As Gen. Sisi’s tyranny worsens, U.S. support increases, because support for despotism is a staple of U.S. foreign policy. Still, a video celebrating this support is unusually honest though warped.
The Egyptian regime run by the despotic Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is one of the world’s most brutal and repressive. Last year, Human Rights Watch documented that that Egyptian “security forces have carried out mass arrests and torture that harken back to the darkest days of former President Hosni Mubarak’s rule.” Just two months ago, the group warned that the abuses have “escalated,” and that Sisi, “governing by decree in the absence of an elected parliament, ha[s] provided near total impunity for security force abuses and issued a raft of laws that severely curtailed civil and political rights, effectively erasing the human rights gains of the 2011 uprising that ousted the longtime ruler Hosni Mubarak.”
Despite that repression — or, more accurately, because of it — the Obama administration has lavished the regime with aid, money and weapons, just as the U.S. government did for decades in order to prop up Hosni Mubarak. When Sisi took power in a coup, not only did the U.S. government support him but it praised him for restoring “democracy.” Since then, the U.S. has repeatedly sent arms and money to the regime as its abuses became more severe. As the New York Times delicately put it yesterday, “American officials . . . signaled that they would not let their concerns with human rights stand in the way of increased security cooperation with Egypt.”
None of that is new: A staple of U.S. foreign policy has long been to support heinous regimes as long as they carry out U.S. dictates, all in order to keep domestic populations in check and prevent their views and beliefs (which are often averse to the U.S.) from having any effect on the actions of their own government. Just today, the American and Egyptian governments jointly issued a lengthy statement on a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, which it said was “based on the shared belief that it is necessary to deepen the Egypt-U.S. bilateral relationship to advance our shared interest after almost four decades of close partnership and cooperation.” While Kerry suggested in the meeting that severe repression may not be strategically shrewd, the official statement did not even reference, let alone condemn, the regime’s human rights abuses: credit for not pretending to care, I suppose.
[The U.S. media pretended to be on the side of Tahir Square democracy protesters despite decades of support from the American government for Mubarak. Recall that in 2009 Hillary Clinton pronounced: “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.” A WikiLeaks cable, anticipating the first meeting between Obama and Mubarak in 2009, emphasized that “the Administration wants to restore the sense of warmth that has traditionally characterized the U.S.-Egyptian partnership” and that “the Egyptians want the visit to demonstrate that Egypt remains America’s ‘indispensible [sic] Arab ally.’” The cable noted that “[intelligence] Chief Omar Soliman and Interior Minister al-Adly keep the domestic beasts at bay, and Mubarak is not one to lose sleep over their tactics.”]
The Leader of the Free World’s long and clear history of lavishing the world’s most repressive regimes with money and weapons is usually carried out with a bit of stealth, so that its inspiring, self-flattering rhetoric about Supporting Freedom and Democracy — used to justify invasions and other forms of imperial domination — will be credible to its domestic media and population (even if to nobody else in the world). But this week, the U.S. government not only proudly touted its sending of weapons to the Cairo regime, but published a video celebrating it.
The official Twitter account of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Friday actually posted this:
The Arabic part of the tweet reads “Long Live Egypt”; as the NYT noted yesterday, that is “repeating a phrase that is known here primarily as the slogan from the presidential campaign of” Gen. Sisi.
It’s creepy enough that worship of military weaponry is now centrally integrated into America’s most sacred collective religious ritual: sporting events. But to strut around with videos boasting of this display of force by a tyrannical regime over its own people — courtesy of the U.S. government — is just wretched.
Not only the U.S. but also its closest Western allies are supplying Sisi with weapons. Just last week, the U.K. “quietly resumed multimillion-pound arms deals with” that government, including “arms sales to Egypt’s autocratic regime worth 48.8 million pounds ($76.3 million),” while in February “French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian visited Egyptian capital Cairo . . . to ink a deal for the sale of military hardware worth up to $6 billion.” These are the very same countries, of course, which endlessly claim to find human rights violations to be so deeply disturbing (when carried out by the governments that don’t obey them) that they have to fight wars to end them.
Still, explicitly celebrating videos of a tyrant parading his U.S.-supplied military might over the citizens whom he’s oppressing: that has to be a new low. It doesn’t even make sense from the perspective of the typical U.S. strategy of pretending to pressure its tyrannical allies to improve on the human rights front. Something like this is so extreme, so blatant, that it might even run the risk of having U.S. journalists who constantly believe that the U.S. government is opposed to repression and autocracy (in the context of non-compliant countries such as Iran, Russia, Libya, China and Venezuela) to ponder for a second or two whether that’s actually true or whether it’s pure propaganda.
Caption: In this Sept. 25, 2014, photo, President Barack Obama meets with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, left, in New York.
“And thanks the gods I am relatively unknown. I am fame-averse. ” Mona
Lol….”relatively unknown”…NO You are unknown, your “friend” Greenwald is famous for BSing on your face. And you love it!
Lol “fame-averse”…lol. Stupid excuses from a dumb ass hiding behind a computer for 10 years. That is the best way to avoid the laughing crowd in public.
Dumb Ass!
Craig, you’d do better to throw in the towel and stop insisting that Zionism wasn’t colonialism. What you should argue is that colonialism is sometimes justified and that the persecution of the Jews was something that justifies it.
That would be wrong, and I’d argue against it, but at least you wouldn’t resemble a creationist denying the fossil record if you’d let go of your analogous, absurd denial.
“…….Craig, you’d do better to throw in the towel and stop insisting that Zionism wasn’t colonialism…..”
It is not insisting Mona. Everything I have listed shows that Zionism and colonialism were as different as night and day. Your explanation for the reason Zionism began 40 years before the British Mandate for Palestine is problematic – and you know it. Your explanation is that during that time some Jews opposed Zionism which is certainly correct (to this day), but that does not explain why immigration began AT ALL without British help.
You have not explained the different goals and motivations for Zionism versus the goals of the colonial powers. They were completely different political movements with no relation at all except they were all Caucasians.
You have not explained why Jewish immigrants did not claim the land for a colonial power – or how the immigrants were able to predict the outcome of WWI in favor of the British. The Jewish immigrants must have employed a very reliable soothsayer?
The reason that you want very badly to tie Zionism to colonialism is simply to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state (just like Zionism is racism, etc.). This is just one of a bunch of fabrications used by the left to justify anti-colonial, anti-western political positions in the name of social change. That, of course, is not just confined to Israel.
But I do appreciate your effort. However, you cannot win on any of those issues. I am sure we will revisit this issue many more times in the future. So thanks for your response (you didn’t have to). We will also revisit where you rank the murder of 50,000-250,000 Jews in five years on your scale of 1-10.
What is there to explain? A comparative trickle were immigrating in that period. The nature of the Zionist project was not yet fully formed, and that’s why Jabotinksy had to fight for his political, militaristic, colonial Zionism to prevail. He won.
If you believe that you have something wrong in your brain. No snark. Neurons are misfiring or something.
You have that exactly reversed. I used to be a total Zionist. I very badly wanted it to be good and noble, just like the narrative I’d been fed my whole life. But then I began reading smart, fact-based critiques of Israel and Zionism, and learning the actual history, and also came to learn that American Indians identified with the Palestinians. It was quickly apparent why.
There was no getting around it: Zionism is and was a colonialist, militaristic project of imposing ethno-religious supremacy on an ethnically cleansed indigenous population, and then maintaining them in an apartheid state in their refugee camps. It is horrible, illiberal and inhuman.
I spent decades advocating something that is simply pernicious and evil. Now I make up for it by fighting for the truth.
“I used to be a total Zionist…….I began reading smart, fact-based ….Zionism……colonialist……ethno-religious supremacy….. apartheid state …….Now I make up for it by fighting for the truth…..”
Lying is an odd way of fighting for the truth, don’t you think? Just like Blumenthal, you pick and choose what you want to believe – and much of it is far from fact-based. I refer to it as standard far left wing rhetoric and lies. Your obsession with Israei is far from healthy, and you hold Israel to a completely different standard than any other country in the world. It doesn’t really matter in the long run because Israel as a Jewish state isn’t changing anytime soon.
Thanks.
Lying is an odd way of fighting for the truth, don’t you think? Just like Blumenthal, you pick and choose what you want to believe – and much of it is far from fact-based.</blockquote.
I do not ever lie — and you have never demonstrated a single falsehood that I've written. Max Blumenthal's books have been SCOURED by armies of Zionists for errors, and almost none have been found. His work is fact-intensive and even a furious Eric Alterman had to admit it was "technically accurate."
You, amusingly, are lying about lying.
“…..If any lurkers wish to know the rebuttal to your current assertions, I hope they will unlurk long enough to ask, but otherwise I decline to do it again for you….”
The beauty of your responses is that you believe that prolific posting of quotes prove an argument, but you are wrong, Mona. Thus far your documentation proves nothing about the period between 1880 and 1917 when Zionists immigrated to Palestine without the help of the British (they were nice Zionists, I guess). Indeed, as far as I know, the Jews didn’t claim the land in the name of Britain (or Russia). British colonization was motivated by economic considerations and expanding the British Empire. Jews were motivated by Russian anti-Jewish pogroms (murder) and returning to their home in Palestine. Using the colonial powers to realize your dream doesn’t make it a colonial venture (unless you are a far left wing extremist). Finally, quoting someone saying they were following the colonial model doesn’t make it colonialism. After all, if you follow the very successful business model of Apple, that doesn’t make you Apple.
It only resembles colonialism because the Jewish people were Caucasian. Of course, to all radical leftist, the world was completely screwed up by colonialism so why not lie and add Jewish immigrants to the list if it fits your political ideology??
Thanks Mona
Yeah, and there just were not that many of them. Many if not most Jews in that period were anti-Zionist. Some of them fiercely so.
Nope. If I claim X did Y, and find ample evidence of X saying and neutral others reporting that X did do Y, I have proven my fact claim by any reasonable standard. And that’s what I do, Craig, copiously. (You will not that every now and then someone pops up and thanks me for the great abundance of relevant information I have command of.)
It doesn’t just resemble it — it is it: colonization and displacement of indigenous people for all the reason Ze’ev Jabotinsky insisted it was. I’ve already zipped that argument up right here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/03/u-s-government-celebrates-arming-egyptian-regime-youtube-video/?comments=1#comment-155177
I see.
Brian Eno endorses Jeremy Corbyn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-63o7M63XA
I know this is a small thing, but there are nine aircraft in the video, and how do we know that the flyover is over Cairo? Also, the picture in the article leads one to believe that Obama might be watching the video, when the disclaimer is at the end of the article. Pretty sloppy.
@Mona
— “non-athletic”
Ouch.
Also too, leave Blossom out of this. Have you no decency?
Obviously, Mona has never seen Chariots of Fire.
I certainly have, and I know of Sandy Koufax. But I said “over-represented.” Jews are not over-represented in professional athletics. I didn’t say there are none at all.
Mona
“……They are both true. Craig claims: “Jabotinsky has become your favorite scapegoat for Jewish nationalism.” Jabotinsky was the decisive factor in moving Zionism into being a thoroughly political and militaristic (including terroristic) ideology of cethnic cleansing, land appropriation and blood and soil nationalism……”
That is a bit of an overstatement. As you have now ignored twice, Jabotinsky was present during the Russian pogroms and organized Jewish defenses against the anti-Jewish murder in Russia. Remember that 50,000-250,000 Jews were murdered in just five years between 1917 and 1922. He understood that better than anyone that Jews would continue to be victims of murderous pogroms if they remained passive. Jabotinsky organized Irgun in Palestine to defend Jews against the Palestinians – specifically the anti Jewish riots in the 1920s and 1930s. Just so you understand, the Jews accepted the partition without violence. The Palestinians did just the opposite leading to the ethnic cleansing in 1948.
By the way, on your scale of 1-10, where does the murder of 50,000 – 250,000 Jews in five years rank, Mona?
Gator
“……You and Mona are both right. Zionism resulted, in large part, from horrific persecution of Jews by gentiles. It also is a violent, racist species of nationalism…..”
The answer is unequivocally NO, Gator. Zionism is not racism. “Zionism equals racism” attacks and delegitimizes the moral basis for Jewish nationalism and Jewish self-determination . The UN resolution, 3379, is steeped in political motivation and is something I would never support under any circumstance. The most vicious kinds of hate and misplaced anger come from the lies advanced by the radical left. You can easily detect that with Mona’s posts – and she is clearly obsessed with Zionism [Jews].
By passing UN resolution 3379, the world condemned Zionism as a form of racism and discrimination – and exposed their own racism and political motivation. I have also mentioned on numerous occasions that the Jews have done the same the same by denying Palestinians self-determination. Let me reiterate one more time:
1. Zionism equals racism is false – and racist.
2. Israel was not a colonial venture (it was – and is – a Zionist venture)
3. Israel is not an ethno-supremacist state
4. Israel in no way resembles Apartheid South Africa
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the political motivation for every one of these statements is to undermine the legitimacy of Israel. In my mind – and I’m comfortable with this thinking – every one of the above statements is a politically motivated lie.
Thanks Gator. I appreciate your patience and the patience of all the posters as Mona and I absolutely dominate the thread (several threads recently).
Craig asserts all kinds of stuff again, like this:
Political Zionism is a colonial venture and is what created Israel. So, Israel is a colonial venture. I’ve posted tons of documentation for that fact in this article’s comments section alone. But over the past several years I’ve published a virtual library of documentation demonstrating the falsehood of your assertions.
As for the rest of your assertions and/or accusations today, I’ve also rebutted those many, many times — with copious support. You, however, simply re-assert.
If any lurkers wish to know the rebuttal to your current assertions, I hope they will unlurk long enough to ask, but otherwise I decline to do it again for you.
