day to day.

Frankly, I fail to see what this has to do with Iraq. Oh, sorry, back to your original point:

Just because it's a hegemony as Gramsci would define it rather than a totalitarian one, doesn't make it any better.

And just because it's a "hegemony" doesn't make it "bad" to begin with. (And therefore there is no need for a Gramscian hegemony to be "any better.") Words like "imperialism" and "hegemony" are only scary to people who tend to have Che Guevarra posters on their walls. Not that I'm arguing that the U.S. should be building an empire or conceding that such a thing is happening; I'm just saying that using the appearance of imperialism to prove a policy wrong won't work.

The real question is whether or not the Iraqi populace would be better under Americans (as part of our "hegemony") than under Hussein -- they would, unquestionably. The more important question is whether Americans would be in less danger without Hussein and his nuclear program, than with him -- again, I consider it self-evident that they would. Anything else is just so much coffeehouse sophistry.

belter #102:

A woman's tongue could get tired of saying "Antonio Gramsci."

You're typing with your tongue? Um... can I meet you?

But I digress. Okay, you're LGF's greatest living expert on Antonio Gramsci. I'm happy to award you that honor. And yet, you seemingly can't distinguish between a liberal democracy and a totalitarian communist dictatorship. You seemingly can't distinguish between US influence over Western Europe, and Soviet influence over Eastern Europe.

You suggest I "ask the Romanian about the postcommunist restitution laws." Well, I suppose I could look her up and ask. I rather doubt, though, she'd say, "dang, I forgot about that; I take back everything I said before; we were better off under Ceaucescu".

For all your apparent education, it's rather... challenging trying to figure out what argument you're trying to make.

Belter #105

What wrongdoings by Israel are you referencing?

Being attacked in several wars of anihilation by its Arab neighbors?

Are these so-called wrongdoings the result of some failing of the state of Israel that you find equally contemptable in other states?

What role to you think Palestinian and other Arab violence has played in the so called "brutal" occupation?

Do you believe that Israel "brutalizes" Palestinian Arabs in a vacuum, or are they implementing measures to try to stop Palestinians from killing them?

What should Israel do to stop the Palestinians from killing them?

Shouldn't the Palestinians stop killing Jews as a way of getting what they want?

Who started the war, or as you would like to call it an "intifada"?

Is starting a war during negotiations a valid tactic?

If you oppose Zionism, why are the Palestinian Arabs more deserving of a state than the Jews?

Why did the Palestinian Arabs refuse a State in 1948, and at all times after?

Why didn't Jordan create a Palestinian state when it annexed the West Bank from 1948 to 1967?

Why didn't Egypt do the same in Gaza?

Don't just leave out your sickening morally equivlent conclusions, and hypocritical double standards without identifying what it is that makes Israel so bad. Expose your vacuous reasoning and subtextual anti-semitism so we can really see where you are coming from. Or are you simply repeating the pledge of allegience to the anti-war left when you make you blithe comments?

Amy writes:

it takes a special kind of chutzpah to act like a subhuman and then to complain that others are treating you like one.

Kind of like murdering your parents and then pleading for mercy from the court because you are now an orphan.

A ruling class forms and maintains its hegemony in civil society, i.e. by creating cultural and political consensus thru unions, political parties, schools, media, the church, and other associations.

As far as I can tell, this is indistinguishable from something called "pluralistic democracy". Classic leftist thinking--if the unions, political parties, schools, media, churches, and other associations aren't resisting! refusing! or otherwise being sufficiently revolutionary, surely it's because they're being manipulated by a shadowy "ruling class".

Skipping the troll-feeding: ignorance of mideast realities now is just inexcusable. It's not as if 9/11 didn't trigger a publishing boomlet in this stuff! And so many of the wilfully ignorant are New Yorkers... The mind boggles.

Belter #105,

Anyway, can you guess where I'm heading? I'm concerned about the actions of the State of Israel, not insofar as it's a Jewish state, but insofar as it is guilty of wrongdoings.

Really? Well obviously Israel has some wrongdoings - it is a nation comprised of human beings. Here's a question for you: Are the Israeli wrongdoings on the same order of magnitude as those of the palestinians? Note: If you answer "Yes", I will expect very thorough documentary evidence. Contra-factual evidence will not be accepted.

I really don't care what race bad guys are and am equally happy to condemn Palestinian wrongdoing as Israeli, and equally unwilling to absolve either of blame.

That's funny. I seem to recall your backhanded slap being directed at Israelis. I must have missed the comment where you gave the same to the palestinians. Again, this is quite typical of "anti-war" folks.

Also, your original comment about Israel treating palestinians like subhumans is meant to recall Hitlerian rhetoric. Quite frankly, I don't think you have the data to back it up. Also, using this sort of Hitlerian rhetoric to describe Jewish actions probably makes your European soul feel much better since it means the Jews are just like you, eh? Well, I've got news for you: Until you have the evidence about Jews systematically treating palestinians as subhumans (despite their subhuman actions, as Amy rightly points out) you can take this sort of comment and use it to describe the palestinians - that they treat Jews as subhumans is under no doubt whatsoever. (See the weekly khutbas for examples.)

"You're typing with your tongue? Um... can I meet you?"

:)

:)

:)

:)

No.

I'm tempted to pretend I'm in some severe way disabled and have to operate my computer with my tongue, but will resist carrying the joke on.

"Okay, you're LGF's greatest living expert on Antonio Gramsci. I'm happy to award you that honor."

wtf?

"And yet, you seemingly can't distinguish between a liberal democracy and a totalitarian communist dictatorship. You seemingly can't distinguish between US influence over Western Europe, and Soviet influence over Eastern Europe."

I rather think I can. I just think you're all too willing to draw the line in the sand and mark one "ANGELS" and the other "DEVILS".

"For all your apparent education, it's rather... challenging trying to figure out what argument you're trying to make. "

Well, for all the efforts that are being put into convincing us all of war, it's rather...challenging to figure out what the hell hawks are trying to say. Don't get me wrong, it sounds rousing, it even hangs together the way any game does if you make the rules tight and exclusive enough, but if you take a step off the playing field, then what's going on on the world stage looks somewhat suspect.

Belter,

You should know that LGF is the site that fact-checks your ass™. Stick around and you might learn a thing or two. And you might also learn that being able to name-drop every historical leader and/or philosophical thinker at every occasion does not mean that you necessarily know history. For examples about this, please see your (as yet) unanswered points about how evil Israel is.

Belter,

There is a reason for what you call (or quote) cultural hegemony. Gramsci had no great revalation. A child could tell you in a sentence what Gramsci took many pages to convey.

Winners have more influence than losers.

Especially if the losers are dead.

Dead losers have a recidivism rate of 0%.

Simple as that. The use of the term hegemony is a silly device from the multi-culti crowd who are horrified when anyone suggests that some cultures are genuinely better than others.

As Jared Diamond argues, geography and local resources can play a big role but culture plays a bigger part in ultimately determining who ends up with the best cargo. Through oil wealth the Arabs have had a fantastic opportunity to make their nations over into things to be admired by anyone who appreciates liberty.

They've done just the opposite.

Why? Their culture sucks and is headed for the landfill of failed civilizations.

In response to Ariel, I'm going to cite myself again.

"I don't think the jews have done anything worthy of derision; I'm very interested in a certain Jewish heritage of thought that you find in, say, Aby Warburg, Gerhard Scholem or Walter Benjamin.

I think the branch of Jewishness that led to Zionism wasn't the only one, and it's a mistake to entirely equate Jewishness and the Zionist movement as one and the same. "

Just as horrendous as any perceived unfairness towards Israel or sympathies towards Palestine is the idea that Israel IS Jewishness. That there is no Jewishness outside of Israel, that you are either with this nation state or against the entire race and culture some of whose members founded and sustain it.

" A ruling class forms and maintains its hegemony in civil society, i.e. by creating cultural and political consensus thru unions, political parties, schools, media, the church, and other associations.

As far as I can tell, this is indistinguishable from something called "pluralistic democracy". "

No the democracy is when the voice of the people comes through the unions, parties, etc. Hegemony is when there is a ruling group maintaining its interests through the illusion or deft manipulation of "consensus".

And to be fair, the US isn't averse to a little guns-and-bombs hegemony as well as the softer, kinder-to-your skin brand:

www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inuss ummary860627.htm

sorry, tiring, hard to keep up in english. i'm having to think thru en espanol and then translate.

#115:

wtf?

Well, as E.Nough pointed out, you like saying "Gramsci" a lot. So I'm willing to cede you the title of Resident Gramsci Expert.

I rather think I can.

Well, then, why the bizarre moral equivalency arguments about US "Gramscian hegemony" (which, as I pointed out above, looks an awful lot like a consensual form of government) being no different from totalitarian hegemony?

By way of example: in 1965, De Gaulle announced that France was withdrawing from the NATO unified command structure, and targeting French nukes "pour tous les azimuths". The US response: angry diplomatic cables. In 1956, Hungary announced its withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet response: something rather more than angry diplomatic cables, delivered by T-54s. This is not just some random example; it's a distinction indicating a real difference.

