Looks like Bush

Quite. I'm furious the way that people like MP and those who share her opinions are ready to label the slightest criticism of Israel as anti-semitic. It's similar to the way that post 9/11 anyone in the US who criticised the war in Iraq was simply branded "un-American" or un-patriotic and therefore ignored.

Apart from the stifling of free speech this attitude promotes, it has a far worse aspect which is to devalue the meaning of anti-semitic and in a perverted way makes anti-semitism appear more mainstream and less horrifying.

As for MP's 'critique' of "The Power of Nightmares", it has no factual rebuttals of any point raised in the series. Instead it's a long and drawn out "outraged of Tunbridge Wells" type letter I'd expect to read in the Daily Mail. Perhaps she thinks that if she calls Curtis a liar often enough people will believe it?

Michael.

 

Is Melanie Philips wrong in any detail regarding the claims of 'The Power of Nightmares'? I didn't see the programmes.

'no factual rebuttals' implies that MP is wrong to suggest that TPON claims 'neocons dominate Washington' or that there was no threat from the USSR.

Paul

 

It's a more substantial piece than her previous one, but, as Ron says, her agenda is pretty clear. She's also factually incorrect on a few points, having now watched all three episodes myself there are things about the programme that annoyed me, and some overstatements, but the basic case as I understood it is very different from Phillips' reading of it. A few examples:

It did. And AFAICT most balanced and knowledgeable observers now believe this to be largely the case. One-nil to Curtis. Phillips feigning shock at the very suggestion doesn't answer the question.

They are indeed a tiny group. But their politics unquestionably dominate US foreign policy, to the extent that the war in Iraq was planned and executed entirely against the urging of many of Bush's senior non-neocon advisers, who had made it clear to him there was no proven link whatsoever between Saddam and al Qaeda. It was the neocons who wanted war at all costs, and they got what they wanted because they have Bush's ear. I don't think this is really debateable.

It wasn't a big deal in the way that Phillips wants it to be. Anybody who sees the cold war as anything other than a myth of good versus evil (which side being good and which evil is largely dependent on your politics, obviously) is guilty of astonishing naivety. The Soviet Union was a deeply unpleasant entity, but so were many of the regimes cynically supported by the US. "Neither Washington nor Moscow" is the only rational response to the cold war. (A similar attitude to the objectives of US foreign policy with regard to both Israel and the Palestinians would seem to be in order too. Washington is hardly on the side of the angels, after all.)

They are worse than Clinton. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I don't think he would have invaded Iraq post 9/11.

And I think he had a point.

-- Ian

 

Well, of course it's 'agenda'. That's why I referenced it. It's useful to have an opposing view to the agenda of the television programme.

I actually enjoyed the programme, while disagreeing with much of its slant. However, the programme utilized a number of propoganda techniques that I find a bit of a turn off. These techniques included the use of lighting and photography to make the 'bad guys' look sinister and the 'good guys' look like boy scouts and (although I admit I had to smile here) the use of sinister music to reinforce the programme maker's views.

Are you sure of this?

Michael seems to think so and goes a step further ...

Furious eh, Michael? Actually, MP does not always label the slightest criticism of Israel as anti-semitic. Perhaps it's just 'people like MP' who do this.

One of the problems in this area is that the Arabs themselves, particularly the Arab press and television, are often genuinely anti-semitic.

Perhaps, but only by a minority on the far right.

 

Ian,

On a separate point (since you bring it up), I WAS a fan of Clinton. I think he worked exceptionally hard to broker peace, both in the Middle East and Northern Ireland. I agree with you that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq, although it has to be said that the sanctions that he supported were causing tremendous hardships to 'ordinary Iraqis'. Still, probably the lesser of two evils.

On balance, give me a US president who's a womaniser over one of those moral, religious types anyday.

 

Hallelujah to that ;-)

-- Ian

 

I'd vote Clinton for President..
So long as it was George Clinton!

Paint the Whitehouse black etc!!

 

IMO, they have every right to be. Israel is a Jewish nation state. Israel = Jews and vice versa. When the nation state is responsible for the kind of aggression and denegration of Arabs that it has been then the Arabs have every right to hate Israel. On top of which, when you see interviews of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories on TV of fathers telling their 6 year old sons to that it is the right thing to do to kill any Arab that he sees outside his house, what kind of attitude do you expect Arabs to have towards Jews/Israel. As far as I can tell the racism is blatant and in full force on both sides of the fence, Jews/Israelis just have a name for theirs and a very big emotional stick that they hold the world to ransom with every time they accuse someone of it. They very often use the Holocaust as their "get out of jail free" card for every one of the atrocities they commit. I honestly believe that if Israel wasn't a Jewish state they would have been dealt with militarily a long time ago by some other coalition force. In fact they wouldn't be the superpower of the middle east in the first place.

It's all well and good for people to start screaming anti-sematism but it shouldn't be used as a shield for a nation to commit crimes against humanity.

GTM

 

Very well put GTM. My thoughts exactly and expressed rather more eloquently than I was able to.

Michael.