Thus far your documentation proves nothing about the period between 1880 and 1917 when Zionists immigrated to Palestine without the help of the British. Indeed, as far as I know, the Jews didn’t claim the land in the name of Britain (or Russia). British colonization was motivated by economic considerations and expanding the British Empire. Jews were motivated by Russian anti-Jewish pogroms (murder) and returning to their home in Palestine. Using the colonial powers to realize your dream doesn’t make it a colonial venture (unless you are a far left wing extremist). Finally, quoting someone saying they were following the colonial model doesn’t make it colonialism. After all, if you follow the very successful business model of Apple, that doesn’t make you Apple.
It only resembles colonialism because the Jewish people were Caucasian. Of course, to all radical leftist, the world was completely screwed up by colonialism so why not lie and add Jewish immigrants to the list if it fits your political ideology??
Thanks Mona
Uh-huh, well, the prevailing leader of the “model movement” saying they were undertaking colonialism and could expect the same reaction from the indigenous population that all other colonialists encountered, that man and his confreres are colonialists.
Americans who are turned away at Ben Gurion and not allowed into The Only Democracy™: Palestinain-Americans, like novelists and elderly professors wanting to visit their families. The American embassy refuses them any assistance:
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.669734?date=1438804750980&utm_content=buffer32fce&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
“You would think that sillyputty would criticize you [Mona] for using that “label” so much. – CraigSplainingSummers
Honestly, what part of “it’s not the label, it’s the specific acts” do you not understand?
In other words, actions that are done in specific cases deserve our scrutiny – and labeling these acts or the person or group doing them does nothing to further the discussion.
People here tell you this, over and over, yet you still willfully ignore them.
CraigSplainingSummers, here’s the difference: Mona provides specific acts that can be corroborated with evidence, which she supplies in abundance.
You, in the other hand, supply innuendo, ideological blathering and wishful thinking in order to support a world view which is unsupportable given the evidence available to everyone here, provided that the have an open mind.
CraigSplainingSummers, your arguments are nothing but an exemplar of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
On the one hand, it’s pretty sad watching you get your ass handed to you day in and day out here, bludgeoned to rhetorical death by facts. On the other hand it’s a joy to watch, and a great learning experience for those of us not as conversant in the reality of the Jewish dilemma and the Middle East.
Mona does deserve praise, not because we’ve exchanged the loyal-lefty handshake as your utterly inane retorts are meant to imply, but because she’s the one that brings the facts and best evidence to rebut your tribalistic jingoism and the absolutely evidence-free arguments that you proffer here.
So in the end, CraigSplainingSummers, the facts themselves are beating you.
Deal with it.
“The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.” – Aleister Crowley
Mona
“……Zionism is violent, imperialist, murderous, racist nationalism of the very worst sort……”
Simplistic and racist, Mona. Zionism is the result of violent, murderous, racist anti-Jewish bigotry practiced by Muslims and Christians for two thousand years – especially by Russians in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.
Jabotinsky has become your favorite scapegoat for Jewish nationalism. He is Russian and was present during the pogroms in that country and helped create the Jewish defenses in Russia and Palestine (Irgun). In Palestine, Jewish defenses developed as a response to Arab violence against Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. Both cases of racism – plain and simple.
And just to reinforce the reasons for Zionism (less violent waves occurred in Eastern Europe/Russia in ~1880 and 1903-1906):
“……1917-22……Despite the period of relative peace, a third and final wave of pogroms began in 1917, lasting for about five years. This wave of riots was easily the bloodiest, leaving potentially tens of thousands dead. While statistics from this era are incomplete, at least one thousand pogroms occurred, with 887 being reported as “major”…….The riots were massive, sometimes claiming the lives of thousands of Jews in a few hours. The total is put between 50,000 to 250,000……”
The 50,000-250,000 death toll of Jews probably outnumbers the total amount of Palestinians that have died from all wars with Israel – in one five year period. You can hardly blame the Jews for creating a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine – as a refuge against anti-Jewish racism.
Zionism is racism alright – eastern European and Islamic racism
@Craig – You and Mona are both right. Zionism resulted, in large part, from horrific persecution of Jews by gentiles. It also is a violent, racist species of nationalism. Can’t these both be true? Aren’t they both obviously true?
@Mona – “the very worst sort”
Nah, there have been worse.
They are both true. Craig claims: “Jabotinsky has become your favorite scapegoat for Jewish nationalism.” Jabotinsky was the decisive factor in moving Zionism into being a thoroughly political and militaristic (including terroristic) ideology of cethnic cleansing, land appropriation and blood and soil nationalism. That is, his vision prevailed; hence, I focus on him.
For most of my adult life I was a Zionist precisely because of the history of gentile persecution of Jews. I bought the romantic, Hollywood “Exodus” version of Zionism and didn’t “see” Palestinian Arabs. Then, I began to learn how deeply I’d been lied to. And then, I found Palestinian voices.
That was it for me. I began to seriously criticize Israel, and I found myself confronted with individuals and writings of Jewish people that were revolting. Utterly repugnant. Many Jewish Zionists were the complete opposite of univeralists in their morality; they were supremacists and even fascists.
In the U.S. Jews are not only safe, many are very privileged. No stigma attaches at all to being Jewish in America anymore. And, there is truth to what Max Blumenthal means when he tells American Zionists that their ancestral home is in New York City.
However severe the suffering of Jews in history, they had and have no license to do what they did and do to Palestinians. Blumenthal again: Zionism destroys Palestinian bodies and Jewish souls.
@Mona – “No stigma attaches at all to being Jewish in America anymore.”
Sure, that’s why we’ve had so many Jewish presidents.
I decline to go into personal detail on this point, but I will say that this is a rare instance in which you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Three Supreme Court justices, scads of congress-critters.
I believe I do, based on what Jews say. Philip Weiss:
–
I’ve read quite a number of younger Jewish people saying they are privileged in America. One thing’s for sure — Glenn’s Jewishness never stopped him one whit, and certainly not in NYC. (We had two clients/prospective clients, Orthodox, who didn’t want me in on the consultations. Part of it was my gender, but it was also that I wasn’t “of the tribe.”)
Rest of Weiss piece here:
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/jewish-privilege#sthash.pUPWpVuH.dpuf
@Mona
There have been black Supreme Court justices, and even, I hear, a black president. Black Americans have succeeded in all walks of life. One could scarcely begin to list the black Americans who have been rich, famous and beloved. Would you say the stigma of being black in America has vanished?
I am not, of course, suggesting that being Jewish in America is the same as being black in America. It obviously isn’t. But it isn’t the same as being a WASP, either, and prominent success stories prove less than you think.
As for what “Jews say,” well, Jews say lots of things. Jon Stewart says he changed his name because he was pissed at his dad. Who knows, maybe that’s even true. (He didn’t change it to Horowitz, though. That name wasn’t good enough for Winona, either.)
Why have American Jews felt the need to establish and rely upon “kinship networks”?
I suppose for the same reasons Masons do, or Irish-Catholics who go to Notre Dame. Human beings network based on tribe.
Again, I’ve lived in a heavily Jewish area and see absolutely no stigma, but rather, a great deal of money and power. Successful Jews are over-represented in virtually every non-athletic professional field. Black America has nowhere near the representation in the halls of power or the money that Jewish America does.
John Stewart is my age, and even at that his name change was unusual for our generation. Jesse Eisenberg hasn’t changed his name, nor Mayim Bialik.
BTW, I already understand and accept this point:
But I was responding to this from you:
Jews are greatly over-represented in powerful positions: financial, political, scientific, legal and artistic. If they are in any way still stigmatized in the U.S., this is a desirable stigmatization.
The point is, Jews are so deeply rooted in American power, no policies dangerous to them as Jews could possibly get off the ground.
Well, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most vicious and violent, I’d put the Zionist plunder of the Palestinians at a 7. They weren’t Viking hordes raping then killing all the women, killing all the babies by throwing them at walls or balancing them on the tips of their swords & etc. It was, and continues to be, a modern, 20th century ethnic cleansing.
This may be of interest to you Craig, if you have not seen it yet:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/192626/froman-zionist-post-zionism?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=ffce9b9d6d-Tuesday_August_4_20158_4_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-ffce9b9d6d-207471825
I skimmed the article because of its length and my time, but it seems to be a very good article about about modern Zionism. I thought this was a very good paragraph in the article and certainly appears to be true:
“……As a movement that was intended to establish Jewish sovereignty and freedom, in Froman’s mind, Zionism in general, and religious Zionism in particular, had become a tool to control another people, thereby limiting their freedom and by extension, making Zionism itself an emblem of unfreedom. In effect, according to Froman Zionism was in danger of losing its moral foundations……”
This is the main reason in my opinion that Israel is losing in the international propaganda war. I firmly believe that economic pressure will be exerted on Israel eventually by the west. A two state solution is still viable, but Israel needs to make some difficult decisions about uprooting some settlements in the WB.
Thanks for the article.
The article is stealth propaganda. Egypt had to twice kick out a brutal puppet regime of the US Government. But the US continues to illegally back terrorist groups who would overthrow Egypt’s independent government. Coming down hard on those terrorist agitators is the only way to keep the US out of Egypt.
Mona
“…….Now Craig, why do you post horseshit like that when you know I can and have demonstrated that forcibly removing the Arabs was part of the plan for political Zionists [Jews] from the time of Jabotisnky, if not before? The letter above by Judah Magnes shows he also knew the political Zionists [Jews] were likely planning it. The Zionist [Jewish] immigrants could have chosen fair and peaceful co-existence as Magnes advocated. They did not. They were racists who chose land theft, oppression and ethnic cleansing……”
Magnes correctly indicated that the Jewish people would fight for a state of their own, but there was no plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Palestine which was carried out by the Zionists [Jews]. In fact, the ethnic cleansing took place after four months of Palestinian and Arab militia violence against the Zionists [Jews].
Benny Morris, “1948: The First Arab-Israeli War”, page 120 -121:
“…….Plan D has given rise over the decades to a minor historiographic controversy, with the Palestinian and pro Palestinian historians charging that it was Haganah’s master plan for the expulsion of the country’s Arabs. But a cursory examination of the actual text leads to a different conclusion………. Nowhere does the document speak of a policy to expel “the Arab inhabitants” of Palestine or of any of its constituent regions; nowhere is any brigade instructed to clear out “the Arabs”…….”
About 700,000 Palestinians were expelled during the 1948 war. The Jews had been under attack from the Palestinian Arabs and Arab militias since the partition plan was announced in late 1947.
Bennie Morris, “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War”, p116:
“……….the Haganah switched to the offensive in early April [1948], also simply, because it could. For four months under continuous provocation and attack, the Yishuv largely held itself in check, initially in the hopes that the disturbances would blow over……….” (my addition)
In addition, Arab states had threatened to attack the Jews. As the Arabs had expressed at the UN in 1947, they would oppose the creation of a Jewish state with violence (which is exactly what they attempted to do).
Bennie Morris, “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War”, p. 116:
“……….But the Haganah had little choice. With the Arab world loudly threatening and seemingly mobilizing for invasion, the Yishuv’s political and military leaders understood that they would first have to crush the Palestinian militias in the main towns and along the main roads and the countries borders if they were to stand a chance beating off the invading armies. And there was an ineluctable time frame. The Palestinians would have to be defeated in the six weeks remaining before the British departure, scheduled for 15 May………”
Clearly, the threat of the attacking Arabs resulted in expelling the Arabs. No territory had been conquered until the end of March – fully four months after the partition was announced. Quote all you want, about what Zionists [Jews] planned, but that doesn’t change why the Palestinians were expelled. It was only when it became apparent that they needed to prepare for the Arab invasion that the ethnic cleansing took place.
Thanks Mona.
Well, not quite. What he wrote in 1929 was, my emphasis:
Because Magnes paid attention to what you willfully ignore, to wit, the words of the popular Jabotisnksy, implicitly comparing Jewish immigrants with Europeans on the one hand, and the indigenous Arabs with the Indians Europeans plundered in North America on the other:
So when you write:
No shit! As Jabotinsky knew and insisted, no colonized people ever just sat down and agreed to lose their land and homes to settlers and colonizers.
Yes, crazy, evil Arabs trying to defend against a colonial usurpation of the land and rights of a native Arab population. (All as Zionists are luring European support with the promise of a Jewish state constituting a European outpost in the Middle East, which no doubt delighted the Arabs.) So the Zionists just took the land, a lot of land, during a war in which they committed terror against Arabs and ethnically cleansed many of them via terrorism. (Causing Albert Einstein to denounce Menachem Begin as a terrorist and fascist.)
Zionism is violent, imperialist, murderous, racist nationalism of the very worst sort.
The middle east is all about hate and religion and nothing more. Killing is just as normal as eating, it is necessary to live the Islamic way of life. Religion is the planets worst enemy and not climate change as is being touted in todays world.
Ryde on back away, there, troll.
What follows is a letter written in 1929 by the founder of Hebrew University, Judah Magnes, to Chaim Weizman, President of the Zionist Organization (who would be the first President of Israel). Emphasis is mine:
The imperialistic, ethno-religious supremacist, militaristic, oppressive, land-thieving Zionism that Dr. Magnes found so odious prevailed, and still does. It was rancid to the core from the outset and remains so as shown in the bodies of burned and maimed Palestinian babies, children, women and innocent men, and those living as refugees in an open air prison called Gaza.
“……The imperialistic, ethno-religious supremacist, militaristic, oppressive, land-thieving Zionism that Dr. Magnes found so odious prevailed, and still does. It was rancid to the core from the outset and remains so as shown in the bodies of burned and maimed Palestinian babies, children, women and innocent men, and those living as refugees in an open air prison called Gaza…..”