I just think you're all too willing to draw the line in the sand and mark one "ANGELS" and the other "DEVILS".

No, not angels and devils. No such thing. But I'm VERY willing to draw a line in the sand between socio-political systems based on individual freedom, and those that are not. Systems that literally need to build prison walls in order to keep their people from escaping fall into the category of "not".

Well, for all the efforts that are being put into convincing us all of war, it's rather...challenging to figure out what the hell hawks are trying to say.

Beyond giving the standard LGF recommendation of "please read Pollack's 'The Threatening Storm'", I'll ask: exactly which part of the "hawk" argument don't you understand?

Just as horrendous as any perceived unfairness towards Israel or sympathies towards Palestine is the idea that Israel IS Jewishness. That there is no Jewishness outside of Israel, that you are either with this nation state or against the entire race and culture some of whose members founded and sustain it.

That's a distortion of Zionism.

However, the vast majority of living Jews regard the existence of Israel as not only of paramount importance to their Jewish identity and Judaism, but to their physical safety.

It is true that it was possible to be anti-Zionist and not antisemitic (as were many mainstream Jews) before the creation of the state.

It is no longer possible.

Perhaps if God forbid the state were destroyed and Jews were once again forced by history's cruel hand to be a people without a homeland it will be possible to be hostile to the idea that the Jews should have sovereignty in a state (provided, of course, that statelesness does not result in genocide, as was the case in the 20th century). But not now, not while the vast majority of world Jewry consider Israel important in the way I described.

No the democracy is when the voice of the people comes through the unions, parties, etc. Hegemony is when there is a ruling group maintaining its interests through the illusion or deft manipulation of "consensus".

Oooh, I know this one; Manufacturing Consent! Noam Chomsky, from a time when he wasn't yet busying himself writing "Forewords" to point-of-purchase booklets for trendy bookstores! (With an Afterword by Sean Penn, naturally.)

So I ask again: how do I tell the difference between a "voice of the people" that merely happens to be more conservative than you would like, and one that is being "manipulated" by a "ruling class"?

And to be fair, the US isn't averse to a little guns-and-bombs hegemony

sorry, tiring, hard to keep up in english. i'm having to think thru en espanol and then translate.

Pues te respondo en español para que no te canses tanto. Primero, hay que reconocer que estás abiertamente cambiando de categoria. El ejemplo de Nicaragua durante los 80, que más que nada representaba una "proxy war" con la Unión Soviética, es un poquitín diferente de todo la línea de "hegemony" como "ruling class maintaining its position through civil society", verdad? What exactly is your point in bringing it up, other than to reach into a grab bag marked "U.S. IS BAD"?

"That's a distortion of Zionism." And yet you will find it on LGF. Posters starkly saying JEWISHNESS = ZIONISM.

I've no interest in Chomsky's notion of manufacturing consent. It happens to follow the same lines as some sociological/anthropological thought but I prefer it when it comes from the scholars rather than the activists. I think Chomsky's a reasonably switched on activist, and a good scholar of linguistics, but I'll take the political scholar over the political activist, just as I'd take Chomsky's linguistics over some kind of (imagine the thought) grammar activist.

"how do I tell the difference between a "voice of the people" that merely happens to be more conservative than you would like, and one that is being "manipulated" by a "ruling class"? "

Well firstly by close analysis of the cultural representations of the voice of the people; secondly when people like the British Reid say stuff like that, it's pretty obvious, don't you think?

I love the way any wrongdoing pre 1989 was basically a proxy war. But my point: hegemony is through this cultural-consenus channel but also through force when it comes to it. As it did when the US laid the smack down on a bunch of left leaning Latinamericans. And the world community picked them up on it. And the US basically said, "F*ck off". You can see what a force for good in the world they were being.

I posted elsewhere:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

In response to areial, first, an anecdote:

Dr Oren Yiftachel submitted an article to a British journal, Political Geography, analysing the way that Israel promoted segregation and aimed to expand the control of one ethnic group – the Jews – over the Palestinians. And the journal rejected it: Yiftachel alleged, it was unopened. Articles from Israel, apparently, weren’t wanted. This was all back in Dec 2002.

I condemn the kind of easy anti-Israeli mindset that rejects the article. But I can't accept Israel’s carrying out of abuse through hegemony, this mindset which claims all Palestine as a Jewish homeland, which has depicted all attempts at resistance by the Palestinians as “terrorism”, with pressure building and building until we’re now in this insane fighting situation.

The Israeli action is a demographic squeezing-out of Palestinians. They won’t give back land taken in war, and they won’t stop building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Questions of who has a right to land are as relevant in the Israel/Palestine situation as they are, very controversially, in postsocialist countries struggling to manage restitution. It's a battle to control the founding myth of nation states, as much symbolic as physical.

On the other side, I think it’s as ridiculous to say the PLO is the voice of all Palestinians as it is to say Israel is the voice of all Jews; I’m for plurality of voices in such cases. And it goes without saying that the attacks being made on Israelis are horrendous and to be condemned.

Charles,

What's up with the Belter troll? Or is the disk space problem fixed?

Ich bin ein Troll?

Sorry.

I always bow to the host anyway, it's rude seeing as they run the place. So if you want I shall nod and bow out. Good luck with your diskspace.

Caton,

To be fair, Belter does not seem to be a troll, in the sense that she is not simply here in order to drop rhetorical hand grenades and then run away.

From her comments, she would appear to be a fairly dyed-in-the-wool Lefty (non-Leninist Marxist, based on her comments), who really, really, really believes that there is a power structure construct out there that is warping the democratic voices of the people. (For which the protests of last weekend were, in fact, a genuine manifestation, undiluted by the efforts of the dominant culture to mute them.)

While I would absolutely deem her to be wrong, and while she seems to not want to revisit a few minor items like her defense of Chamberlain (the original point of the thread) or her inaccurate historical allusions, I would say that she's hardly one to be banned.

Compared w/ Tyler Patterson, frex, she's positively open-minded, provides a new take on things (relatively speaking; it's tired old academic Gramscianism, but, hey, everybody has to write a dissertation someetime), and is far less annoying. She even has a sense of humor! (See #115.)

So, fwiw, I'd suggest that Charles NOT ban her, unless she becomes abusive, obnoxious, or somesuch.

Just a thought...

#125 Dean

See #77, and lack of answer to #78, #84, #107 and #114 about the 'subhumans' bit.

Someone who throws this kind of argument then doesn't back it up nor even acknowledge the people who asked for his/her sources is a troll.

I admit I don't understand how could anyone here start discussing with that piece of shit and ignore this...

I never defended what Chamberlain did, just said it's silly to look at him as this failed figure because basically the real failures were his predecessors from earlier. He was in the unfortunate position of bringing the thugs (ie Churchill) in because the responsible nice men of 1919 thought the way to keep a threat from recurring was to treat the source of that threat like sh*t.

I'm a non Leninist Marxist? I love it. What kind of ists are you guys then?

I do think the protests insofar as I was witness to them or was aware of them through personal contacts were pretty solid manifestations of people's opinion; you certainly can't claim them for some kind of hegemonic manipulation, and certainly where I was in London there were an awful lot of very ordinary people, normally rather apathetic, getting very pissed off about their governments. Arial tried to send me some jpost thing about the London march but the link was to a pay site and I'm not that generous.

"her inaccurate historical allusions"
Please?

"it's tired old academic Gramscianism, but, hey, everybody has to write a dissertation someetime"
I'm sorry to use an old chestnut like Gramsci. I thought he was a safe bet even for LGFers and it gets tiresome hearing "Who's Zerilli?" etc, etc. Gramsci's a good starting point for people who aren't up to speed on it.

And my dissertation days are behind me.

Caton,

Yes, I know she hasn't responded to the bulk of the Israel-related points. I'd also note that she hasn't responded to virtually any of mine (sniff, aren't I worthy?), and only a couple of sub-points of E. Nough.

But she HAS responded to some of the Israel-related items (although not the rather flip, off-hand, "Israel treats Palestinians as sub-humans" comment, which I must admit was quite gratuitous and SHOULD either be defended or withdrawn).

And the reality is that, in this sort of set-up, you can't FORCE someone to respond (other than by trying to hold their feet to the fire). Which I'm glad to see that you and Ariel (and others) do.

HOW we got onto Israel on a reference to Chamberlain, however, is beyond me (and she's none to blame but herself, on that one).

I must admit, however, based on her responses in #127, that Belter doesn't seem to even be reading all of the responses (perhaps we're overwhelming her English skills?); and that I DO find a tad bit miffing.

I mean, the problems with her historical references and allusions as noted in #'s 80, 83, 88, 96, 108, 109, and 110 all raise questions that one might think she'd respond towards.

Hmmm. That IS a mighty long list of things she's ignored, isn't it?

Still, I defer, of course, to Charles' opinions on this sort of thing...

'Each side reacts to the last act of lunacy on the other side.'

Yossi Beilin makes the most important point.