 

Israel isn't a 'Jewish nation state', it's a liberal democracy with Arab and Jews as citizens. Your analysis goes rapidly downhill from there.

I'm surprised the Michael finds the justification of racism to be 'well put' and 'eloquent'.

Paul

 

The actions of such settlers are extremely distasteful and, in my view, they merely lower themselves to the level of their extremist enemies. However, such settlers are very much in the minority amongst Israelis.

Arab anti-semitism started way before 1967, way before the existence of these settlers, in fact, before the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a follower of Hitler's and a Nazi. His visit to Germany during the war is believed to have been the trigger and an inspiration for the 'Final Solution' enacted by the Nazis shortly afterwards and he was a close friend and adviser to the Final Solution architect, Eichman. He also tried to persuade Hitler to implement his genocide of the Jews in Palestine.

Certainly there have been atrocities committed by Israelis and I do not defend them. However, to imply that anti-semitism is used 'as a shield for a nation to commit crimes against humanity' is a gross distortion of the truth.

 

Paul,

The part of GTM's post I was specifically referring to was:

Calling GTM's post a "justification of racism" is just the kind of misuse of the term he was referring to.

Michael.

 

GTM's post is exactly a justification of racism. 'IMO they have every right to be (anti-semitic)' how else to you describe it?

Paul

 

Paul - you're willfully misunderstanding what GTM meant. The implication from his post is that the Israelis also have every right to be anti-arab (which they are as much as Arabs are anti-Israeli) and that's just as racist but it doesn't have an emotionally charged name for it.

Michael.

 

Given that we have been giving them a hard time, it's nice to see this appear to reassure us all.

 

Nobody has the right to be racist. Racism is wrong full stop. Israel isn't racist, although some Jews and Jewish organisations are. Some Arab states and the leading organisations within them are racist but not all their citizens are.

The PLA, Hamas, Syria, Iran, Saddam era Iraq, all sponsor/have sponsored terrorist attacks on Israel and in the relatively recent past direct military aggression against Israel. They still have as stated aims the elimination of Israel. Israel does not have a reciprocal policy. I think some people have very confused morals and a limited view of the world.

Paul

 

The Arabs are second class citizens in everything but name. They may well be tollerated but they certainly don't get the same right to jobs etc that Jews do.


If the self proclaimed "Jewish homeland" state of Israel doesn't make it a Jewish nation state then I am baffled as to you interpretation of the term.

As Micheals points out. All I was attempting to ilustrate is the reason why the Arabs are anti-semitic. I would challenge any body in their position not to be so. I certainly wasn't intending to justify racism, just explain it. There is a distinct difference between the two.

In actual fact plenty of Jews are very liberal and are against what their government is doing to the palestinians, but that doesn't really count for much when the Israeli goverment has just murdered your 10 year old son, (for throwing rocks at a tank for god sake !! - how much of a threat is that??), and bulldozed your house.

I honestly do believe that Israel is literally getting away with murder, because the governments of the west are too afraid to critisize them too harshly for fear of being accused of anti-semitism, and because of lingering guilt that the holocaust was partially their fault too.

GTM

 

Your position makes no sense. By your logic Israeli atrocity is more than justified by Arab aggression. And in general the Arab aggression came first, so who is more justifiably racist? How would you respond to suicide bombers? Scud missiles? Mass tank assault?

There's never any justification for racism. Criticise Israel or Hamas, but you cannot generalise from Israeli government policy to Jews in general, or from Hamas to Palestinians.

Paul

 

paul,
i think the argument is that atrocities have been commited by both sides from suicide bombeers on school busses to helicopter gunship strikes on civilian areas. neither side is in the right. however in the west there is the spectre of anti-semitism if the israelis are criticised too heavily. this means that the media takes the easy route of demonising the palestinians in order to avoid a drubbing from a rabbi wanting to make a name for himself. not that i'm being anti-semitic there bishops can be media whores too. - see what i mean? if i hadn't qualified my remark then i may have been thought anti-semitic. which is perhaps an anti-semitic attitude in itself. is is actually pc to be pc? or is that just calling attention to someone being different? my head hurts.
cheers


julian

 

Every other country in the region, including the Palestinian Authority, has Islam as its official religion and discriminates against non-Muslims, especially Jews. Jordan, for example, has a law that specifically forbids Jews from becoming citizens, even if their families have been in Jordan for generations. Likewise, Saudi Arabia bases its eligibility for citizenship on religious affiliation.

Israel is a Jewish state (isn't the UK a Christian country?) but it is largely secular and gives complete freedom of religion to Muslims, Christians and other religions.

Also, despite some lingering inequalities, there is far less discrimination in Israel than in any Arab or Muslim nation in the Middle East.

Can you show us some specific examples where someone has been labelled anti-semitic for criticizing Israel? All democracies need criticism and Israel is no exception.

Your comment "lingering guilt that the holocaust was partially their fault too" is worthy of comment. In the case of Germany and nearly all of the European countries under Nazi rule, it has been shown that a considerable proportion of the citizens colluded with the holocaust. The word "partially" is over generous.