The one thing all your reading has done is familiarize yourself with the buzzwords. I mentioned in my last reply that Zionists were conflicted on the creation of a “forced” Jewish state or a “home” for the Jewish people i.e., bi-national, or single state. As Arab resistance grew (1936-1939 riots), Jews likely decided that building a home where you are once again second class citizens was not going to solve any Jewish issues – especially with the situation in Germany at the time. If there was any doubt, or a split leadership, the Holocaust certainly motivated Jews toward a state of their own. The Holocaust was not the deciding factor for creating a state, but it sure was a reality check on anti-Jewish hate and bigotry.
Jews are much more militant today than prior to WWII. No one is going to save them from future atrocities. They understand that all too well.
Thanks Mona.
Let me fix that for you tracking Dr. Magnes’ words:
And you say:
Fascist. Zionist Jews are fascist in much larger numbers than Jews were early in the 20th century. (You know I can cite Israelis admitting to fascism, so go for it if you want to.)
It really doesn’t matter to me what you cite or who you cite. Blumenthal, for example, presents only one side of the story. He is a propagandist for Hamas.
Providing quotes is fine, but generally, they prove nothing – except you are infatuated with the word fascist. You would think that sillyputty would criticize you for using that “label” so much. Oh well, radival leftist generally stick together.
We have some more peak Craig:
Yes, you learned that from little Benny Shapiro, didn’t you? The same day Chuck Hagel gave a speech to Friends of Hamas, Max Blumenthal signed on as their PR man. Young Benny Shapiro and Craig Summers told me so.
You didn’t major in history, did you? The textbooks are full of all this meaningless quote stuff.
If I called other commenters fascists as often as you call us “leftists” I imagine he would. But I am discussing countries, not individuals I disagree with politically. Israel is heading toward full-bore fascism. I could link you to intelligent Israelis stating how and why this is, but you think that their words a priori prove nothing.
“……Yes, you learned that from little Benny Shapiro, didn’t you?….”
Never heard of him until I read your response. Every prolific writer like Blumenthal and Greenwald eventually betray their own biases.
In the interview with Greenwald, Blumenthal bends over backwards to essentially congratulate and highlight the small number of civilian casualties killed by Hamas during the last war:
“…….So, the development of the al-Qassam brigades is one of the untold stories of this war. If we look at the casualty total of Israeli citizens, we see that about 72 Israeli citizens died. Sixty-seven of them were combat soldiers, which is evidence that soldiers and not civilians were targeted.
Mohammed Deif, the commander of the al-Qassam brigades, and his spokesman, Abu Ubaida, both explicitly declared they were targeting Israeli soldiers, and not civilians. They mocked the Israeli military as cowards for attacking civilians in the Gaza Strip…….”
Blumenthal (and the Hamas operatives) clearly ignores the long brutal history of targeting civilians by Hamas. At this point, he has become a spokesman for the internationally recognized terrorist organization propagating propaganda on their behalf. I have read almost nothing of what he writes, but one interview with Greenwald exposed his agenda. By the way, Mr. Blumenthal:
“……The Shaar HaNegev school bus attack was a missile attack on 7 April 2011, in which Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip fired a Kornet laser-guided anti-tank missile over the border at an Israeli school bus, killing a schoolboy……..The missile hit the bus after all but one of the children had been dropped off.[3] The only remaining passenger, a 16-year-old boy, Daniel Viflic,[4] was critically injured with shrapnel wounds to the head……..Another mortar barrage was timed to coincide with the arrival of the paramedics, which delayed the evacuation……”
“……If I called other commenters fascists as often as you call us “leftists” I imagine he would……”
No Mona. Just like the rest of us, he is politically motivated. He is just unwilling to admit that small truth. In other words, he is a hypocrite.
<blockquote.Blumenthal (and the Hamas operatives) clearly ignores the long brutal history of targeting civilians by Hamas. At this point, he has become a spokesman for the internationally recognized terrorist organization propagating propaganda on their behalf.
Blumenthal is a journalist. He reports facts, even if they are flattering to Hamas, but you have zero evidence he is anyone’s “spokesman” but his own.
Max knows all that. He is fully aware that oppressed peoples often do resort to civilian atrocities. The ANC, the IRA — Hamas. But in all three cases the cause was/is just; an oppressor was behaving in a deeply evil manner.
“You would think that sillyputty would criticize you [Mona] for using that “label” so much. – CraigSplainingSummers
Honestly, what part of “it’s not the label, it’s the specific acts” do you not understand?
In other words, actions that are done in specific cases deserve our scrutiny – and labeling these acts or the person or group doing them does nothing to further the discussion.
People here tell you this, over and over, yet you still willfully ignore them.
CraigSplainingSummers, here’s the difference: Mona provides specific acts that can be corroborated with evidence, which she supplies in abundance.
You, in the other hand, supply innuendo, ideological blathering and wishful thinking in order to support a world view which is unsupportable given the evidence available to everyone here, provided that the have an open mind.
CraigSplainingSummers, your arguments are nothing but an exemplar of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
On the one hand, it’s pretty sad watching you get your ass handed to you day in and day out here, bludgeoned to rhetorical death by facts. On the other hand it’s a joy to watch, and a great learning experience for those of us not as conversant in the reality of the Jewish dilemma and the Middle East.
Mona does deserve praise, not because we’ve exchanged the loyal-lefty handshake as your utterly inane retorts are meant to imply, but because she’s the one that brings the facts and best evidence to rebut your tribalistic jingoism and the absolutely evidence-free arguments that you proffer here.
So in the end, CraigSplainingSummers, the facts themselves are beating you.
Deal with it.
“The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.” – Aleister Crowley
I want to thank you, Mona, for the information you continually provide about the insanely racist philosophies of those originating the “Jewish-State” of Israel. The timelines involved easily explain why the subject of any similarities to Nazi ghettoization – lights a fuse of defensiveness for those in denial about the Palestinians. Somehow – history as taught here often overlooks European Jews began supporting their own racist ethnic cleansing and religious genocide for territory – almost decade before the Holocaust began. Not that racist imperialism and might makes right wasn’t a thing for most “armies” everywhere in the early twentieth century – and the U.S. was even still practicing their own racist genocide against Native Americans and black people / slave descendents, especially.
Thanks for the David Sheen video link also, and for some reason reminding me of the first time I was outright censored at HuffPost when commenting, more than 9 years ago.
It was in its first year and the staff there moderated nothing. Its existence and immediate popularity helped inform a restless public what the administration was really up to then and perhaps also helped the dramatic swing results seen in the 2006 midterms. None of the early bloggers there were known for censoring commenters that I remember, that is – until Alan Dershowitz wrote this pro-Israel piece not too long before Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. I commented and remember asking him some tough questions about UN Resolution 242 and the ghettoization of non-Jews (why did Israel appear to be using methods similar to those used by Nazis in Poland and elsewhere during WWII?). Though it wasn’t asked in an insulting manner, I’m sure he took it that way and I guess he didn’t want to answer. After a couple tries and a long enough wait I knew I was seeing something new at HuffPost, or new to me, where bloggers censored commenters just making them feel uncomfortable. I lost it a bit and even sent an email to Arianna complaining. For weeks after when any appropriate opportunity arose I’d refer to him as “Dershowitless,” and relate to others how he censored commenters with too-tough questions about Israel or himself, so why bother.
Ah, old times…
You are most welcome. I enjoy smacking Craig around, and even engaging an, um, dumb ass troll like lenk, but the truth is I do all that mostly for the benefit of reasonable other readers, some of whom just lurk. Same thing when I’m in a Twitter thread and a Zionist pops in — it gives me a chance to spread information to some who are on the fence, and to others who are in the know but are unfamiliar with the evidence I have.
As for your HuffPo experience, I got banned at The Guardian for persisting in quoting from and linking to Max Blumenthal. They call their site Comment is Free, or CiF. But CiF actually stands for Comment is Futile. British preciousness, and insistence on “civility” in political debate, make me barf. They can shove all their “community standards” up their ass. ;)
I said that wrong. It wasn’t so much Dershowitless didn’t want to answer my questions, because I never really expect bloggers to answer my questions and most are for that reason rhetorical anyway, as he didn’t want anyone else to even see those questions. I also remember the professor’s censorship offended me far more than his blatant bigotry.
What a dumb ass!
It’s 10 years! No it’s actually 20 years! (You should have accepted the typo “15”, but as a dumb ass you cannot notice how bad 20 years look like!)
Proud for being on her knees for 20 years, mouth open, getting all of Greenwald’s BS. You are the biggest, pathetic dumb ass I have ever encountered. “I did this and I did that for Greenwald…” and yet you are an unknown dumb ass spending the whole day behind a computer.
Pathetic? Yes, when a so-called “educated professional” relies on typo to conclude whether or not somebody is a “dumb ass”, that means she is either pathetic or having an emotional breakdown.
Pathetic? Yes, nobody can travel in time and check Russia under Stalin. Therefore, we have no choice, we must rely on reports left by historians, journalists and even politicians. That is why there are people in Russia who deny he committed any crimes. Because they depend on the writing of others.
However, you can go to Mexico and see for yourself whether it is the war zone described by the world media. It is not! You can go to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar…and see for yourself whether “they hate us”. They do not hate us! Terrorist groups hate them more than they actually hate us. Dumb Ass
Now that I think about it, do not go anywhere. Stay behind the computer, Greenwald probably needs somebody to smell his BS for another 20 years!
You, on the other hand, would be welcomed by most all of us to leave anytime. Sooner rather than later would also be welcomed. Your every ill-informed comment seems that of a petulant child throwing tantrums for having been repeatedly told no and ultimately punished for bad behavior. Please let the door hit you on your way out.
And thanks the gods I am relatively unknown. I am fame-averse. But spending my time reading books and posting online are my idea of a very good time indeed! (Along with doing stuff with my grandsons, working out, ethnic cooking & etc. But the reading is in close competition with the grandsons for favorite.)
No thanks. There are reliable journalists I read on such matters. As I do for Israel-Palestine. Journalists who go those places, know the culture, speak the language(s), as I do not.
This is how intelligent people operate.
Now who you think you’re foolin? You made an elementary subtraction error.
JLocke
“…..Racist Israelis want to keep the system where, should the majority want what the Jews want, then Israel is called a democracy. But if the majority, want something the Jews don’t want, then Israel is in turn a Jewish state. But why would a human being accept such conditions? Did black Americans accept a “white democracy”?, did South Africans? Why would Arab Israelis accept such discrimination? Is it any likelier that they will accept this discrimination in the future?….”
First of all, the Jews are the majority so I don’t quite understand what you mean by “…..But if the majority want something the Jews don’t want, then Israel is in turn a Jewish state…..”.
Jews came to Palestine to recreate the Land of Israel. It was not a colonialist venture and it was not based on a racist ideal. Jews elected not only to return to their Jewish roots in Palestine, but to escape the antisemitism associated with living as a minority within majority Christian and Muslim populations. The nineteen century was particularly motivating in Europe – and especially Eastern Europe. It is plainly racist to believe that Zionism is racism because it is clearly designed to deny the motivation for returning to the Jewish state. Your reference to Apartheid South Africa is false because the race-based laws in South Africa made it unique. Look up the LAWS of Apartheid South Africa. It is also racist to deny Jewish people their right to self-determination and to hold Israel to a different standard than any other country – like Armenia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the multitude of Islamic states (like Pakistan and Kosovo created for the same reason). This is a time when the west celebrates multiculturalism – except for Jews. It is the height of intolerance and hypocrisy by supposedly “liberal” commentators to question the right of a Jewish state to exist. It is also the height of hypocrisy and racism for Israelis (Jews) to deny Palestinians the same rights in a state of their own.
Jews are a minority population world-wide. Jewish people have always lived as a minority population facing discrimination, humiliation, murder and genocide (the real kind nuf). This has gone on for more than two thousand years. Of course, they are not the only minority to face these kinds of conditions – like the Kurds, Gypsies, Tibetans, Ughurs and a multitude of others. There are minority populations world-wide fighting for the right to self-determination facing a bitter, sometimes violent struggle. Tibet was arguably an independent country when invaded by the Chinese. “Free Tibet” used to be a liberal cause. Jewish people succeeded with some help from the colonial powers.
Because Jewish people are still a tiny minority compared to Muslims, they have made laws which ensure they remain a majority population in their own country. Those include land and immigration laws. The laws are discriminatory, but important to remain a Jewish majority state. Israeli-Palestinians live in an imperfect democracy to be sure, but they vote, serve in the Knesset, organize political parties, attend the same Universities as Jews, sit on the Supreme Court and so on. They face discrimination and racism, but so do Jews in Arab countries. This is the expected result of 100 years of fighting. Is this the ideal situation for Palestinian Arabs? No, but a Palestinian majority state would not be ideal for Jews as they would be a minority again (not to mention the conflict Arabs are having between state and religion throughout the Middle East). Regardless, any minority population that created a state would need to have the same kinds of laws. Armenia – an ethnic state – certainly would not allow unfettered immigration by people from Turkey any more than Pakistan would allow 200,000,000 Hindus to immigrate to Pakistan. Jews are a small minority living in a state of their own so the laws are necessary. All minority populations face discrimination from the majority.
Finally, the two state solution is certainly possible. Jewish settlements actually take only a small percentage of the West Bank land. It should be remembered that the Palestinians and Middle East Arabs rejected the two state solution with an invasion in 1948. Indeed, Jordan ruled East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza until 1967 (nearly twenty years) and never considered a Palestinian state. Israel traded land for peace with Egypt in 1979. In 1993, Israel and the Palestinians recognized a two state solution and signed the Oslo Accords (with negotiations over the dividing line). In 2000, the Palestinians started the second Intifada leading to the suffocating conditions today. Israel disbanded their settlements from Gaza in 2005. It will take the right Israeli leader (not Netanyahu) and some commitments (or disbanding) from Hamas for a solution to the conflict.
Thanks.
Codswallop. Political Zionism is racist. Spiritual Zionism — a return to Palestine to establish a spiritual center for Jewish values and traditions as Judah Magnes advocated — is not.