Without a doubt the Palestinian Authority is corrupt; of course the suicide attacks are wrong and terrible. But also Israel should go back to the '67 borders; and it has been a degradation of human beings to move in on their land in '48 and redraw borders, force them out, offer them Jordan and thus forever erase the possibility of their having a homeland in the place they consider their home, a treating of Palestinians as subhumans in the symbolic realm (even before you consider the physical ghettoisation that has followed).

Both sides have done awful things, a move for conciliation and mediation is probably the way forward. If there is to be an Israel, it will probably be one interpenetrated with some notion of Palestine, or vice versa.

Earlier, I didn't mean to provoke; but nor can this simply be a matter of endorsing Israel and condemning Palestine.

I also would not describe belter as a "troll". Banning should be limited to those who are either abusive toward other posters, or, as Dean puts it, those who simply drop rhetorical hand grenades and then run. Belter has followed neither pattern.

#122:

Well firstly by close analysis of the cultural representations of the voice of the people

Well, that's clear as mud. What does this sentence mean? The "cultural representations of the voice of the people" in the Gramsci-hegemonist USA encompasses everything from CNN to country-western music to "The Simpsons" to the astonishing cacophony of the internet (the latter invented by the Defense Department... surely it's a plot to keep the masses down). To what exactly are you alluding?

secondly when people like the British Reid say stuff like that, it's pretty obvious, don't you think?

Sorry, you're saying that a single, ambiguous quote makes it "pretty obvious" that the UK is not really a democracy, but rather a hegemony run by a manipulative elite? In a word... no. Not obvious. A pretty silly point, actually. (And what does it have to do with the US, by the way, which is the country we were discussing originally?)

I love the way any wrongdoing pre 1989 was basically a proxy war.

Um, no, that's not what I said. I was alluding to YOUR allusion to Nicaragua, mid-1980s. Yes, that was in the context of a proxy war with Soviet Communism. (To take another pre-1989 wrongdoing example, by way of contrast; the war against the Seminole Indians in the 1880s was NOT part of a proxy war against the Soviet Union.) To take that and generalize it as the US "putting the smackdown on left-leaning Latin Americans"... well, I haven't heard about the Marines landing yet in Caracas, have you? Didn't invade Peru under Velasco, either. You take examples of the Soviet Union not ALWAYS being expansionist ALL the time; and examples of the US playing dirty in Nicaragua; and seem to drift toward the assertion that the US and USSR were two sides of the same coin. Sorry, belter, they weren't, however fervently you might want to believe it. No, the US has not always acted vis a vis other countries in a way that puts the people of those other countries first--who has? We act in self-interest, just as does your own country... Spain, I'm guessing. But it has generally been an enlightened self-interest. Again: France, 1965, versus Hungary, 1956. Compare and contrast. US actions in ANY Western European country following WWII, versus Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. Compare and contrast. Which way the barbed wire was angled on the Berlin Wall, and which way the machine guns were pointed. Compare and contrast. Freedom of a US citizen to leave the US whenever he/she feels like it, versus Soviet "exit visa" requirements, and internal passports. Compare... you get the idea.

#128 Dean

HOW we got onto Israel on a reference to Chamberlain, however, is beyond me (and she's none to blame but herself, on that one).

Well, when someone cannot discuss anything without throwing in Israel and the Jews, usually everybody knows what it means...

However, you've convinced me. Every piece of shit on the net is not a troll, even when said piece of shit shows trollish behaviour. So let's Charles (and the disk space) decide :-)

This is a thoroughly enjoyable thread. It's nice to see an anti-war type actually try to make reasoned arguments instead of using the "TP" method of hurling invective and then vanishing. And the counter-arguments have been quite impressive. Bravo (and brava, to whom it may be applicable).

Um ... I almost forgot ... NUKE SADDAM NOW!!! ;-)

#108 E.Nough

Words like "imperialism" and "hegemony" are only scary to people who tend to have Che Guevarra posters on their walls. Not that I'm arguing that the U.S. should be building an empire or conceding that such a thing is happening; I'm just saying that using the appearance of imperialism to prove a policy wrong won't work.

Love it! Hit the nail on the head with that one. Socialists, Marxists and other fellow travellers do not give a damn about results (Realism) only appearances and intentions (Idealism). Our very success condemns us.

The comments on Israel came as responses to 36 and 60. I didn't bring the topic onto the thread.

I hope these go some way towards offering responses:

#'s 80
“If anything suggests a remarkably deterministic, pre-ordained view of history, where people don't matter, only events (by people??), it would be your remarkable history. “

And if anything suggests a remarkably storybook world of history, where people are easily described and understood, like fairytale characters rather than the difficult and hard to follow people we deal with every day, it would be yours.

#83
is a response to someone called Tyler, nothing to do with me unless I misread it.

#88

I’d argue that E.Nough conflates eccentrics and extremists. What E.Nough suggests would always prevent new voices arising to society’s problems, and slap down creative ways of thinking about how to get on in this life.

#96

“Some people benefited from collectivisation and now oppose decollectivisation” argument:

Well farming’s not exactly a healthy industry in the West, now, is it? Or does that not make the US news?

Villages like Talpa were hugely improved under socialism, and there was parity between urban and rural (urban/rural divide long having been a problem in Bulgaria). Since then the swing has been towards the urban and the rural has deeply suffered. The basic symbolic structure of the country has not changed; Big Brother USA has replaced Big Brother Russia; in effect the country still faces many of the same difficulties it has for decades.

#108,

“And just because it's a "hegemony" doesn't make it "bad" to begin with. (And therefore there is no need for a Gramscian hegemony to be "any better.") Words like "imperialism" and "hegemony" are only scary to people who tend to have Che Guevarra posters on their walls. Not that I'm arguing that the U.S. should be building an empire or conceding that such a thing is happening; I'm just saying that using the appearance of imperialism to prove a policy wrong won't work.”

Well, it’s morally wrong, even if the policy pragmatically works. If imperialism and hegemony aren’t scary to you, try being invaded, enslaved and made an imperial subject.

Belter #105
What wrongdoings by Israel are you referencing?
Occupation; attempt to demographically and symbolically erase the idea of “Palestine”. Unless you’re some kind of postmodern nihilist and disbelieve in meaning, you must see that erasing people’s access to meaning is an awesomely vicious thing to do. As anyone who has ever felt their identity under attack would know.
What role to you think Palestinian and other Arab violence has played in the so called "brutal" occupation?
It’s heightened it. No one says the Palestinians are saints. Sometimes the line is not clear cut whose fault it is (Sharon’s actions exacerbating the second intifada).

Do you believe that Israel "brutalizes" Palestinian Arabs in a vacuum, or are they implementing measures to try to stop Palestinians from killing them?
Obviously not in a vacuum. But the measures go above and beyond self-defence.

What should Israel do to stop the Palestinians from killing them?
Reject extremism and militarism on both sides. Move towards maybe something liek Yossi Beilin’s position.

Shouldn't the Palestinians stop killing Israelis as a way of getting what they want?
Ideally yes. Shouldn’t the Israelis start listening to what the other side want?

If you oppose Zionism, why are the Palestinian Arabs more deserving of a state than the Jews?
They were already in the area when the Jewish people, for a long time in diaspora, were moved into the same territory. It’s not that the Palestinian Arabs are MORE deserving, just that it’s not acceptable to force your statemaking on others.

Why did the Palestinian Arabs refuse a State in 1948, and at all times after?
Why didn't Jordan create a Palestinian state when it annexed the West Bank from 1948 to 1967?
Why didn't Egypt do the same in Gaza?
To all 3: Because the Palestinians didn’t want to cede a claim to the place they considered their home. I’m sure the same is true for Israelis who feel that since 48 they’ve made it their home, by moving in there and returning to the heartland of their “grand narrative2. So the sides must negotiate. Or both will continue this cycle of lunacy

#129 BELTER

Without a doubt the Palestinian Authority is corrupt; of course the suicide attacks are wrong and terrible. But also Israel should go back to the '67 borders; and it has been a degradation of human beings to move in on their land in '48 and redraw borders, force them out, offer them Jordan and thus forever erase the possibility of their having a homeland in the place they consider their home, a treating of Palestinians as subhumans in the symbolic realm (even before you consider the physical ghettoisation that has followed).

1. Arab refugees in 1948 have moved out on their own, and were asked to do so by the neighboring Arab countries. Talk to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc.
2. There is no such thing as a 'Palestinian' people.
3. They do not consider 'Palestine' as a homeland, as proved by the absence of any claim for a 'Palestinian' homeland from 1948 to 1967, during which time Gaza was annexed by Egypt and Judea and Samarrea annexed by Jordan.
4. The borders have been redrawn by the action of the Arab armies, who waged war on the new state of Israel with the declared intent of destroying it. Talk to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc.
5. Jordan has been created in 1922 by the U.K., by taking 76% of the territory of the Mandate of Palestine. Hardly an Israeli creation.
6. Res. 242 having been refused by the Arab countries, it is now void and Israel under international law has every right to annex the disputed territories. That Jordan, who annexed them in 1948, rescinded all claims on those territories makes it even easier, again under international law. If you don't like it, talk to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc.
7. The Oslo agreements have been voided by two years of P.A.-sponsored terrorism and the constant refusal by the P.A. to repel the PLO charter and in particular its articles 2, 9, 10, 19, 20, 22.
8. The 'Palestinians' 'subhumanization' has started, in the disputed territories, after the P.A. took over. This is entirely an Arab matter. Go blame Arafat.
9. Physical 'ghettoization' has been created by the 1948 invasion of Israel by the Arab armies. Talk to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc.
10. I notice there is not one word in your 'argument' about the evictions of Arab Christians from the disputed territories by the P.A. Interesting...

Both sides have done awful things, a move for conciliation and mediation is probably the way forward.

Moral equivalence between targeting civilians and targeting terrorists, from someone who read Gramsci? What did you read, the Lettere dal Carcere?

If there is to be an Israel, it will probably be one interpenetrated with some notion of Palestine, or vice versa.

*Buzz* Israel exists. Be careful, your particular bias is starting to show...

Earlier, I didn't mean to provoke;

No, you meant to insult. We noticed.

but nor can this simply be a matter of endorsing Israel and condemning Palestine.

...none of which have any relationship with Chamberlain. The only reason to pull this is in was, guess what?

#134 Belter

Well, it’s morally wrong, even if the policy pragmatically works. If imperialism and hegemony aren’t scary to you, try being invaded, enslaved and made an imperial subject.

How is American hegemony morally wrong if we happen to be the last great power still standing? Who the hell have we "enslaved" and made "imperial subjects"? We are not the British Empire nor The French colonial empire, nor the Soviet empire, for that matter.

Spiney Norman, if I am understanding belter correctly, the US is exerting "hegemony" merely by the fact that other countries are adopting American cultural values. Of course, you must understand that they are not doing so freely, because they think that American culture has some features that are universally good, but because they are being subtly influenced by mental radiations from the vast pulsating brains of the Right-Wing Republican Power Mongers.

Now, I wasn't going to go down the route of mindcontrolling powermongers, but this is such a fascinatingly weird claim;

"American culture has some features that are universally good"

Like what? Like how?

Note you say culture. So I'm more interested in cultural products, especially their aesthetic values, than say formal political structure or anything like that. Although to be fair maybe you should first say what you mean by culture.

As to the spiny one...if hegemony can be through a kind of symbolic, manipulative form as well as through force, then presumably being the "last one left standing" is no better a moral justification than "fifteen people in a field, the one person with a gun gets to tell them what to do", which is what America is supposed to be all against.

belter - I am choosing not to address your question, "Like what? Like how?", because the very questions themselves indicate you reject the idea that there could exist any such attributes. It would therefore be pointless to list them, or give reasons why they are good.

Although ... "hegemony can be through a kind of symbolic, manipulative form" ... this point is more interesting, in that it reveals your rejection of free will. So to you people are merely puppets incapable of generating ideas and opinions on their own; their mental content beyond what is apparent to their senses is being imposed upon them by manipulations from without. Interesting. Well, I suppose you are determined to feel that way, though, so I won't press the point.

Anyone reminded of Life of Brian?

"We are all individuals!"

"I'm not."

Yes, if all 15 people in that field have it in mind to own that field by force, the one with the gun has good reason to hold the rest at bay and even plug a couple who get brave as an example for the rest.

But that isn't a very good parallel of the US.

Instead we have a bunch of folks in a field, some getting along and some not. The one thing keeping the more ill-tempered of the bunch from misbehaving is the one guy with a gun, who on the rare occasions it gets used is as likely defending one of the others as himself.

Identifying exactly the details of a culture can be an iffy undertaking, since the are rarely any hard and fast rules that can be identified without finding many exceptions.

The breakdown is more East-West,, with the US being the most advanced adherents of what made the West keep advancing after East ground to a halt centuries ago. This division becomes apparent when our Galilleo gets off with a "Go to your room without dessert" while the mullahs killed theirs. As a result our guy managed to be hugely influential while the guy in the East is a historical footnote.

The Western culture give people a chance to learn from their mistakes, the East tends to exact capital punishment on the first offense. This doesn't mean we don't have guys sitting in prison for taking it upon themselves for murdering an adulterous spouse but the same guy in much of East could not only get away with it but be treated with great sympathy for maintaining family honor in the face of his 'hardship.'

Belter

Read post #135. Read it long and hard.

Caton #135,

Great job there.

Belter #134,

Assuming no one corrects the egregious factual errors in this post, I promise I will tomorrow morning.

Also, for the Jerusalem Post, it is not a paid website - it just requires registration. It's a great article; give it a shot.

#127

It matters not a bit what those who came before Chamberlain did but what he did when he in the position to confront evil that was plainly gearing up to show off its new toys to every kid in the neighborhood. The neighborhood being Europe and the toys having the disturbing side efffect of killing the recipients of the demo.

Did Chamberlain go home and tell England, "I know it's been lousy lately, what with this big depression thing and all making us, well, depressed. but that Charlie Chaplin wannabe they put in charge over there is seriously nuts and wants to go on a grand tour to show everyone the extent of his insanity. I think we need to start gearing up for the possibility the circus is coming to town with some really scary clowns."

Nope, he didn't do it. Completely utterly chickened out because it wouldn't be politically popular in the near term. The long term would just have to take care of itself.

This turned out to be one of the worst policy decisions in recorded history and cost the lives of millions that might have been saved if the UK had begun preparing for the confrontation at an earlier date. Thus Chamberlain failed in his job for putting the fate of his party ahead of the fate of the nation. Much as we're seeing from Democrats now like Daschle who spewed plenty of fiery rhetoric against Iraq during the Clinton years but somehow completely changed his stance when a Republican administration actually supported that stance.

Israel has attempted to erase the Palestinians? Really?

This is news. Espeically since it is the Palestinians that have made it a policy to print only maps that pretend Israel doesn't exist. Which also makes perfectly clear 'what the Palestinians want.' The erasure of Israel.

Guess what? After the experience of the first half of the 20th Century the Israelis have learned that only their strength stands between them and erasure. Until the Palestinians top to bottom adopt a mindset that allows for Israel's continued existence they're going to keep being reminded of it in the rudest way possible.

Just answering the question about how Romania feels now.

Romania: We're with the Americans and British - Cornel Nistorescu, Evenimentul Zilei

#145

To say nothing of the constant destruction of the archeological record on the Palestinians' part. Given the documentable, systematic attempts by Palestinians to destroy the Israeli identity, I'd say Belter has this point exactly backwards. I'd be interested to hear her sources on the attempts by Israeli's to erase Palestinian identity.

Have you heard the latest, James? Communism really failed because -- get this -- it wasn't really Marxism after all, it was "state capitalism."

I guess that makes capitalism "private sector communism"

There is a difference between being the last one left standing because you have killed off all the others and being the last one left standing because the others have died off on their own.

Belter, Do you really think you are the master and not the slave?

Belter, was Chamberlain one of the masters or about to become a slave?

And here is a picture of another two , who sold a big portion of Europe to the soviets and brought 'peace' for the next forty-five years.

The new Mayor of Vancouver, Larry Campbell, used "Peace in our time" when addressing the marchers in Vancouver last Saturday. Well he is a leftist Mayor after all.

#152 Matt K.

Mr. Churchill was dismayed and infuriated by the sellout of eastern Europe at Yalta. It certainly was an inspiration for his Iron Curtain speech of 1946:
[Link: www.historyguide.org...]
Stalin took advantage of the diminished faculties of a seriously ill FDR, who desperately what to bring an end to the war before he died. Churchill, despite his personal friendship with FDR, was effectively on the outside looking in.

Drat!

should be "...desperately wanted..."

Repeat after me... the Preview button is my friend...

Belter,

On the one hand, I'm glad to see you actually responding. OTOH, I'm not sure what you're responding TO.

You refer in your last post (#127) to #80 as being cardboard characters and fairytale versions of history, instead of long, complex versions.

To begin w/, I've no idea what you're referring to in post #80 that was either "cardboard" or "fairytale." First, except for Strasemann, I don't mention any specific people at all. Second, if you are expecting a full-blown analysis of Weimar presidents and the like, that is the subject of books and dissertations, hardly a comment section at a blog. Moreover, I specifically said (in the last paragraph) that this was an analogy. Analogies are, by definition, imprecise, but given that your characterization lacked both people OR any mention of a major player, I think that I've not come off worse by comparison.

Moreover, in the same post (#127), in a display no doubt of both erudition and complexity, you dismiss Churchill as simply being a thug, while holding out Chamberlain as somehow merely a will o'the wisp of history, blown hither and yon, w/ nary a will or a capacity of his own.

But if that's true, really, WHO can change the impersonal tides? Really, wasn't Hitler inevitable? And wasn't World War I inevitable, given the vagaries of the political situation of the time? And was not that, in turn, the result of the imperialism that defined the 18th and 19th centuries? Indeed, can anyone ever REALLY be held responsible for their individual actions, at the hands of an impersonal and overpowering force of history?

In which case, is not Dubya simply being what he is, and is not war looming over Iraq, due to the same impersonal natures, in which case, not only is it inappropriate to condemn the likes of Chamberlain, but pointless to protest, especially when the forces of capital still hold sway, as they do now?