A peaceful sharing of the land with the indigenous population would not have been racist. Political Zionism by definition is not peaceful — it is predicated on stealing land and forcing the inhabitants out of their ancestral cities, villages and homes. It is profoundly racist.
Political Zionism is justified, and has been since at least Jabotisnky, on the basis that the indigenous Arabs are “savages” and unworthy of the land they live on. The quotes documenting this racism are numerous and disgusting, as you know Craig, because you’ve seen them many times.
Political Zionism is ethno-supremacist racism to its core. It is its very foundation.
Mona
“…….A peaceful sharing of the land with the indigenous population would not have been racist. Political Zionism by definition is not peaceful — it is predicated on stealing land and forcing the inhabitants out of their ancestral cities, villages and homes. It is profoundly racist……”
First of all, Jews were always looked down upon by Arabs and Persians. You know that as well. Jews always lived as second class citizens in the Islamic Empire. Arabs and Persians were racist, but tolerated the Jews for the most part because Jews were non-threatening and peaceful. They paid a dhimmi tax just to live on Arab land despite the fact that Jews had lived in the Middle East for nearly 2000 years prior to the beginning of Islam. The Islamic Empire grew from violence and mandated conversions to Islam well within the European continent. Jews were also caught up in Islamic violence and were forced to convert or die on many occasions. Racism is a human quality not confined just to Jews. Jordan issued its own law of return to Palestinian residents in 1954 – except for Jews. The Arabs viewed Palestine as Islamic Holy Land, so the Jewish people understood quite well the potential resistance as they RETURNED to Jerusalem – the holiest city in Judaism – to build a country. Even then, there was disagreement within the Jewish (Zionists) leadership whether to just build a homeland or a state. Their choices were second class citizenship within Palestine or a rebirth of their country. So racism is far from the one-sided affair you like to project.
Second of all, the Jews did immigrate peacefully and didn’t steal Palestinian land. They either bought the land outright from Palestinians or from absentee land owners. They developed the land and were a thriving community in Palestine even before the Balfour Declaration was signed. I am certain that the aware Jewish immigrants anticipated violence and resistance from the Palestinians, but that in no way makes Zionism equivalent to racism (except European racism). Much of the land partitioned into Israel in 1947 was state-owned land and Arabs living in the nascent state retained their land ownership. There was nothing in Zionism which called for expelling Palestinian Arabs. It was the impending attack by Arab armies in 1948 which led to the expelling of the Palestinians prior to Israel declaring independence. Plan Dalet was not in effect.
Thanks.
Yes, the Zionists did buy some land from absentee Arab landlords and kicked the Arab tenants out, took over and established businesses, and wouldn’t hire Arabs; the businesses were Jew only. The Arabs could see what the political Zionists were doing and understood what was happening to them — political Zionists didn’t hide their goals.
Now Craig, why do you post horseshit like that when you know I can and have demonstrated that forcibly removing the Arabs was part of the plan for political Zionists from the time of Jabotisnky, if not before? The letter above by Judah Magnes shows he also knew the political Zionists were likely planning it.
The Zionist immigrants could have chosen fair and peaceful co-existence as Magnes advocated. They did not. They were racists who chose land theft, oppression and ethnic cleansing. (Even Judah Magnes was racist in calling the Arabs “savages.” It’s what Zionists commonly said of Arab Palestinians.)
I guess you need to see the Moshe Dayan quote again, from his eulogy at a 1956 funeral for an Israeli soldier killed by Gazans:
Just so.
Please cite the top 3 imperfections of the State of Israel.
There is only one (because I am a tolerant conservative) – the West Bank settlements and preventing Palestinian self-determination (they are intertwined).
You are a deluded fool if you think that is the sole imperfection of Israel. You place yourself out of adult and reasonable discussion.
Ha!
It’s all cool, though, because it’s not like the US would ever legislate a double standard to make up for the lack of disparity between the US and people of other nationalities and ethnicities. Right?
@JLocke: “From the standpoint of someone who cares deeply about the ethnic Jewish project in Israel, where do you see it going from here?”
I would defer to people more knowledgeable than I concerning the thought processes of Israeli Zionists, but I do have some familiarity with Jewish Zionists in the Diaspora.
Many cling to the dream of a “two-state solution” as Jewish Israel’s salvation. They believe, out of honest ignorance or an almost willful self-delusion, that such a solution is practicable and that Israel has some interest in bringing it about.
Others who are less well-intentioned dream of maintaining the status quo, in which a relatively secure and prosperous Israel is able to keep the Palestinians in the occupied territories stateless and subjugated indefinitely.
Others just don’t want to think about it.
“You are a politically-motivated far left wing hypocrite sillyputty” – CraigSplainingSummers
Not at all. As I’ve said to you repeatedly, it’s not the label (or the pigeonhole, or the group) per se that I object to, it’s the actions of individuals.
That’s what’s known as empathically motivated, as in I don’t run around crying “Leftist this! Politically motivated that!” because not only is that simple-minded, it removes the human from the action, thus muddying the waters of debate, rather than making them more clear and precise – which if you’re interested in anything but labeling, pigeonholing, and name-calling (you, demonstrably, are not) will actually lead to honest discourse and, if not outright solutions, at least a better understanding.
So in the end it is you, CraigSplainingSummers, that is the biggest hypocrite of all. You claim you want others to understand your position, yet you constantly booby-trap and derail the debate with these childish rhetorical flourishes and politically motivated talking points.
By the way, have you answered the oft asked Palestinian question yet? I thought not. Hypocrite.
““Often those that criticize others reveal what he himself lacks.” – Shannon L. Alder
I’ll bite. What is the oft-asked Palestinian question?
General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years
“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw&feature=player_embedded
General Wesley Clark Asked About 7 Country War Plan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pGkFMho6Co
@Lenk
As a former hasbarist, I find you embarrassing. You truly, abysmally suck at it.
But then maybe you aren’t a hasbarist after all. The hasbarist attempts to persuade others, or at least to create the impression of a good faith debate between reasonable opposing positions. You’re not trying to do that, are you? You’re just pleasuring yourself by bellowing nonsense and insulting your moral and intellectual betters. I expect you’ll get bored and move along soon enough.
I am not here to debate. This is not my nature to debate idiots and dumb asses. I just expose their stupidity. Hell yeah, I will move along. There is nothing attractive about being surrounded by dumb asses. At the end one might become a dumb ass by hanging around them. You better be careful yourself. In a reasonable universe FACTS cannot be classified as “nonsense”.
Yeah, shrieking “Dumb Ass!!!” a gazillion times is this one’s notion of “facts.” Or so it claims. Really, it’s just a troll.
Dumb Ass!!
You also need to change the “troll” line. Your lines are getting old. “Community college”, “troll”…what’s next? “Greenwald does not tolerate trolls” “high volume”. Be more creative when facing with those who actually prove you that you are a dumb ass. You have being surrounded by so many idiots, and pussies who swallow all the BS you or TI gave them that you are unaware that you are a dumb ass queen.
Dumb Ass!!
That is true, altho it’s really “crapflooders” whom Glenn won’t tolerate. But I have not posted this information since you began participating, which suggests you are either a lurking fan of mine, or a returning troll who has already been banned back under a different account.
Either way, it’s a testament to my perceived effectiveness, and I again thank you for all the opportunities to post my factual information.
Oh yeah, I came here from time to time to laugh at the TI puppies. And it is amazing how you got dumber and dumber. Believe me I have no intention of familiarize myself with idiots like you.
Dumb Ass! So “effective” at barking that after years of being on your knees swallowing Greenwald’s BS, life got worse for the people you claim you are defending and better for the people you oppose. I am curious. What kind of tissue do you use? It must be hard to keep your face clean spending so much time accepting so much BS. And you really thanking me for posting information here? You are here every single day drinking TI cool aid. You have nothing else to do you sits behind a computer and believes you know more than others who have a life that consists of leaving the house, working, or visiting the Middle East before they dare to comment about it.
What a dumb ass!!
Oh, absolutely. I’ve been a regular participant in Greenwald’s comments since he began blogging in ’05. As a well-educated, retired professional who continues to read a very great deal, I do offer a lot of documentation for my claims which annoys Zionists to no end. Including you.
The sheer frothing and rage from Zionists I inspire everywhere I participate, including Twitter, is a good metric of my effectiveness. Eventually, many Zionists/hasbara-ists on Twitter decided to ignore me, because all they were doing was giving me opportunity to post mountains of unflattering documentation about Israel and Zionists/ism.
When are you going to figure out the same thing?
What a dumb ass!!
” I have been …participant in Greenwald’s…since ’05”
WOW What an accomplishment! You spent 15 years typing BS, and exposing your ignorance while Greenwald became famous, wrote books, sign probably million dollar contracts with the same people he criticizes. And you? Still here behind the computer spending hours calling everybody trolls and Zionists and thinking the Zionists who have become more powerful during that same period are annoyed by you!
What a dumb ass!! Well, “educated professional” (lol) keep using TWITTER as a “good metric” to evaluate your success in solving problems in the Middle East.
Dumb Ass!!
Lessee. Take 2015, subtract 2005, and, well — I know math is hard lenk — but I get 10. (Can we get another “Dumb Ass!” from lenk? Ha!)
See lenk, I’m retired. I’ve line-edited three of Glenn’s book manuscripts and occasionally researched for him, but I do not want a job. (If I did, I could almost certainly have one with First Look in a heartbeat. I’m Glenn’s friend and former law partner and we work well on written projects together. From time to time he asks me to do something he knows I can help him with, and I do it happily.)
No, lenk. I am happy as a pig in shit that Glenn has done so exceedingly well (tho not especially surprised). Educating people in his comments, on Twitter and in a few other online venues leaves me quite content, and I won’t be stopping any time soon. But I do not have or want a job.
Back over to you, lenk. And rememebr lenk: **10**
Also, it bugs me when you refer to people as an ‘it’. And when you do the same thing you accuse other people of doing. Clearly there’s a lot of insult slinging around here but… ugh.
Jan 7, 2014 Rule from the Shadows – The Psychology of Power – Part 1
Time we to look behind the curtain.
https://youtu.be/p8ERfxWouXs
Zionist troll lenk spews:
Actually, Netanyahu and other prominent Israelis have recently began citing the exponentially growing BDS movement as an “existential threat.” Israeli farmers are very upset at lost sales to Europe due to BDS — you’ve seen the Ynetnews.com article documenting that.
You are also aware that Israel and Zionists are deeply concerned about the effect of the Internet in challenging the Zionist narrative and are strategizing how to combat people like me. I documented that for you here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/listen-wsjs-bret-stephens-secretely-plot-pro-israel-evangelicals-killing-iran-deal/?comments=1#comment-154500
As between the anxiety anti-Zionist Internet activism is arousing in Zionist officials on the one hand, and some anonymous guy named “lenk” in comments here on the other, I’m going to go with the likelihood that the anxious Zionists are that way for a reason.
Finally, I thank you for the opportunity to reproduce so much documentation of Zionist error, anxiety and depravity
Dumb Ass!!
Is that the same Netanyahu who stated ten years ago that Iran was about to get a nuclear bomb in two years? And then five years later, Iran was about to get the bomb in two years? I thought Iran was the “existential threat”. Was it what he said years after years?
What a Dumb Ass! Basic intelligent individuals do not judge politicians by what they say as politicians are full of shit. Individuals with basic intelligence study facts to evaluate their strategy. Netanyahu’s political statements do not match the reality on the ground that you cannot see because you are a dumb ass. Israel is stronger economically and militarily than before while Palestinians got worse. That is a FACT.
You forgot about French farmers, Texan farmers, South Korean farmers…they are all upset because they are losing money. I guess those countries, France, USA, South Korea are done. Do not thank me. I never intended to expose your stupidity.
Dumb Ass!!
Again:
Above all, they fear their increasing pariah status. Boycotts of apartheid South Africa only mildly affected that nation economically. But the shame of being the villain of the Western world became intolerable.
This will happen when “Don’t play Tel Aviv” is as popular as once was “Don’t play Sun City.” And it’s gathering potency as we type.
Thank you again for this opportunity.
Dumb Ass!!
Boycotts of apartheid South Africa started in the early 60’s. It did not work! Yeah dumb ass, a bunch of racists, colonialists who proudly killed blacks on TV were “ashamed”. What a dumb ass!
Things got worst in South Africa until the 80’s when Western Nations/companies engaged in “disinvestment” and sanctions in that country. That policy affected SA’s economy and ultimately the minority’s wealth. Then, they decided to negotiate. This is historical facts available for free at the public library in your city.
Dumb Ass!!
You are simply incorrect, and provide merely assertions. Where is your evidence?
As a stated, it is a lost hope! Dumb Ass!!
Translation: “I have no evidence for my vacuous claims which I pulled out of my ass.”
Talking about ass. How does it feel to be buried in Greenwald’s ass for 10 years? For a “well educated professional’ who reads a lot, your knowledge of world history is pathetic. I suggest you take a break from his ass and leave the house to travel to those places. You will not have to read. You will meet the people on the ground, the witnesses and they will tell you what happened.
Dumb Ass!
Aha! lenk actually can subtract.
Anyway, it’s 20 years. Glenn and I have been good friends for 20 years. We’ve been bugging the shit out of authoritarian fuckwits like you online since the days of CompuServe — it’s how we met. We had a grand time driving social conservatives to emotional breakdowns.
So lenk. I’m pretty sure that everything I’ve read about Stalin’s U.S.S.R. means it was not a good place to live; that there were a few issues. Now lenk, I’ve never been there, and of course, given the lack of time travel I can’t go there. But I’m going to remain out on a limb and rely on my education and reading to support the notion that it was a most unpleasant place.
Ditto all of that re: Israel.
Who taught your classes, and who wrote your books?
We are a product of our environments, usually — so are our beliefs, Mona.