One might draw this as a somewhat logical conclusion of what you're implying.

But Chamberlain (and Daladier, we always forget Daladier) HAD a choice. Just as Mussolini had a choice (people forget that not only was he present at Munich, he had forestalled the first Nazi attempt at Anschluss of Austria!). And Chamberlain failed it. He failed it for a variety of reasons, but at the end of the day, HE, not history, not Baldwin, not Churchill (Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s), not Lloyd George, not Gladstone and Disraeli, Chamberlain failed at the crucial moment.

#145 Eric Pobirs

Espeically since it is the Palestinians that have made it a policy to print only maps that pretend Israel doesn't exist. Which also makes perfectly clear 'what the Palestinians want.' The erasure of Israel.

Thanks. I should have included this. Will do, next time.

#147 LuminaT

To say nothing of the constant destruction of the archeological record on the Palestinians' part. Given the documentable, systematic attempts by Palestinians to destroy the Israeli identity, I'd say Belter has this point exactly backwards.

Thanks. I forgot that, too.

Oh well, there's an endless supply of trolls, I'm sure there will be a next time... and another... and another...

#156

"First, except for Strasemann, I don't mention any specific people at all. "

Well, apart from Von Papen, Hitler, and the German people (a specific people, if not a specific individual).

#135

"There is no such thing as a 'Palestinian' people."
Ahem...example of trying to deny people's access to meaning right here on the site! By what criteria do you deny that there is a Palestinian people?

"*Buzz* Israel exists. Be careful, your particular bias is starting to show..."

But all nations are provisional and ongoing projects; they're not a prior god-givens but human constructs. Two such constructs (more if you count all the possible visions of Israel, all the possible ones of Palestine) are competing in the Israel/Palestine situation Perhaps I should have phrased it, "If Israel is to go on.."

As to Palestinian maps and so on, yes they deal back symbolic erasure in kind - they are denied by Israel and Israel is denied by Palestine. And other powers were responsible insofar as they created the situation from 48 onwards. And even the Realpolitik of 19th Century Habsburg Empire was responsible insofar as it moulded Zionism. This calcification and hardening up for defence will just perpetuate the violence. Only negotiating the identities of the region will give anyone an "Israel" or a "Palestine".

I'm very curious to know what LGFers make of Yossi Beilin. His work is not seeking to erase Israel, but creatively redraft it and is about the most promising stuff detected in the situation.

Also, did you get Prof. Jacqueline Rose's programme on Israel and the US in the states? There's a summary of sorts at

[Link: www.channel4.com...]

I think she has a pretty sorted view of things. And, influenced as she is by psychoanalytic thought, she's also acquainted with the notion that people don't simply "own" their thought or "own" their reason, that there are supra-personal and infra-personal forces affecting politics and that is why what you see as "deterministic factors" play a part in politics and history. It doesn't preclude hope. And to believe manipulative currents can pass through cultural connections doesn't reject free will, anyhow.

140 - "Instead we have a bunch of folks in a field, some getting along and some not. The one thing keeping the more ill-tempered of the bunch from misbehaving is the one guy with a gun, who on the rare occasions it gets used is as likely defending one of the others as himself. "

That's what you'd expect the guy with the gun to say. Even fascist regimes, and others far more explicitly hegemonic than the US, claim that they're just giving order and justice to their subjects.

#158 belter

"There is no such thing as a 'Palestinian' people."
Ahem...example of trying to deny people's access to meaning right here on the site! By what criteria do you deny that there is a Palestinian people?

Their own words. On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

Now, when leaders of the 'Palestinian people' tell us there is no such thing as a 'Palestinian' people, they probably know better than you do.

Next?

"*Buzz* Israel exists. Be careful, your particular bias is starting to show..."
But all nations are provisional and ongoing projects; they're not a prior god-givens but human constructs. Two such constructs (more if you count all the possible visions of Israel, all the possible ones of Palestine) are competing in the Israel/Palestine situation Perhaps I should have phrased it, "If Israel is to go on.."

No, no, you phrased it very well indeed, corresponding exactly to what you think, and are now trying to apply spin, in a typical leftish manner.

Maybe you did read Gramsci, after all...

Next?

As to Palestinian maps and so on, yes they deal back symbolic erasure in kind - they are denied by Israel and Israel is denied by Palestine.

Another lie. Oslo -- Israel accepts a two-states solution, conditional on the PLO accepting the existence of Israel. Still waiting.

In fact, on the same day Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, here's his declarations on Jordan TV:

"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

Next?

And other powers were responsible insofar as they created the situation from 48 onwards. And even the Realpolitik of 19th Century Habsburg Empire was responsible insofar as it moulded Zionism. This calcification and hardening up for defence will just perpetuate the violence. Only negotiating the identities of the region will give anyone an "Israel" or a "Palestine".

...so 'other powers' are responsible, but it's Israel fault. Typical.

Look, the 'identities of the region' have been 'negociated' in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and 1991. There's another round of 'negociations' scheduled real soon now.

Next?

I'm very curious to know what LGFers make of Yossi Beilin. His work is not seeking to erase Israel, but creatively redraft it and is about the most promising stuff detected in the situation.

His 'work' is typical 'dove' politician bullshit.

Next?

Also, did you get Prof. Jacqueline Rose's programme on Israel and the US in the states? [...]

...and so on and so on. You can only argue by reference to 'authority' or by muddling the issues. Do you have one single personal thought?

belter writes:

I’d argue that E.Nough conflates eccentrics and extremists.

No I didn't. The ELF is most definitely an extremist outfit that uses violence to advance (it thinks) its cause. And it's made up primarily of white middle-class young people, who are not what I would call oppressed.

What E.Nough suggests would always prevent new voices arising to society’s problems, and slap down creative ways of thinking about how to get on in this life.

Excuse me?! Just where have I suggested any such thing?

Well, [hegemony] morally wrong, even if the policy pragmatically works.

No, it isn't, not as such. It's just an alteration of government. A lot of people in this would would be a whole lot better off under a government placed there by the U.S., than they are under their own so-called "leadership." (North Koreans come to mind.) Which, again, isn't to say that the U.S. should be conquering every hellhole, but to simply assume that a government of the same ethnic group as its subjects is always morally superior to a government run by foreigners, is absurd and flies in the face of all of history.

If imperialism and hegemony aren’t scary to you, try being invaded, enslaved and made an imperial subject.

Wouldn't make a bit of difference if I were already enslaved, mistreated, starved, routinely arbitrarily arrested or tortured by my local government. Furthermore, nothing about being an empire says you have to "enslave" those who are under you. The U.S. government has an "empire" that includes much of North American territory, as well as Hawaii and some Pacific Islands. None of the people there are "enslaved."

belter writes:

Occupation; attempt to demographically and symbolically erase the idea of “Palestine”. Unless you’re some kind of postmodern nihilist and disbelieve in meaning, you must see that erasing people’s access to meaning is an awesomely vicious thing to do. As anyone who has ever felt their identity under attack would know.

I see. So I guess history or reality is meaningless; it's only people's claims to identity that give them meaning. We thus miraculously get the "Palestinians," who are indistinguishable ethnically from their relatives in clans across the Jordanian and Egyptian borders, who have no unique language, dress, history, food, or culture, and only began to exist as a "separate people" circa the 1960s, prior to which they were simply Jordanians and Egyptians. Perhaps we should fight for independence for the Nebraskans and the Iowans, and those North Dakotans can definitely get pretty militant. Hey, isn't Italy a fairly recent construct, made up of several distinct peoples, with histories that go back far longer than the past couple of decades? Free Naples! Down with Roman imperialism!

What role to you think Palestinian and other Arab violence has played in the so called "brutal" occupation?
It’s heightened it. No one says the Palestinians are saints. Sometimes the line is not clear cut whose fault it is (Sharon’s actions exacerbating the second intifada).

Actually, I think the line is pretty clear all the time. And the most exacerbation done to the second intifada was done by the "peace process," which armed the Palestinians and gave them the idea that violence pays. Sharon has to undo this now, which is a slow, bloody process. I daresay it's somewhat more humane than the alternative, which would be faster, but much bloodier.

Do you believe that Israel "brutalizes" Palestinian Arabs in a vacuum, or are they implementing measures to try to stop Palestinians from killing them?
Obviously not in a vacuum. But the measures go above and beyond self-defence.

I'd like an example of this, and how you think it's "above and beyond self-defence."

What should Israel do to stop the Palestinians from killing them?
Reject extremism and militarism on both sides. Move towards maybe something liek Yossi Beilin’s position.

Oh, boy, and now who lives in a storybook? First off, the Israelis can hardly "reject extremism and militarism on both sides," because they are only one side of the conflict. Second, that was tried during the ironically named "peace process" with Arafat, and the results are now self-evident. The Palestinians have to reject the use of murder and mass violence as tools for obtaining their independence; they haven't done so. Which leaves the Israelis little choice but to constantly put the beat down on them.

Shouldn't the Palestinians stop killing Israelis as a way of getting what they want?
Ideally yes. Shouldn’t the Israelis start listening to what the other side want?

No, not while violence continues -- unless you want to encourage more violence. And the Israelis were listening, prior to the second intifada -- which is how Arafat came to control well over 90% of the West Bank, and possess large caches of weapons. Instead of using this to create civil institutions and a workable state, Arafat used it to prepare a staging ground for his second (and what he hoped would be final) offensive against the Israelis. The Israelis are not obligated to make this mistake again -- and no government is required to listen to demands from people who are wantonly murdering its civilians.

If you oppose Zionism, why are the Palestinian Arabs more deserving of a state than the Jews?
They were already in the area when the Jewish people, for a long time in diaspora, were moved into the same territory. It’s not that the Palestinian Arabs are MORE deserving, just that it’s not acceptable to force your statemaking on others.

First, this is just false. Second, far from having statemaking "forced" on them, the Palestinians that had remained in Israel after its inception got full citizenship and voting rights. Now, unless you care to claim that they would have been better off under some local pasha who continued to treat them as chattel, you're back to your nonsensical "better a thug from my tribe, than a democracy run by yours" theory.

Why did the Palestinian Arabs refuse a State in 1948, and at all times after?
Why didn't Jordan create a Palestinian state when it annexed the West Bank from 1948 to 1967?
Why didn't Egypt do the same in Gaza?
To all 3: Because the Palestinians didn’t want to cede a claim to the place they considered their home.

How would accepting a state in 1948 cede that claim? It would have been more than they claim to accept now.

In fact, now they want the territory that was part of Jordan prior to 1967. Why was there no demand for it then? Are you seriuosly telling me that if the "Palestinians" couldn't get all the land, they didn't want any? That's certainly one principled independence movement!

The fact is that the Palestinians didn't even refer to themselves as such until the 1960s. And they never tried to claim the West Bank for their "homeland" until it was taken from Jordan by Israel. In fact, if you look closely, you'll notice that the "Palestinians" only seem to want land that Israel holds. (Well, except for when they tried to take control of Jordan. All of Jordan. And the Jordanians did a number of them that not even the most right-winged of Israeli PMs would ever try. Maybe Belgium could weigh in here...)

I’m sure the same is true for Israelis who feel that since 48 they’ve made it their home, by moving in there and returning to the heartland of their “grand narrative2. So the sides must negotiate. Or both will continue this cycle of lunacy

Actually, that's just it: the Israelis don't have to negotiate. They could end this "cycle" in a few days by simply wiping the Arabs out in the West Bank. They choose to negotiate, because they feel it's the right thing to do. Contrast this with the Palestinians, who are constantly calling for Judeocide -- in the Middle East and everywhere else -- and are continuously working on weapons that will kill Israelis in larger numbers. Somehow, you just never hear about this dichotomy from the moral equivocators who preach the "cycle of violence" crap. So let me put it succinctly:

The Israelis can kill every last "Palestinian" any time they want. They choose not to.

The Palestinians can't do anything about Israel. They choose to kill every Israeli they can, and are constantly improving their methods.

Which side is prolonging the conflict and feeding the "cycle of lunacy"? And which is trying to keep it from getting far more violent?

E. Nough #161,

Great job.

belter #134,

Just a couple of little matters that I think were left:

Occupation; attempt to demographically and symbolically erase the idea of “Palestine”. Unless you’re some kind of postmodern nihilist and disbelieve in meaning, you must see that erasing people’s access to meaning is an awesomely vicious thing to do. As anyone who has ever felt their identity under attack would know.

While "Palestine" was under Israeli occupation, as J Lichty pointed out, the lot of "palestinians" improved.

Also, E. Nough points out that the "palestinians" are not culturally different then the Jordanians and Egyptians. You may know that Arabic varies from country to another. Well, it just so happens that the Gaza "palestinians" speak Egyptian Arabic while those in Judea and Samaria speak Jordanian Arabic.

More about the "palestinian" identity:

The PLO's first leader, like Arafat, an Egyptian, Ahmed Shukairy at the UNSC said:

It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria.

Also you might want to note when the PLO was founded - 1964. Three years before Israel was attacked and took over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

Article 24 of the original PLO Charter:

This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, [or] on the Gaza Strip...

There are many, many more quotes to show that the "palestinian" identity was manufactured. If you want to look for a good historical parallel, look at the manufactured German identity in the Sudentenland and Danzig, courtesy of Hitler. Hitler was an ally of Hajj Amin Al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and organizer of the anti-Jewish pogroms of 1936; Arafat has said Husseini was his greatest hero. It might not be a coincidence that they use similar tactics and they might have similar ends.

No one says the Palestinians are saints. Sometimes the line is not clear cut whose fault it is (Sharon’s actions exacerbating the second intifada).

Please demonstrate how Sharon exacerbated the low-level "palestinian" war. Remember that he was not PM of Israel at the time that the war started. Remember that his actions are nowhere near the maximum that Israel could accomplish.

Obviously not in a vacuum. But the measures go above and beyond self-defence.

Please demonstrate this.

Reject extremism and militarism on both sides. Move towards maybe something liek Yossi Beilin’s position.

Beilin was the chief architect of the failed and flawed Oslo process. What makes you think his ideas are any better this time around? His ideas are utopian at best - the entire Israeli population has roundly derided him and all but expelled him from politics.

As E. Nough noted, the Israelis cannot force the "palestinians" to change any of their positions. The "palestinians" have not even managed to organize a cease-fire that they can abide by, so it hardly seems as though they are rejecting extremism.

Shouldn’t the Israelis start listening to what the other side want?

So did Spain already cede the Basque country while I wasn't looking?

They were already in the area when the Jewish people, for a long time in diaspora, were moved into the same territory. It’s not that the Palestinian Arabs are MORE deserving, just that it’s not acceptable to force your statemaking on others.

Most "palestinians" moved into the area because of the economic opportunities created by Jewish immigration. If the chronology happened as you say it did, it's hard to imagine why they moved there - and why many have close family ties in Egypt (such as Arafat), Jordan, etc.

Besides what E. Nough mentioned in his post, many of the Druze Arabs are very happy and loyal citizens of the Jewish state. There are whole companies in Israel comprised solely of Druzim. They are known as skilled trackers and highly respected in the IDF. This hardly fits your picture of forced statemaking.

Also, from my history books, I seem to remember that the state of Spain was created by force. Maybe we should disband Spain. After all, the military force of Ferdinand and Isabella foisted a state upon many unwilling peoples.

To all 3: Because the Palestinians didn’t want to cede a claim to the place they considered their home. I’m sure the same is true for Israelis who feel that since 48 they’ve made it their home, by moving in there and returning to the heartland of their “grand narrative2. So the sides must negotiate. Or both will continue this cycle of lunacy

E. Nough's comment largely addresses this. But also do a though experiment:

1. If every Israeli laid down his weapons tomorrow, what would happen?

2. If every "palestinian" laid down his weapons tomorrow, what would happen?

I'll give you an answer key:

1. A lot of dead Jews.

2. Peace.

#158 Belter

If you do not accept Caton's quotation in #159 as proof that the "Palestinian people" are a fabrication and a construct that exists solely for the purpose of destroying Israel, perhaps you should consider what the Palestinian National Charter says on the subject:

12. The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity, and oppose any plan that may dissolve or impair it.

(emphasis mine). If you do not see Zahir Muhsein's words encapsulated in Article 12 of the Charter (aka the PLO Covenant), you're blind.

Two words:

Sabra

Shatila

"Only one element, and that is the Israeli Defence Force, shall command the forces in the area. For the
operation in the camps the Phalangists should be sent in."

As for "fabricated identities"; point me to an identity, particularly a national one, that wasn't in some sense "fabricated".

belter #164,

Sabra and Shatila? That's what cause the "palestinians" to start the second low-level war against the Israelis? That's interesting as a theory. Just out of curiousity, did Sabra and Shatila happen before the Oslo war process had started or after? Did Sabra and Shatila make the situation of the "palestinians" in 2000 better, worse, or did it have no effect at all?

Please provide a link for the quote you have posted, who said it, and in what context.

I have two words for you too: Elie Hobeika.

As for "fabricated identities"; point me to an identity, particularly a national one, that wasn't in some sense "fabricated".

Sure, most national identities were fabricated in some sense. Few national identities have as many direct quotes as the "palestinians" do which prove that their national identity is a Trojan Camel for attacking the Israelis. There is one exception: the German usage of "German identity" in the Sudentenland and Danzig. (I believe it may have been used in Lithuania as well.) As I have previously pointed out, Arafat is the direct philosophical descendant of Husseini, who worked quite closely with Hitler. Does that not say something?

163 - your point? Stepping stones are as much a part of politcs as "eternal truths": eg "one day we might be able to have a world without guns, but for now we need them to stay safe" or, taking an example from the other side, Lukacs' indication that Marxism and dialectical materialism will themselves be superseded by what follows, because both "isms" are meant as tools for breaking down the status quo on the way to what Marxists aimed for.