Most of the books, textbooks and newspapers I read (and I did read a lot of them during the ‘Cold War’) were written from a highly Americanised viewpoint. The ones that were written in English that WEREN’T written by Americans were written often to counter propaganda with other propaganda. That’s just the way things were: Each side called each other ‘bad’. Back then, the USSR was ‘evil’ so generally much of the information was tainted by that belief system. Look at pretty much every last movie made by Americans depicting life in the USSR during that period — especially movies MADE during that period. Actually, I hope you never have to do so, because, let me tell you, they are really really bad. And one can probably assume the same was true from the other direction.
Why would you believe things are any different now? Let me correct myself: Why would you believe things are any better or more honest? If anything, propaganda has gotten SO SO much more effective, and that’s not a good thing. Even then, as a young adult, you believed that the USSR was ‘most unpleasant’, although you’d never been there. My guess is you also were never close friends with anybody from there during that time period. Ditto Africa. You may have friends in Israel, but I’m not sure you’ve ever stayed with Palestinians for a week or two. I think you probably rely on black and white thinking based on incomplete information and heuristics because the world is too damned big and complex (and it is).
But relying on education and reading alone don’t teach anybody anything. Only getting out there and countering your own preconceived notions and putting yourself in situations to see things from new, different perspectives can really teach people tolerance or even understand that one person’s idea of ‘unpleasant’ and another person’s idea of ‘unpleasant’ can be two very very different things — and that is especially true when differing cultures are involved.
On a small scale, such things as personal space are an easily accessible example of how differently cultures can interpret various things. Spend some time around someone from Japan or Korea, then someone in Italy (or Brazil), then someone from Russia, then someone from San Francisco, then someone from LA, then someone from India, then someone from Israel, then someone from … you get my point.
A lot of people, right now, would consider America a most unpleasant place to live. Does that MAKE IT a most unpleasant place to live? Probably depends on who you ask and if they’re actually living there, or have lived there.
And that’s my point.
In case you were curious, your “Boycotts of apartheid South Africa only mildly affected that nation economically. But the shame of being the villain of the Western world became intolerable.” is what provoked me to reply. Your assumption that being the villain of the Western world was intolerable as the reason that apartheid ended… no.
Also, I’m disturbed you’re resorting to shame-slutting or reducing people for anonymity, here. I’ve seen you do it a lot and I just wanted to say that before I shuttle off for the day. :)
JLocke states:
This is the only thing that realistically can happen. Zionism has already implemented the 1-state solution: It’s an apartheid state with over 4 million Palestinians living in subjugated oppression by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. So much more land has been stolen from Palestinians since the founding of Israel in ’48, violently taken — including by illegal settlements — that there is nothing left for a Palestinian state.
Moreover, there is no moral means for Israel to exist as a “Jewish state: such a means cannot be contrived. Ali Abunimah analyzes this issue in his books — an excerpt from one is reproduced here, my emphasis:
Do read the rest: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/abunimahs-justice-palestine#sthash.IzI8RAAu.dpuf
There are no answers to the points Abunimah makes that can be answered in a Zionist fashion that are also moral. It’s like trying to square the circle.
Dumb Ass!!
You could not have read and understood Abunimah’s article in the time before you commented. Can you substantively rebut his arguments?
I’m sorry, I must have taken a wrong term. I see here the JLocke forum for obtuse perception and pointless existence, but I was looking for the comment section to a Greenwald article. Can anyone direct me?
Terry5135 – “I’m sorry, I must have taken a wrong term. I see here the JLocke forum for obtuse perception and pointless existence”
I’m sorry everybody, I’ve robbed you all of Terry’s….acute?, perceptions. Now we’ll never know what Terry was going to write. Maybe something about me being a poopyface.
Actually, I think Terry was attempting to be humorous in a Monty Pythonesque sort of way.
Your mileage varied, but I think it might have been a victim of the inability of the intertubes to display tone and nuance at times. :-)
It’s getting more and more embarrassing to be a human being. I’ve been contemplating converting – and becoming a bear.
https://twitter.com/A_single_bear
According to Ondelette, I’m a mynah bird. (Or as Ondy spells it, “minah.”) That’s ok with me — they can be quite beautiful. Bears, however, are not very pretty, you poor thing.
I’ve been thinking, as marvellous as Mona’s marathon battles on Zionism are, What would really be fabulous would be If someone could present, from a zionist perspective, how they see the future unfolding in Palestine/Israel. From the standpoint of someone who cares deeply about the ethnic Jewish project in Israel, where do you see it going from here?
All I can see, is a rear-guard holding action, up the ante on violence, hope that magically, something will happen that will make zionism’s problems go away. (The millions of Palestinians without voting rights in the West Bank and Gaza, the hostility most Middle Easterners have towards Israel, Israel’s place in the strategic rivalry between Iran and the US backed dictatorships.)
From my perspective, the ideal solution would be a multi-ethnic democracy, with minority religious, cultural, and education rights for everyone. This would be preferable to the splitting of the area into two states. Two states would hamper integration, mutual understanding, there would be lingering disputes over the initial distribution of water and land, How would the Jewish state remain “pure”?Would intermarriage remain eternally banned? What if the “ultra-ultra” orthodox decided they wanted a third state…the second one not being Jewish enough for their liking? Would the nation split again?
That is why I think a one person one vote democracy is more flexible, resilient, less prone to balkanization, or further splintering.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.669429
“What would really be fabulous would be If someone could present, from a zionist perspective, how they see the future unfolding in Palestine/Israel.” – JLocke
This was asked of CraigSummers quite some time ago; several times, in fact.
To date, CraigSummers refuses to answer.
If you want to cite the original article where that question was (supposedly) posed, then I’ll look into what actually was asked and who asked it
Thanks sillyputty
The question has been asked in this forum yet you avoid the unpleasant answer; Israel sees a future without Palestinians. Israel is practicing genocide.
thanks craigy
It’s rather obvious, so there’s no need for Craig to answer. If someone is opposed to both the 1-state solution and the 2-state solution, what’s left? Evidently, they want Palestinians to go away, and then claim the Palestinian territories for Israel. Regarding how this might be accomplished, there would have to be a spectrum that goes from outright genocide to displacement. At best, they would have to be hoping that life for Palestinians gets so miserable that they “self-deport”. The brutal blockade of Gaza should be viewed in this context, and not just in the context of security.
“It’s rather obvious, so there’s no need for Craig to answer.” – Jose
Thanks Jose. I’ll not address the “obviousness” of it, just note that it is foundational to CraigSplainingSummers credibility, because despite his faux ignorance in this specific case, CraigSplainingSummers mentioned the issue in the first place, and when I specifically questioned, CraigSplainingSummers did everything, including claiming that it was asked and answered already, to get out of explaining his position on the issue.
And the more this all gets sidetracked with assertions that CraigSplainingSummers doesn’t have to answer “obvious” questions, the easier it becomes for CraigSplainingSummers to continue skating on the thin ice of his ideological laurels here.
CraigSplainingSummers’ got this gig all figured out: prevaricate, obfuscate, redirect; just name the fallacy, CraigSplainingSummers practices it.
And you, sir, are practicing at being a dope……..just kidding keep up the good work (none of which I believe)
“If you want to cite the original article where that question was (supposedly) posed, then I’ll look into what actually was asked and who asked it” – CraigSplainingSummers
I asked it, several times. You dodged it, several times, even after several others here mentioned that they, too, would like an answer to it.
Me, I’m not going to dig the damn thing up again – because it was with that specific question that you cemented (for me) you unalterable position as that of a bad-faith commenter.
Of course, you could always address Jlocke’s iteration of it right here and now, but I really don’t see that happening.
Almost certainly this will be followed by either no answer at all; a complete, expletive laden denial; and/or a side-stepping ‘whattaboutery’ list of the reasons why CraigSplainingSummers should not/can not/will not answer it now.
Likely, it will be all of the above, over time…Because it will be anything but a substantive answer.
I mean, to me, as a democrat, it is self evident, if the majority of people want the town painted purple, the town is painted purple. If we feel strongly that the town should always be painted purple, we could create a constitution, and write in their that the town shall always be painted purple. But not for a moment does a democrat believe that, should sometime in the future, the majority want the town to be painted orange, that the people don’t have the right to colour the town orange.
Racist Israelis want to keep the system where, should the majority want what the Jews want, then Israel is called a democracy. But if the majority, want something the Jews don’t want, then Israel is in turn a Jewish state. But why would a human being accept such conditions? Did black Americans accept a “white democracy”?, did South Africans? Why would Arab Israelis accept such discrimination? Is it any likelier that they will accept this discrimination in the future?
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.669246
Thanks for that Haaretz cite, JLocke. Chills to the bone.
I tried to read that article from 2 Twitter links earlier, and just tried yours as well. I’ve also tried from Google. Nothing can get me past the Haaretz paywall.
I got past the paywall by registering. It’s free, and:
“By signing up to our website, you are now able to read up to 6 articles per month on Haaretz.com. On the 1st day of each month, the counter will reset itself.”
The ‘register’ link is to the right of the ‘log-in’ button.
Thanks! I shall do that.
Lenk (is this a new one or a respawn?) just seems to be using the old “aggression will mask my lack of understanding trick”. If you can’t figure out how to talk reasonably with people here, why should anyone believe you have the answers to other, slightly more complicated problems?
And with ondelette it boils down to this:
He’s saying that singling out any subset of the world’s problem’s yields no solutions, which would be news if it were true. In order to model a problem it is necessary to create an incomplete representation of a system in order to find a solution.
(The alternative? Even philosophically, with infinite resources, if you were trying to create a complete representation of reality, that representation of reality would have to include a model of that perfect model….and so on. The result? No solution. Which, in this case, from the point of view of middle east dictators and their western backers, is not such an unhappy outcome.)
I think there is an implicit understanding here that we are operating inside political entities of some sort, with each of us having a certain amount of power to sway the course of the nations in which we live. And those nations have a finite amount of power to affect the course of history.
I get to choose whether I argue about US/Egypt policy, or whether I argue about something else. Something inside me said that I should spend my limited resources writing about US/Egypt. At this place and time, I thought that would do the most good.
Now someone can argue about whether I made the correct choice (let’s call them ondelette), and then someone else can question the validity of that question (let’s call them rrhead), and there’s nothing wrong with that at all, I only point out that it takes the form of recursive objections about objections, for example someone could argue that ondelette’s critique of GG doesn’t take into account every other aspect of reality that wasn’t mentioned by ondelette.
Nobody asked for a complete representation of reality. There’s one already out there, since this reality is directly observable by at least the journalists (if they bothered, or wanted to), and if you don’t know about it, it’s either your fault for not reading what they wrote, or theirs for never writing it.
Something is a very flawed model if it fails to take into account the major degrees of freedom which influence the system, or if it elevates degrees of freedom that are down in the weeds to major status. It’s even more wrong if it categorically fails to resemble the system it’s attempting to explicate.
There is, at its core, a very, very good reason for criticizing this article. The country directly to the south of Egypt is a case study in so many of the ills plaguing this world, that official and adversarial ignorance of the role it’s playing in the world begs the question do the people who ignore it even care if their world view has nothing to do with reality?
Case in point: Glenn is bitching up the sale of weapons to Egypt. The sale he’s talking about is $1.3 billion worth of weapons, and numbers like that get tossed around on sites like this all the time to “prove” that the greatest transgressor in flooding the world with arms is the U.S. It’s an easy target for a lazy journalist who can easily fill the air with noise just from the front page headlines.
But for all the sound and fury about this sale, in point of fact is that Egypt has not really used its expensive toys much lately — they did bomb some ISIS people in Libya in retaliation for the beheading of Copts, and perhaps that’s a massive human rights violation, given that “Chris” over on the civilian casualties article is opining that ISIS isn’t really bad.
But in general, they are parked, or part of an air show, or maybe doing training exercises, or participating in parades. Are they dangerous? Absolutely. The Saudis just went nuts and started using theirs. Are they currently or planned in the near future going to be killing people? Who knows.
By contrast, China recently sold $38 million in small arms to the Republic of Sudan, most of which went directly across the border to fuel the one conflict that is currently topping all others in this world for brutality right now. People — human rights groups, humanitarian actors, governments — protested and China made some motions like it was trying to stop it, but the arms reached what had probably been their destination all along.
$1.5 Billion to a country that jails journalists vs. $38 Million to their neighbor to the south. Five will get you ten, that comparison in your “model” is no contest. A miniscule 2.5% of the evil of the U.S. did. And if you read in both the article writer’s dictum that the U.S. “support heinous regimes as long as they carry out U.S. dictates” and the frequent commenters here who firmly believe that China’s Africa policy is one of economics and that’s why it succeeds where the imperialist military policy of the U.S. fails there, and then factor in the Noam Chomsky bullshit that we can affect the policy of the U.S. and it’s cowardly to criticize the behaviors of others instead, the model that emerges is totally wrong. Totally.
Here is the correct model: China really did try to pull back that shipment when the searchlight of the world’s human rights groups and governments was suddenly accusing it of violating an arms embargo. So much for the Chomskian bullshit that only criticizing one’s own government has an effect in the world. Sooner criticisms might have prevented it, therefore, but, for example, the world’s most adversarial journalist simply didn’t know it was going on and barely knows what country lies to the south of Egypt.
Next and most important piece of information: Unlike those jets that will remain parked or not in Egypt, weapons shipped to Sudan supply conflicts in at least 14 countries that we can document in Africa. In some cases, just like the infamous Rothschilds, they are arming both sides of the conflicts, or all sides in some cases, since in places like the Great Lakes region, it is not uncommon for there to be 15 or 20 sides to the conflict.
And final piece of information: Because of shipments like this and others, and the enormous numbers of small arms funneled to regimes in Africa by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the street price for a fully automatic war weapon called the AK-47 in Africa is $30. Because of very current and ongoing shipments like this one, the street price of a Chinese-made grenade is currently about $0.50.