In the same way the notion that a Palestinian identity is provisional doesn't undermine its legitimacy, any more than provisionality undermined, say, a Nansen passport for stateless citizens.

I should probably mention:

deir yassin 9 april 48

UN Security Council Resolution 242

Likud's call for a Greater Israel taking over all of what had been British-mandate Palestine rather than going with the agreed split.

The settlement campaign under Menachem Begin; creating "facts on the ground" to concretise what was essentially a symbolic dispute over identity.

To give Begin credit, he recognised at Camp David "It is harder to show civil courage than military courage", what he did with Sadat was great and Sadat's death was hugely lamentable.

The first intifada: civil disobedience, general strikes, boycotts on Israeli products, graffiti, barricades, and stone-throwing responded to with heavy loss of life at the hands of the IDF.

Arafat taking over control of the PLO in 69 meant it was taken out of the hands of the Arab interest groups that founded and controlled it and it was made to stand for Palestinian people as an independent body.

What do you make of the Palestinian National Council's resolve (after the 88 Algeria meeting) to accept the two state solution (resolution 181), the negotiated settlement based on 242, and Resolution 338?

The whole sorry mess is one of wilful misunderstanding (Sharon's ill advised al-Aqsa/Temple Mount visit anyone?), perpetuated hate and an understandable fear on the part of both sides that the other groups' hate will wipe them out.

Basques know of these things; do you know how hard it is to sit at a negotiating table when one side was bombing your nation's people and the other side was engaged in what you saw as a police occupation of your unacknowledged nation? And yet - imperfect, always tenuous, always fragile and at risk - it goes on.

Incidentally, you know there is a lot of debate going on about what to do with the "Sudetenland" Czecho-German minority in the EU at the moment; whether they should be recognised as a landless minority, or given land, or what. Just because they were pawns in Nazi expansionism doesn't forfeit their right to an identity.

The point about Sabra and Shatila was about general Israeli treatment of Palestinians, rather than directly tying into cause and effect of actions in a given year. The IDF, as we all know, encircled the camps and gave the nod to what went on inside.

The quote is a commonplace attribution to Sharon anyhow, for example in

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

but I assumed you wanted something a little more specific:

Can't find it on a weblink but it's paragraph F of "The Defense Minister's Summary of 15 September 1982." , undersigned by Avi Dudai. The line spoken was by the then Defence Minister...

It was exhibit 34 at the Kahan Commission I believe.

Your point about Hobeika?

belter #168,

The point about Sabra and Shatila was about general Israeli treatment of Palestinians

Interesting. Funny that you didn't mention that the Jordanians killed about a million "palestinians" when Arafat tried to overthrow their king. Incidentally, while there, Arafat also violated over twenty cease-fires - which seems to be consistent with his behavior in Lebanon and now, with Israel. Kuwait expelled 300K "palestinians" after the Gulf War. Arabs have forced "palestinians" to remain as refugees in order to use them as a weapon against Israel. Why else are there still WWII-era refugees there, when all other refugees from that era have been settled? In short, Arab treatment of "palestinians" makes Israel seem like angels.

But, as is typical, only the example where the Jews did something, even indirectly, is important. More on this later.

The IDF, as we all know, encircled the camps and gave the nod to what went on inside.

Did you read the link I posted above? It is not at all clear to me that the IDF "gave the nod" to what went on inside. Indeed, all texts I have read suggested that the IDF was surprised that the Phalangists did what they did. Also, if you look at the link, you'll find that the vast majority of those killed were not innocent - they were actually PLO fighters who had infiltrated the camp.

Your point about Hobeika?

Begin, at the time, said something along the lines of "Goyim kill goyim and they will blame the Jews" (Goyim = Non-Jews). Guess whose troops actually did the killing: Hobeika. Guess who gets all of the blame: Sharon. Why is that?

So, in short, Arabs kill Arabs and Jews are blamed, even if their connection is indirect. How is it that Arabs are never held accountable for their own actions?

belter #167,

deir yassin 9 april 48

See here.

UN Security Council Resolution 242

Which was rejected by the Arabs and accepted by Israel. 242 calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories, not the territories; the framers of the resolution have said this was done explicitly. Israel has already withdrawn from Sinai, which was the vast majority of captured territory, so, at best, we can say that Israel has largely complied, the Arabs have not.

Likud's call for a Greater Israel taking over all of what had been British-mandate Palestine rather than going with the agreed split.

Which agreed split? I presume you mean 1948 in which case it's hard to argue anything but that Israel accepted the split of territory and the Arabs rejected it. I'm sorry, but just because Likud said that Israel should have all of Mandatory Palestine after the fact does not take away from the fact that the Arabs invaded the State of Israel as it was forming and rejected the resolution.

The settlement campaign under Menachem Begin; creating "facts on the ground" to concretise what was essentially a symbolic dispute over identity.

The settlements have been the biggest promoters of peace. They have made clear to the Arabs that if their genocidal campaign continues, it will cost them more and more. That squares very well with the fact that Israel hardly settled in the late 60s, early 70s. During this time, Arabs were not even pretending to make peace treaties. Late 70s onwards Israel began to settle and the Arabs realized that things were going to become permanent and it was going to cost them. In any case, the peace treaty with Egypt demonstrated that Israel is willing to withdraw from territory even if it has been settled, so this is rather a moot point.

To give Begin credit, he recognised at Camp David "It is harder to show civil courage than military courage", what he did with Sadat was great and Sadat's death was hugely lamentable.

And it was a mistake. The Egyptians have not followed the peace treaty except in the most superficial of ways. They have not ended incitement, for example (c.f. the broadcast of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion quite recently).

The first intifada: civil disobedience, general strikes, boycotts on Israeli products, graffiti, barricades, and stone-throwing responded to with heavy loss of life at the hands of the IDF.

"Heavy loss of life"? Comparable to Hama, for example? Or Halabja? Please: Arab dictators do much, much worse on a regular basis. Also, stones can kill a person. Stones were often augmented by Molotov cocktails, which are very deadly.

Arafat taking over control of the PLO in 69 meant it was taken out of the hands of the Arab interest groups that founded and controlled it and it was made to stand for Palestinian people as an independent body.

Arafat is Egyptian, born in Cairo.

What do you make of the Palestinian National Council's resolve (after the 88 Algeria meeting) to accept the two state solution (resolution 181), the negotiated settlement based on 242, and Resolution 338?

I believe that they are following Arafat's phased plan, adopted in the late 70s and never gone back upon. This is especially born out by Arafat's repeated references to the Treaty of Hudaybiya.

The whole sorry mess is one of wilful misunderstanding (Sharon's ill advised al-Aqsa/Temple Mount visit anyone?), perpetuated hate and an understandable fear on the part of both sides that the other groups' hate will wipe them out.

Please. It is well known that Arafat's goons began the planning well before Sharon walked at the Temple Mount. He didn't walk into Al-Aqsa, so your mention of it, like your mention of the "subhuman" treatment of the palestinians, is only meant to inflame. In any case, why shouldn't an Israeli be allowed to walk on Israeli territory to see a Jewish holy site? Also, if you want to talk about Sharon "defiling" an Arab holy site, I wonder if you know what happened to Joseph's Tomb.

The Israelis, at the time, had sunk deep into the torpor of believing that Arafat wanted peace. There was a lot less hate on the Israeli side. There was a major group called Peace Now in Israel. Tell me, what percentage of the palestinian population belonged to the Palestinian Peace Now?

Basques know of these things; do you know how hard it is to sit at a negotiating table when one side was bombing your nation's people and the other side was engaged in what you saw as a police occupation of your unacknowledged nation? And yet - imperfect, always tenuous, always fragile and at risk - it goes on.

Again, did Spain cede the Basque country while I wasn't looking? Your opinion is that terrorists demands should be "listening to what the other side want[s]". So, have the Spaniards? Please. I worked in Barcelona for a few months and have worked with Spaniards from Madrid for over six months. There's no way the Basques will have an independent Pays Basco.

Incidentally, you know there is a lot of debate going on about what to do with the "Sudetenland" Czecho-German minority in the EU at the moment; whether they should be recognised as a landless minority, or given land, or what. Just because they were pawns in Nazi expansionism doesn't forfeit their right to an identity.

Fine. But just as the Sudetenland "Germans" were used by Hitler as a Trojan Horse - and the same thing in Danzig - the Arabs are doing the same with the "palestinians". If you can agree to this or come up with serious factual backing for why this is not the case, I would appreciate it.

For more on the first intifada, see here. Note especially:

At first a spontaneous outburst instigated by false rumors and incitement by Muslim clerics, the Intifada quickly developed into a well-organized rebellion orchestrated by the PLO from its headquarters in Tunis. Masses of civilians attacked Israeli troops with stones, axes, Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, and firearms supplied by the Fatah, killing and wounding soldiers and civilians. Israeli troops, trained for combat with opposing armies, were not well prepared to fight this kind of war.

Also see here. Note especially:

The intifada uprising that started in 1987 was, from the start, far more violent than commonly reported. Televised images of youths with rocks defined the violence for many, but during the first four years of the uprising, more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives were reported by the Israel Defense Forces. The violence was directed at Israeli soldiers and civilians alike: 16 Israeli civilians and 11 soldiers were killed by Palestinians in the territories; more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 Israeli soldiers were injured....