Fifty cents is what it costs to commit an explosive attack Glenn would call “terrorism” if it happened anywhere whatsoever in the United States, and most of you would find intolerable if it went off in Gaza. It’s soooo so tempting to just shorten the whole criticism to, “Black lives don’t matter.” Not to Glenn, not to your Chomsky chatter. Not to the future of “adversarial journalism.” My letter to Betsy Reed that so many of you urged me to write instead of posting things like this, written June 22nd, is still unanswered.
When your model is so blatantly wrong that it is failing to establish the importance of suffering which is preventable, when it is so blatantly wrong that it is failing to use any of the supposed “power to sway” you think you have to prevent the killing, raping, burning, and hacking to death of human beings where it actually could at least alleviate suffering and provide the international pressure to cow some weapons exchanges, then in what sense is it a model at all?
Real functioning models don’t miss the most important point, and their proponents don’t usually argue that the point they missed is down in the details that nobody can be expected to know.
Fyi, the Chomsky quote that Greenwald references makes no mention of courage or cowardice.
I was giving Noam the benefit of the doubt on why he thought it was not so easy ethically to criticize one’s own country. If you like, I’ll chalk the “very easy” inserted there up to something else?
Chomsky:
It’s easy because, in his opinion, there’s nothing one can do about the atrocities of other governments (hence the 18th century comparison). “My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state … because … I can do something about it.” That’s the point you’re rebutting with the Chinese arms shipment. So, you don’t need to add something to Chomsky’s argument that isn’t there. (Even if you could reasonably infer “cowardice” from “easiness”, why argue the point? You don’t need that.)
Chomsky’s premise is incorrect, so his conclusion must be unsound. US citizens have no power to compel their government to do anything. When two people complain about the weather, they’re not trying to spur each other to action. Rather, they are sharing a moment of sympathy – primarily for themselves, but also for a fellow human being.
So criticism is a combination of self pity and team building. Once this is understood, it’s clear that all Americans have a duty to criticize other countries in the harshest possible terms.
“US citizens have no power to compel their government to do anything.” (El Dulce)
That is true! For example, the US government decided by itself that it was time for minorities to have equal rights under the law. So, President Johnson and Congress passed the Civil Right Act without any of the demonstrations, repressions experienced by other countries.
Have you been teaching history to some commentators here?
You’re talking about climate change? We can do something about that. If we’re causing it, we can stop causing it.
The people united will never be defeated, sir. We’re on the right side of history. We shall overcome some day. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. You’re just a cranky old fascist fart. Everyone’s just laughing at you, sir.
History doesn’t have a right side or a wrong side. So your statement can be shortened to: we’re history. Some new species will evolve to adapt to a warmer world. Since reptiles have a lower metabolism, they should thrive. It will perhaps be poetic justice if the new world consists of dinosaurs basking in the sun. Maybe they will have the last laugh.
It could be a species from another planet.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/20/1403163/-Cartoon-The-looming-threat
But Democrats in Congress weren’t buying it either… “The trillion aliens should be able to vote on climate change too” …”We should be more tolerant and learn to breathe cyanide” …”Humans have had it our way for a long time, maybe we need a change”.
“History doesn’t have a right side or a wrong side…We’re history.” – Benito
Does this well never run dry? Let’s hope not…
It is a shame the US doesn’t get more credit for this. They are promoting world peace by selling overpriced weapons systems which don’t work, but look good on parade, to third world despots who would otherwise be buying low cost Chinese munitions. The Chinese are not only promoting war, they are losing out on a good business opportunity. Their business model doesn’t support selling high priced technical services to maintain the weapons systems which don’t work.
The US arms industry is inspiring – a rare perfect alignment of ethical concerns with the profit motive.
Try to skew it any way you like, if you don’t evaluate the value of a weapons transfer based on the risk estimate of human death caused, you’re purposely misusing a statistic. Arms limitations exist for precisely that purpose. But out here, on the internet, and in most minds of journalists, it’s just fine to use unadjusted price figures to assign superlatives of evil.
When the U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan, it does far more evil than when it sells them to Egypt, based on what priors we have. Aggregate figures that just compare monetary totals — available at skiddy eight million sites on the internet — are meaningless without some knowledge of the wars in the world. And when Uncle Noam has led you down the garden path of believing that most of those wars aren’t your business so don’t learn about them, then your estimates of what is evil are skewed.
Have a nice day.
Chomsky, like many intellectuals, employs elegant logic to arrive at an absurd conclusion. More prosaic types start with a sound conclusion and then, if time permits, work out the logic. They thus avoid the pitfalls of hubris.
All wars are the business of the US. The following formula is simple and fool proof. Find out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Then shoot the bad guys. The world won’t necessarily be cured overnight, but we’ll be moving in the right direction.
No place else to put this. So apparently neither of us were corrected and/or given a correct url on that ‘Crypto Summit’ article. https://www.accessnow.org/page/content/crypto-summit/ would’ve been the correct one, but there are two being called ‘Crypto Summit’ — one was the cryptocurrency one. Kinda bothered the article author didn’t give a link or correct (nor did anybody else). SEO won, and I guess we stand corrected.
(well it won then; it looks like the more legit one is winning now)
What are the alternatives? Was Nasser Egypt’s is best hope? Can you have a decent society without a functioning economy? As for selling arms, America has about 70% of the world’s arms market. Russia and China each have less than 10%.
Here is an interesting documentary with a somewhat different perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVHzAinRH4g
– “Can you have a decent society without a functioning economy? “
I think that economic growth does not need to wait for the emergence of democracy (China). At the same time, Democracy in and of itself, offers benefits that a strong economy alone, does not. “All work and no freedom makes Jack and an enemy of general Sisi.” If there isn’t sufficient buy-in from the people, in some form of democracy, the government, lacks legitimacy and sufficient directional input from a wide swath of society. Blinded without popular input, misdirected by being overly influenced by a sub-set of society, a dictatorship, partly in order to respond to the natural impulse to retain its power, will squander the nations resources foolishly.
It isn’t democracy that failed in Egypt, it’s we, (the West), that have failed democracy.
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/08/04/egypts-disaffected-youth-increasingly-calling-for-violence
I think CraigSummers is making good points, but it all hinges on a bizarre sense of “stability”:
Maintaining the siege of Gaza, which is what Camp David has devolved into in real terms, something the elected Muslim Brotherhood was against, is stability. Fighting ISIS, the group formed in the power vacuum of the removal of Saddam Hussein, is stability. Supporting a dictator in Egypt, who removed the popularly elected government, is stability.
In other words, to Craig, anything, from a crippling siege of Gazans, to a toppling of a dictator, to the support of a dictator, is “stability”. Anything the US does, is “stability”. Even the diametrically opposed actions of toppling or supporting dictators.
How “stable” is Egypt?
http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/03/24/egypt-s-unprecedented-instability-by-numbers/h5j3?reloadFlag=1
I can’t help but feel that support for an unpopular military dictator that needs unprecedented levels of violence to remain in the throne runs contrary to every understanding of “stability” that could be held by democrats. Is “democracy” only a brand of trainer, that fits some people, but not others? Does anyone honestly believe that Egyptians want to have no say in the governance of their country? Or is dictatorship in Egypt, the price Egyptians must pay to support democracy in the west? Or does democracy really play no part in the West’s decision making vis a vis Egypt at all?
I think CraigSummers is making good points, but it all hinges on a bizarre sense of “stability”:
In order for that to work as he states, one would have to ignore the fact that we destabilized Iraq for (to one extent or another) economic reasons.
Greenwald’s main supporters: One with a 4 year old intelligence (Kitt) and a dumb ass (Mona).
“Of course. Imagine if any nation had invaded with secret agents and master-minded a coup to overthrow Dwight Eisenhower. And never apologized or acknowledged in any way that it had wronged us. The rage of Americans would be raw to this day — on a bipartisan basis.” (Mona)
I would rather imagine a nation attacking Americans on their soil killing thousands of them and starting a global war in which American prisoners would be tortured or executed. According to your logic, the rage of Americans would be so raw that they would be calling “death to that nation” on a bipartisan basis. Dumb Ass!! The US provided millions of dollars in aid for the Japanese facing starvation after the war. The US helped the Japanese build a democracy and even spared the Emperor the war crime tribunal. All of these policies supported by the US general who lost thousands of his men. Japanese officials only made public statements of “remorse” and “regrets” and only issued an “apology” (still debated) in 1995. That is 50 years after the war. Decades during which the US and Japan became close military and economic allies.
According to your logic, any American (politicians or not) would probably face death by a mob in Vietnam since the US never apologizes for killing thousands of Vietnamese on their own soil. Yet, most Vietnamese have a positive view of the United States.
That is beyond ignorance to believe Iranians “hate” us because of the CIA/British coup. First, Iranians do not “hate” us. Thousands of Iranians have been going/staying in Europe/America without blowing up anything. Iranians make billions dealing with the same countries their leaders call “evil” “satan” etc. Secondly, the Ayatollahs well known for their hypocrisy were happy the prime minister was toppled and even asked publicly for his death. Again dumb ass, the same Ayatollahs who called “death to Israel” hired Israeli military advisers to help them.
Let me get it straight big dummy. According to you, the Ayatollahs hate us because the CIA/British toppled somebody they wanted to die while they are doing exactly what the CIA/British did: going to other sovereign states (Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq..) and even causing more turmoil and deaths than what happened in the 50s. A dumb ass cannot see how illogical that argument is. A dumb ass cannot see neither that an acknowledgment (the US did admit it carried the coup and stated it was “regretful”) nor an apology would change the Ayatollahs’ rhetoric, which is based on religious ideologies.
Dumb Ass!
If Nation X had sent in covert agents who deposed our president and installed a brutal, torture-loving man who did Nation X’s bidding with our resources, I guarantee you many, including people like you, would be calling for Nation X to be nuked. It takes little understanding or imagination to grasp this. Any people would react with outrage and rage, regardless of ideological divisions among them.
Oh.
The U.S. said deposing their democratically elected president and installing a brutal man so that we could control their oil was “regretful.” Well then.
As clergy, the Ayatollah’s dress their politics in religious rhetoric. That happens with clergy of all sorts in many nations. But the Iranian people are justified in being angry and outraged at the U.S. for it’s overweeningly arrogant interference in their sovereign nation, as well as our support for the ethno-supremacist, racist State of Israel that grossly oppresses Palestinians.
No hope!! A complete dumb ass!
Serious question: Why do you carry on like that? Do you think it’s effective? It just feels good?
Serious answer: At first it was fun to expose your stupidity, but now it does not feel good because it is actually sad to notice how a dumb ass you are.
Serious question: You can’t actually believe that your online barking has worked? Can you? Palestinians are getting worse while Israelis are getting better, a FACT!
And who the hell “hate” us? Thousands of Americans, Europeans live in the Middle East safely. Thousands of Muslims live in Europe/America safely. Most of Muslim terrorists (if not all) largely target and kill other Muslims, a FACT. So, who are “they”? Al Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram…Those groups hate everybody, but themselves. Are they supposed to make an exception for us and like us while they massacre others?
Dumb Ass!
Ah, another brainwashed fucking idiot telling other people that they are idiots just because they don’t believe the same bullshit he believes in.
Ah, another brainless dumb ass going down on his/her knees swallowing bullshit from Mona!
“The official Twitter account of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Friday actually posted this” &c.
The straight-wing aircraft in that video don’t appear to be F-16s. At least not the ones streaming colors. Look, people, if you’re going to show aircraft, at least find decent CGI, ok? Italy has better stunt and airshow aircraft. Frecci tricolori, ok?
Glenn is so naive when it comes to foreign policy. The US can’t afford to alienate the Egyptian military the way it did with the Pakistani military. The support we give them is basically basically a bribe to keep them from allowing terrorists to operate in the openly against us. There’s never going to be any kind of warm and fuzzy Scandinavian style social democracy in the region because human rights, like democracy, are alien concepts.
Then why don’t we (and Israel) “bribe” every Muslim country in that same way? And, what is your evidence that this is why we so heavily arm Egypt?
Finally, what is your response to this by Greenwald:
How can the U.S. seriously claim to oppose nations with bad human rights records in light of things like this?
So that is what the Iraq war proved: when the US stops supporting a dictator, the result is more terrorism. At least we can lay to rest that neocon idea that getting rid of a dictator would cause democracy to break out all over. So, back to the main business of supporting dissectors. But we all know that every few decades you have to fire the old dictator and let them fight it out to see who gets to be the new one. Old complacent dictators are so bad!
dissectors: I guess that came from the spell checker. In any case, the true measure of a dictator is how little he opposes Israel. Keeping that to a minimum is worth many jet planes and deaths by local secret police.
“Glenn is so naive when it comes to foreign policy.”
No, Whendovescry. You are clearly the naive one when it comes to foreign policy. See, for you it’s still a game of so-called democracy, while for the Plutocrats it’s all about geopolitics. The US think they can bullshit the world the same way that they patronize and deceive and bullshit their own population. It just doesn’t work so well anymore. To claim that you are spreading democracy you must be a democracy yourself, and that we know by now is not the case with the US of bullshit.
I really think there should be a certain indication nowadays (as if it isn’t already in the ether unspoken) when speaking about the U.S. that delineates between the people who live in the U.S. and the corporate interests…there has to be a way of shortening who we’re speaking about so it can be both accurate and unobtrusive ;b I just feel like this is an unfair (to the innocents :D) misnomer to talk about the terribly evil interests as if 1) they were vast in numbers and not just resources and 2) as if any significant amount of people with even a modicum of true insight and volition were following these willfully
Glenn Greenwald, channeling Howard Cosell.