Palestinians were stabbed, hacked with axes, shot, clubbed and burned with acid, not by the Israelis but by the PLO and their associated groups of terrorists. The New York Times (October 24, 1989) described the discovery of "a cache of detailed secret documents showing that the PLO hired local killers to assassinate other Palestinians and carry out 'military activity' against Israelis." One document described how the PLO wanted the attacks credited to fictional groups so as not to disturb the US-PLO dialogue....

The intifada appears to have been a significant factor in the decision by many Christian Arabs to leave the Middle East.

Your recounting of the first intifada leaves out most of the truth.

Belter, I've asked two questions which have gone unanswered. Third question. Have you ever had an original idea of your own?

OK, anybody here who still doesn't understand the nature of this beast?

Not a troll? Maybe. I'm not feeding it any more, though.

al-belter:

Here is some more about so-called "non-violent" resistence like Arab rock thrwoing, which I guess just coincidently ends in death.

Belter (#122),

"That's a distortion of Zionism." And yet you will find it on LGF. Posters starkly saying JEWISHNESS = ZIONISM.

Actually you won't. I did a search and only one result turned up saying "Jewishness = zionism" and that was your post.

I did notice that you completely ignored the rest of my post where I explained why "anti-Zionism" does equal "antisemitism".

I'll give you another opportunity to be intellectually honest and explain what you agree or disagree with my assertion.

I said

the vast majority of living Jews regard the existence of Israel as not only of paramount importance to their Jewish identity and Judaism, but to their physical safety.

It is true that it was possible to be anti-Zionist and not antisemitic (as were many mainstream Jews) before the creation of the state.

It is no longer possible.

Perhaps if God forbid the state were destroyed and Jews were once again forced by history's cruel hand to be a people without a homeland it will be possible to be hostile to the idea that the Jews should have sovereignty in a state (provided, of course, that statelesness does not result in genocide, as was the case in the 20th century). But not now, not while the vast majority of world Jewry consider Israel important in the way I described.

Ahem. I agree the sign and message are stupid. But it seems unlikely that Nevada County, California protesters were in London's Hyde Park.

#175 James

I'll give you another opportunity to be intellectually honest and explain what you agree or disagree with my assertion.

Ah... I don't want to be offensive, but you sound just like the UNSC giving another last chance to Saddam.

Haha, I'm not holding my breath.

#158

Wow, speaking of being lead around by the frontal lobes, it appears you're a sucker for every pseuointellectual to come down the pike who makes something simple seem clever by taking 50 pages to say it.

"Some people are more suggestible than others."

Gosh. Who would have ever guessed that?

Thing is, when you have a non-democratic form of government it doesn't matter what the people think and how they came to that belief. They aren't being consulted.

And as for the last bit, there are plenty of people outside the US who have expresssed considerable grattitude that the US was the guy with the best gun. Most of Eastern Europe, for instance. They have seen what fascism and dictatorship looks like close up and know the difference. Unlike some other places the US doesn't burn all of the history books that don't comply to the official version of events.

There was a period in the late forties when we could have simplly decapitated the Soviet Union. We had the sole supply of atomic weapons on the planet. In other words, on the global scale we had the only gun. We didn't use it. If the full scale of what happened under Stalin were more widely known at the time we might have and spared the world the bulk of the Cold War including its hot spots Korea and Vietnam. (Neither would have been a prolonged conflict without Soviet support.)

We didn't do this, though. It simply wasn't in the character of this nation to make such attacks despite how arguably it would have imporved the world. I think our track record speaks pretty well for us as a nation.

Re #164. You, mister Belter, easily forgot of another, third, word - DAMOUR. It happened six years before Sabra and Shatila. The whole islamic world - and you too, mister Belter (you must be a part of it), was deaf-mute. If you have any shame left, you should shut up!

Belter your analysis of the status quo post bellum in Romania and Bulgaria remind me of a joke a prof of mine told long ago. He went off to Kenya to teach for 2 years and at the term he was grousing to an old Belgian Africa hand who had been there for decades how he had hoped to come to an understanding of Africa's situation, but now he found himself going home more unsure than ever. The Belgian answered, "the problem is, you stayed too long. Had you come here for a week on a package tour, youda gone home an expert on everything."

Well Belter, that's your level of expertise on the Balkans. You read a couple academic articles that fit your preconceptions and you spoke with a self-selected group who speak some english.

Vorbiţi romaneşte? Daca nu, taci din gură! Говорит& #1077; ли на Българс& #1082;и,

If you can't even speak the local languages, how the hell can you claim any insight at all into what the people there really think and feel. I know toothless romanian and bulgarian old ladies, peasants, young kids at university, businessmen and several ambassadors and ministers from each country. I know the Balkans and you don't know jack shit pal about those countries.

I'm a man now? Who was it saying that *I* wasn't reading the comments properly???

175

You yourself state...
"anti-Zionism" does equal "antisemitism" if you did a search and didn't actually find the two words either side of an equals sign, I apologise, but you know you can find that sentiment articulated.

As for your assertion, it is only an assertion and so needs no debunking. I might as easily say "Of course, in this day and age, no one can be human without eating Brylcreem".

181

Matt - do you speak Arabic, Kurdish , Assyrian, or Armenian? Do you ever pass comment on or contemplate what the people of Iraq say or think or feel?

I might not have the lang's but the people I've met spoke with me in German, so we both mediated through a language equally alien to us both, while I was working out there. And I've read more than a couple of articles!

Or are you proposing some kind of theory of untranslatability? Is there some kind of cryptopostmodern intellectual thing going on here?

I wasn't particularly trying to offer a whole picture of the status quo in the postsocialist period (post bellum means post war, tio); just pointing out uncomfortable truths for those who think that the US did right all through the Soviet socialism period and that things are better in every way now.

In the Middle Ages there was a role called Remembrancer; it meant debt collector; it was the job that involved reminding people of stuff they'd rather forget.

Sometimes places like LGF serve as historical or political remembrancers when people get too far up their theoretical asses, as over at

[Link: nuance.dhs.org...]

but other times it's LGF that needs remembrancing, especially in reminding that much of the arguments put forward here are taken for granted and unquestioned. If I refer to others it's not out of unoriginality but to place my thought in the context of other people's discussions about the same thing; there is no "world of thought" without articulation and discussion. Even common sense is up for negotiation because it varies from period to period and place to place; but just because things are negotiable doesn't make them worthless.

Charles and posters have drawn on palestinefacts, j-post and Steven Emerson...that's Steven "The Case of Iftikhar Chaudhry Khan" Emerson.

Now I have plenty of problems with the mainstream media, but I can't help but feel that the politics and procedures by which j-post et al go about their newsmaking are less responsible than those used by, say, the BBC, which for all its alleged bias is a public service broadcaster that strives, not always successfully, to give "news" in the sense understood in the context of the day.

J-Post even invites you to put money into the Israeli side...even the person who comes to that site with the heaviest bias before they start wouldn't expect "balance" or "objectivity" to play a part in matters, surely?

And although it was dismissed because I was considered to be presenting another person's ideas, I thoroughly recommend to you Jacqueline Rose's take on things:

[Link: www.channel4.com...]

Even if for remembrancing purposes only.

Adios amigos!

Ojalla que no mueran demasiada gente en la guerra que pareceis querer

one day i'll post in euskadi and that'll really throw you

or even, "muera"

man i'm tired...in every language

Re #182 and 183, Do you want to impress me, mister Belter? Do you speak Russian, Quechua or Brazilian Portuguese? What about Fla d'Ambu? P.S. I have got Maronites of Lebanon among my friends (I visit their parish), so I am quite well informed about the mess created there by so-called "palestinians".

Matt K have you gone crazy? What's the point of a language competition? Does the winner get to be king of the playground? That wasn't the point of my post and you know it.

And once again...Not a man! Por Dios...

"And once again...Not a man! Por Dios... "

Why does this remind me of Peanuts...

Marcie ( talking to Pepermint Patty)

Yes, sir...

lol

i loved peppermint patty

Belter,

one day i'll post in euskadi and that'll really throw you

I'm seriously afraid not. To tell the truth, there is not such a language. I suspect you meant Basque and in Basque itself it is called EUSKARA ( in some its dialects Eskuara), not Euskadi. And try to improve your Spanish - OJALA is spelled with one L (not with two like your Allah). So as you are mistaken with euskara and ojala, you must be wrong with Sabra and Shatila. Ondo ibili, Belter!

belter #182,

About BBC bias:

[Link: www.camera.org...]

Regardless of whether Palestine Facts and the Jerusalem Post may be biased in some of what they present, the fact is that they present facts. If your only argument to the various facts presented is that you think our sources are biased, that's hardly convincing wrt whether the facts are facts or not.

belter #182,

More about BBC bias: "Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."
-Fayad Abu Shamala, the BBC's Gaza correspondent. I believe he had over 10 years of experience when he said this at a rally. Note that he was not removed after having done so.