It’s just a back of the envelope estimate, but I think the only thing in widespread media distribution that outnumbers the number of “world’s most brutal,” or the “world’s worst human rights record,” or the “world’s most repressive,” or the “world’s worst offender,” regimes is probably the number of times the Pentagon has killed al Qaeda’s number 3 man.
In this case, it’s not even true right in the neighborhood: Egypt’s Southern border is with The Sudan, where the regime not only tops the brutality of Egypt, it’s also, since the subject is weapons, is known as the “Arms Dump of Africa”. And further down the coast is Eritrea, which is known as the “North Korea of Africa,” and has migrants fleeing it almost as fast as they’re fleeing Syria. Which, oh, yeah, has a reputation for torture equal to that of Mubarak Egypt and has a regime which drops barrel bombs (just like that guy to Egypt’s south).
But we wouldn’t want to kick up too much dust talking about the countries right in the neighborhood who funnel most of the arms in Africa from such sources as three out of the five of Glenn’s “non-compliant” regimes: Iran, Russia and China. In fact, just China, Iran and Sudan supply most in the sense of “more than half”.
I don’t mind calling out repressors, in fact I like it. But this article so drips with bias and willful non-observance as to be laughable.
@ Ondelette
Glenn isn’t calling out all the “world’s repressors”. He’s calling out the ones the US directly supplies lots of weapons to. Do you understand why? Unless of course you are arguing that Sudan and Eritrea are receiving as much in military aid from the US to facilitate their brutal leaders policies, as Egypt does, in which case provide the evidence.
Now maybe it’s a valid critique to argue Glenn shouldn’t engage in a particular kind of qualitative judgment or rhetoric as to who is the “world’s most X” without agreeing to some sort of objective criteria and ranking system based thereupon, but unless you are being willfully obtuse you know precisely why it is fair to describe Mubarak and Al-Sisi’s regimes as “one of the world’s most X” and why an American is more rightly concerned about America’s impact on repression in Egypt rather than say China, Russia and Iran’s in Sudan and Eritrea. You get that, right?
You do understand that Americans have little capacity to alter the policies of Iran and especially Russia and China, right? And you understand that American citizens have only slightly more effective capacity to alter America’s policies but a much greater moral responsibility as citizens of America to try, right? Please tell me you understand that simple concept.
Because what’s getting really old is you nitpicking Glenn for not talking equally about “all X” in the world when he’s under absolutely no obligation to do so. If you want to talk about Eritrea and Sudan, this is a big country with lots of newspapers and blogs. Send a letter to the editor or write guest columns for some blog. In fact, it sounds like First Look is eventually going to make that a possibility right here. In which case you’ll have the opportunity to demonstrate how much you know and we’ll see if you have the chops to get more people to care about your areas of interest. But littering Glenn’s threads over the years with such petty non-sequitur attacks is embarrassing. Assuming you were capable of being embarrassed but I guess that’s easier to avoid when you hide behind a pseudonym.
No, try reading the article again. He’s calling out the U.S. He always calls out the U.S. And he frequently uses that superlative language to try to build a case for the U.S. as not only dealing with but progenerating the worst, most brutal, most repressive, most…you know the drill. The perfect embodiment of Howard Cosell’s sports coverage. Please don’t try to talk down to me and explain to me why. Anyone with half a brain sees that he extolls the criticism of the U.S. as his high art. I do believe he even quoted Chomsky with that ridiculous bullshit about it being courageous to do so. Actually, it’s most courageous to criticize the government that can harm you the most. Not the one that you have a tenuous ever diminishing tie to from far, far away.
Gee, RR! Thanks for explaining such a deep and legally difficult idea with such — what do lawyers like to say? — probity. It’s a valid critique no ifs, ands, or buts to say what I said: Egypt is not the world’s most brutal and repressive regime, and it still isn’t true if you restrict even to as small a region as Northeast Africa. But Glenn really needs that hyperbole, like all lawyers trying to emotionally sway the jury, because a factual rendition that puts truth first won’t minimize the risk of losing the case. And that’s why it’s done, so yes, I do understand.
As for the American must concentrate on American effects crap, no, I don’t agree. Systems are interlocked and interrelated and complex by nature. Singling out the American subset of every system for criticism produces no solutions, just a lot of great sounding rhetoric that never does anything to end the really brutal repression in places like Sudan or Eritrea, much less the human catastrophes in Yemen or South Sudan. Because it’s willfully adopting the British Raj version of the world: The world always was the way it was when we (Britain, America, choose your viewpoint) first encountered it, and all of what is (right, wrong, or whatever) is therefore due to our influence since then, none of those little people in the world are ever the cause of anything whatsoever. It’s the Great Glennman’s burden.
Nope. Don’t understand that at all, because it’s not really true. We are currently altering the policies of Iran as we speak, and you have been singing the praises of that, I do believe. We are China’s biggest market by far, and some of us remember that we and (principally the) Russians “fought” an entire Cold War having enormous influence on each other even as bitter enemies without going to war.
Yeah, that’s what I thought the rest of your pseudo-logical introduction was leading up to. I’m not, by the way, nitpicking Glenn. His fundamental percepts of the foreign policy world he’s attempting to criticize are dead wrong. I made the most obvious criticisms only to point that out in a way that would ring true without deeper analysis. It actually works, since even you were forced to say there isn’t a metric upon which his superlatives make any sense. And the other commenter, well, was Mona, the ad hominem bore here, trying desperately to dredge up ‘nuf said’s stalking from Salon because she isn’t creative enough to actually say anything else.
Here’s the deal: When Glenn chastises using over the top hyperbole and it turns out that 3 out of the 5 countries he’s decided to laud for being not “compliant” to the wishes of the U.S. turn out to be the countries flooding a continent with cheap destabilizing weapons, in the case of sales to Sudan in contravention of an arms embargo over a genocide in Darfur (that one would be China and Iran contravening although parachute bombs traced back to Russia are being recently photographed), then either you don’t know what you’re talking about (merciful interpretation) or you are deliberately so closed minded and biased against the U.S. that you can somehow fail to see the repression directly next door — on the other side of the Aswan High Dam from Egypt — that makes your superlative look like a sick joke (less merciful interpretation).
Take your pick, RR, but it has nothing to do with picking nits. Genocides that kill hundreds of thousands in Darfur, in C.A.R., in South Sudan, in the DR Congo, or any other place that the Sudanese government is supplying Chinese guns and Iranian bullets to, are not nits. Anyone who thinks they are is pathological.
@ Ondelette
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think your a pathetic emotionally disturbed nobody. I’m firmly convinced you don’t understand the first thing about coherent or consistent morality or simple fundamental causation. I’d spend the 20 minutes it would take to pick apart your little incoherent word salad, but you’d simply launch into another pathetic incoherent attempt at distraction from the fundamental question which is this that you are incapable of answering–“does a human being (and particularly a citizen of a particular nation) have an moral or legal obligation to attempt right (or bring attention to) every wrong that occurs all over the globe at any given moment lest they be labeled a hypocrite for not doing so by Ondelette the pseudonymous dilettante.”
I think the obvious answer is no both at a philosophical and practical level. And anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t really understand reality and likely has a whole host of deep seated psychological issues that manifest in such a way as to make him/her believe otherwise.
I feel sorry for you Ondelette. Mostly because at a tactical and/or strategic level you will never achieve anything you purport to want to achieve in the world regarding human rights without first fighting to ensure that the nation of which you are a citizen of (arguably the most powerful in the world although that is debatable depending on the metric employed) refrains from perpetuating human rights abuses and can actually lead by example with some approximation of “moral authority.” American cannot and does not and that’s why unless it “extorts” human rights compliance from others under threat of war or economic sanctions it has absolutely zero effect or moral authority regarding other nations’ policies with regard to human rights.
I’ve been interested in ondelette’s answer to this question, and he did answer it in his paragraph beginning with “As for the American must concentrate on American effects crap, no, I don’t agree.” He rejects Chomsky’s moral rule, and he gave (some of) his reasons.
You and Mona are a pair: when you’re frustrated in an argument, rather than simply leave it as a disagreement, you declare victory, and hurl insults on your way out. It’s ugly and it’s childish (as ondelette points out), and anyone who is capable of making an impartial observation will see it that way.
As usual, you are wrong:
I virtually never “declare victory.” On many levels that is usually stupid, and indicative of insecurity.
Most human beings aren’t capable of that feat, so the answer is a qualified “no”. Qualified because most human beings are capable of at least paying enough attention so that these wrongs are at least witnessed, and if decisions arise on what to do about them, they can make them with information, not ignorance.
I explained to Pedinska how I gather my information. I don’t do it to comment on columns. Rather, if I use it to comment on columns, it is because I am aware from my “day job” that people who believe themselves politically and factually aware, and in certain places (like here) believe themselves responsible for righting wrongs, falsely believe they can do so in total ignorance of the massive suffering of others.
The number of people I’ve informed, in person, in one on one discussions, that certain wars took place at all, is quite high. The number of people I’ve informed, in person, that civilians, not soldiers, take the massive brunt of the suffering and casualties of war is not small. The number of people I’ve informed that disease, starvation, and thirst are most often the biggest killers in war is quite large.
It’s part of what I do. And the number of people here, at this website, who believe themselves sophisticated on foreign policy, who believe themselves champions of peace and justice, but have zero idea of what injustice and war is actually occurring in this world is pretty high, especially when the chief heavyweight of the articles here knows so little about the context of any foreign policy topic he takes on.
Do you know what a lot of people in and from surrounding countries said about the uprisings in Egypt and the subsequent political strife under Morsi and the takeover by the military? One of them told me that nobody in the region cared much about the Egyptians, because all that time the Egyptian unemployment rate was 15% and now the Egyptians are acting all oppressed and demanding sympathy because it went to 29%. Well, since it had been a steady 40%+ in all the countries from which the Egyptians were demanding sympathy and Egypt had never cared about them or helped them, why should they care what is happening to the Egyptians?
No context. No substance for comparisons. But anyone who points it out is someone to feel sorry for and pretend that they have a psychological problem? Is that your solution for awareness — to label it a psychological problem?
People can’t very well decide questions of ending human rights abuses or of “moral authority”, if they simply don’t know about them, or if what they know has been so filtered and encrusted with irrelevant opinion that they learn it wrong. In 1993, a war started in Africa that lasted over 10 years, had more than 20 nations involved in it, perpetrated some of the worst human rights abuses in history, and had a higher number of casualties and killed more people than any war since World War II.
The number of people in the “arguably” “most powerful ” country in the world, including people who spend their time debating what that country should do in this world, here on the internet, in think tanks, and in universities, who simply don’t know that war happened is a human rights abuse in itself.
Don’t “feel sorry” for me for trying to get people to hear. I’m well aware that what I seek to achieve is a near hopeless battle. But it’s the right battle. Constricting your viewpoint to only American actions because you believe that’s more noble isn’t. It’s an exercise in ignorance and I’m going to point it out no matter how many lawyers here decide to do the slut defense.
Says he who has been on an unhinged anti-Greenwald crusader ever since Greenwald — accurately — labeled you an “embittered liar” some years ago.
‘nuf said, Mona, you’re a broken record.
And you’re an embittered liar and defamer of fine people. Greenwald, Kevin Gostolza, and others.
Mona, we’re all hopeful you’ll reach the Piaget development stage at which you can form cogent arguments reflective of a post-adolescent worldview. I’m guessing your current stage is that of a sensory-deprived minah bird on adderall, but I’m not a child psychologist.
What’s with this “we” business? You speak for no one but yourself with your pointless name-calling and biting at Glenn’s ankles.
Sometimes people teach minah birds to whistle, it’s weird to hear a bird making a human imitation of a bird song. Can you whistle, Minah?
So, the embittered liar is reduced to juvenile mockery of my name.
just responding in kind, child.
Below “lenk” spewed this:
lenk is a rabid, ranting Zionist and any foreign policy issue comes down to whether it is good for Israel — as wingnut Zionists define “good.”
He is happy with Sisi strictly because Sisi plays nice with the ethno-supremacist, racist State of Israel. In highlighting Sisi’s appalling human rights record, and the military aid the U.S. lavishes upon Sisi’s Egypt, Greenwald committed the grave sin of writing against Israel’s interests.
Hence, lenk’s comment.
You still did not even address lenk’s comment whether he is a raving Zionist or not.
Yes I did, Craig. In that thread.
Oh and Craig: lenk did not answer my comment: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/03/u-s-government-celebrates-arming-egyptian-regime-youtube-video/?comments=1#comment-154788
Dumb Ass Mona!
Yeah, as if I “must” answer anybody’s comments.
Dumb Ass!!
Oh, you need not (and you really can’t answer it). But Craig seems to think it would have been wrong had I not answered yours.
You did answer with a dumb ass comment reflecting your stupidity!
Dumb Ass
I think it is way better to be a “rabid” “ranting Zionist” who according to you, controls the most powerful governments worldwide and the media outlets around the world than being a dumb ass like you who is incapable of neither understanding nor challenging a simple basic argument.
Dumb Ass!!
Every time you say “dumb ass”, I think “cream puff”. I don’t know why
See folks? This is what “lenk” is about. A juvenile, ranting Zionist who knows nothing about my views except that I’m a critic of Zionism and have the facts to back me up.
I’ve never said that, but there is large kernel of truth to it. See this British program from the UK’s news program “Dispatches,” in an episode: Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby.
This well-documented show is utterly astonishing. The level of Zionist control of the UK media and its political establishment is simply astounding. Among those interviewed about Zionist pressure on media is Alan Rusbridger, recently retired Editor-in-Chief of The Guardian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E70BwA7xgU
Anyone who thinks my claims are “antisemitic” won’t be taken seriously unless and until they watch this program and can discuss it substantively. The truth cannot be antisemitic.
Dumb Ass!!
“The level of Zionist control of the UK media and its political establishment is simply astounding”
This is how smart they are. They manage to “control” the political establishment and the media of an extremely powerful country. What about? You have been barking for how long on the Internet? What have you accomplished? The Palestinian people got so much better thanks to your barking!
Dumb Ass!
Watch the program and find out. It’s quite comprehensive and well done.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/listen-wsjs-bret-stephens-secretely-plot-pro-israel-evangelicals-killing-iran-deal/?comments=1#comment-154500
Mr. Greenwald
“……Just today, the American and Egyptian governments jointly issued a lengthy statement on a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, which it said was “based on the shared belief that it is necessary to deepen the Egypt-U.S. bilateral relationship to advance our shared interest after almost four decades of close partnership and cooperation.”……”
The US supports – contrary to opinions on this site – stability obviously for economic reasons. The Camp David peace agreement in 1979 between Israel and Egypt was extremely important toward stabilizing the Middle East for those four decades – and the US military aid to Egypt as a part of that deal did not prevent the ousting of Mubarak. Millions of Egyptians took to the streets to oust the elected leader of Egypt, Morsi – a failed Islamists leader.
And it is a simplification (as you are prone to doing) to imply that by opposing al-Sissi, this would have been better for Egyptians. Saudi Arabia already had offered to replace US aid and al-Sissi made a trip to Russia to pressure the US into providing the military aid. The Russians are currently backing the bloodiest war in the Middle East and flaring up the conflict in Ukraine for geopolitical expediency – so this would have been a great opportunity for the Russian Czar. In addition, ISIS has become a larger threat to stability in the Middle East, thus the US chose to back a stable (albeit brutal) government in Egypt. This move puts the US squarely at odds with ISIS which is consistent with their current policies in the ME.
The ME is subdivided by a sectarian rivalry and Egypt is an important player in the regional divide between Iran (Shiites) and Saudi Arabia/Israel. Support of Egypt pacifies Saudi Arabia who opposed the nuclear deal with Iran. In addition, supporting the dictator is supporting stability as Egypt could potentially become another Syria (although not near as likely).
Your anger at the US may be warranted, but a look at the complexities in the most important economic center on earth suggests that the US could be making the right move for long term peace and the promotion of democracy.
In addition, your lack of anger at Russia only reinforces the opinion that this has nothing to do with Egyptian rights, and everything to do with anti-Americanism.
That is not for the United States to decide.
Ah, you are confused. Glenn Greenwald is a citizen of the United States, not of Russia. He is intimately familiar with American policies and law — and speaks English — but Russia? Not so much.
The issue for Americans is the crimes our country commits against other peoples. It’s called sweeping your own side of the street.
“……Glenn Greenwald is a citizen of the United States, not of Russia…….The issue for Americans is the crimes our country commits against other peoples. It’s called sweeping your own side of the street…..”
Let me remind you of a couple of things:
1. The Intercept is a news source with some members of the staff who are not American by citizenship. So the fall back position of “this is my country” is pure bullshit – and it is an amazing cop-out to the truth.
2. The mission statement says:
“……We believe journalism should bring transparency and accountability to powerful governmental and corporate institutions, and our journalists have the editorial freedom and legal support to pursue this mission…..”
Does that say ONLY US and allies? One thing is for sure. If your mission statement is misleading, then you can just about bet that the journalism is as well.
3. The Intercept is well funded to cover lots of areas in world politics. The brutal murder of over 250,000 people in Syria ignored by the Intercept just shows that the political motivation is strictly driven by opposition to American policies (anti-Americanism). That Greenwald wrote an article essentially praising the fascist Russian government for fighting fascism just proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Thanks Mona.
Yes, several are Canadian or from the UK. They report on Canada, the UK and the U.S.; the porous border with Canada and longstanding relationship with both makes us siblings (the UK is more of a parent). What is not on The Intercept’s staff are any Russians.
[ Do read UK citizen Duncan Campbell’s articule today which details some fascinating history involving both the GCHG and the NSA and their shared programs and intel. Hint: there are no such programs between the U.S. and Russia.]
Since the staff are Canadians and Americans, or from the UK, pretty much, yes.
Uh-huh. Even if so, the facts and arguments above from Greenwald, and other Intercept writers, stand on their own. Whataboutery is not a substantive reply to them.
Mona
“…….Yes, several are Canadian or from the UK. They report on Canada, the UK and the U.S.; the porous border with Canada and longstanding relationship with both makes us siblings (the UK is more of a parent). What is not on The Intercept’s staff are any Russians……”
True enough Mona as if that is a requirement to do a story on Russian involvement in the war in Ukraine (or any other story in the world). The death toll has surpassed 6000 (three times the amount in Gaza). This included the downing of a civilian airliner killing 300 which was most likely a Russian “mistake”. In addition, Greenwald did one story on Russia – about Ukrainian fascists. He didn’t address the illegal annexing of a sovereign nation, or that Russian troops and equipment are in Ukraine (also illegally). The casualties were irrelevant. There were no dead children pictured at the top of the story. In addition, Greenwald has a staff of over thirty journalists, so it really comes down to hiring a like-minded staff.
Resume requirement: You must be obsessed with opposing all policies of the US and their allies. Others need not apply.
“……Uh-huh. Even if so, the facts and arguments above from Greenwald, and other Intercept writers, stand on their own. Whataboutery is not a substantive reply to them…..”
Reread the mission statement of the Intercept, Mona.
“……transparency and accountability to powerful governmental and corporate institutions…..”
Greenwald takes the most complex geopolitical region in the world and simply writes stories excoriating US involvement. There is no real political analysis and certainly no attempt to hold any other “powerful government” interests responsible (Iranian, Russian, Lebanese) – just the US, allies and Israel (of course).
“It’s my country” is pure bullshit, Mona. That is a tired argument. America sells and is an obsession with the far left (world-wide). That includes and is especially true for US ally, Israel.
Thanks Mona
Mmmm, no. It’s compelling reasoning that you simply dislike.
No, they could be British, Canadian or American foreign correspondents assigned to Eastern Europe. But The Intercept does not appear to have foreign correspondents, with the exception of Jeremy Scahill whose beat is the Middle East (and sometimes Africa).
The focus here is on civil liberties in, and foreign policy of, Western nations. This is as unremarkable as it is commendable.
But again, none of your whataboutery matters. The articles here stand on their own merits, quite regardless of what you’d prefer the journalists write about.
Again, Mona, just so we are clear on this issue and the issue of human rights. Greenwald (not the Intercept) highlights human rights abuses when it is politically expediency i.e.,for political reasons. There are pictures of dead children (non Jewish, of course) when the political opportunity arises, but human rights and casualties (including children) are ignored when the American government isn’t involved like Syria and Russia. The article by Greenwald on Russia highlights this apparent selective concern for human rights, but it is one more definitive criteria for the anti-American, anti-Israeli (obsessive) radical left (which separates it from “liberals”).
The “it’s my country” argument is baloney. The anti-American far left in Europe is far larger and stronger (politically) than the extreme left in America and Canada. You folks are politically indistinguishable, however, driven by the same motives.
“……But The Intercept does not appear to have foreign correspondents, with the exception of Jeremy Scahill whose beat is the Middle East (and sometimes Africa)….”
As if he couldn’t hire someone? It also is consistent with his obsessive focus on American policies to the exclusion of far worse human rights issues in many other places in the world.
That is because there are no dead Jewish children as result of Palestinian rockets. There are a couple of thousand dead Palestinians with hundreds of dead children, just in the past year.
BDS is a world-wide illustration of the disgust held for Israel. For some reason I feel the world has responded this way before to cultures that do not play well with others.
@ Craig Summers
Any chance you could please learn to “blockquote” passages when you cite/copy them?
It’s really easy, as follows:
You type the following before the text you want to block quote: “
” to show you what it would look like without quotations, but I don’t think it will. I think it will just show ” [insert text] ” blockquoted.
Thanks. Can’t agree with much of anything you argue because it’s 99% evidence free conjecture, but it will make it much easier for all of us to make sense of your posts and quote you accurately in response in beating down said conjecture.
@ Craig Summers
Okay that didn’t work. Just follow the instructions in this link:
http://html5doctor.com/blockquote-q-cite/
“Can’t agree with much of anything you argue because it’s 99% evidence free conjecture, but it will make it much easier for all of us to make sense of your posts and quote you accurately in response in beating down said conjecture” – rrheard
Spot on regarding CraigSummers contributions here.
The above was one blockquote. Some sites allow a ‘double blockquote’ to narrow it even further (just highlight the block-quoted section and hit ‘Q’ for blockquote again). Not sure if it works at The Intercept – let’s see:
“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.” – Isaac Asimov
A Come Out Of Your Fucking Pigeonhole, CraigSummers! Production™
Glenn’s post today is a good occasion to remind us all of New Atheist Big Honcho, Sam Harris’s, endorsed that the U.S. impose “benign” dictators on Muslim countries, my emphasis:
And:
There is, of course, virtually no such thing as a “benign despot,” and Sam Harris is smart enough to know this. What he really is saying is that despots of the sort he likes should be supported and imposed on Muslim countries. Which we have done in countries like Iran.
Why do they hate us?
Mr. Harris, the CEO of the Project Reason has been getting his cues from Snowball and Napoleon – of the Animal Farm fame!
Dumb Ass Mona!!
Stalin and Fidel Castro: two despots, two Marxists. How was life for dissidents under Castro compared to Stalin?
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait: two monarchies run by absolute leaders. How is freedom of the press, freedom for women, freedom of religion in Kuwait compare to Saudi Arabia?
What a dumb ass! Two despots might have the same ideology, the same goals but they might differ in how they impose their rule on the people. That is what he meant by “a benign despot”. A despot who only cares about enriching himself/herself is unlikely to massacre religious minorities that do not care about his/her corrupt policies.
Who hate us? Americans are everywhere in the Middle East and Muslims go everywhere around the world. Muslims terrorists mostly target and kill other Muslims not “us”. Iranians hate us because decades ago the US interfered in Iran and toppled a government that the Ayatollahs who are in power now wanted to be toppled? The same Ayatollahs who consistently interfere in other sovereign countries affair causing political turmoil and violence? The same Ayatollahs who hired Israeli military advisers while screaming “death to Israel”?
What a dumb Ass!!
Excitable lenk, who appears to have Keyboard Tourette’s, overlooks that I wrote this:
Of course. Imagine if any nation had invaded with secret agents and master-minded a coup to overthrow Dwight Eisenhower. And never apologized or acknowledged in any way that it had wronged us. The rage of Americans would be raw to this day — on a bipartisan basis.
What a dumb Ass!!!
Although Glenn’s article is very good, he doesn’t go into depth about ‘why’ so much money(aka foreign aid) is pouring into a do nothing country.
Clearly the U.S. is buying and paying for the Egyptian government as a client state, but is it for the sole purpose of playing nice with Israel? I can’t think of any other purpose.
Those are not F-16’s.
There are also 9 planes in the video, not 8 as indicated by the embassy’s tweet.
Actually this makes a lot of sense, you don’t wan’t the arm of justice to be chained by law:
“The arm of justice is chained by the law. We’re going to amend the law to allow us to implement justice as soon as possible,” Sisi told the Egyptian people June 30.
And this, I don’t even understand this complaint:
– “Articles 26, 27 and 29 of the anti-terrorism proposal bring back the prison penalty for journalists, which is contrary to current provisions of the Egyptian Constitution. Article 37 takes away the freedom of the press, prohibiting any individual or party from photographing or recording court sessions or publishing such information through broadcasts, print media, social media or any other means.
Article 33, which the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate categorically rejected, penalizes individuals who publish “false news” or data contradicting official government statements on terrorist attacks.”
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/egypt-anti-terrorism-law-journalists-union-criticism-sisi.html
Why would you want to publish false news, anyway???
What is sad is the lack of alternatives. What can we do with terrorists? We could lock them up forever without trial, that is one option, The US and Israel favour that one, but perhaps there is a better one. What about speeding up terrorist cases? Surely the more extreme the crime, the less time it should take to adjudicate? We could even approach the point where the trial is so speedy, that the terrorist spends hardly any time in custody at all before execution.
– “Most of the trials [over the past two years] have taken a lot of time, even if the procedures were not at all fair,” she told Al Jazeera. “Recently, especially with the uptick in anti-state violence, there were a lot of calls to expedite trials, to expedite executions. [This law] might well make appeals processes much more limited than they are under current law, making trials move faster.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/egypt-anti-terrorism-bill-provokes-criticism-150713124103828.html
What is clear is that the Egyptian government agrees with the West that terrorism, while it may be disguised as journalism or as peaceful assembly or as freedom of expression, or perhaps because terrorism has this ability to impersonate these other popular manifestations, it is a uniquely paramount threat.
– “Egypt: Draconian counterterrorism law latest tool to muzzle peaceful activists
The draft law also expands the definition of what constitutes a “terrorist act” using broad parameters such as “disturbing public order and social peace”, “harming national unity and national economy”, and “impeding the application of the provisions of the constitution and national laws”.
“If the law is adopted in its current form, it will have the potential to criminalize the legitimate exercise of human rights, including freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, posing a particular risk to journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and others,” said Said Boumedouha.
…The law also imposes severe restrictions on journalists and others reporting on “terrorist” attacks who include details or statistics that differ from those announced by the state. Those who do so could face at least two years in prison. The draft law would effectively ban journalists from collecting information from different sources, including eye witnesses and families, to challenge the government’s narrative. At least 18 journalists are already in detention on charges that include “broadcasting false information”, which is not a recognized under international law.”
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/egypt-draconian-counterterrorism-law/
@ Glenn
Thinking you are being a bit over optimistic with the following:
Other than you and a handful of US journalists, the vast majority of “US journalists” could care less. First and foremost they shouldn’t even be referred to as “journalists” but “teleprompter assisted propaganda readers”. And second they honestly don’t believe in their heart of hearts that American officials “propagandize” the American people or US journalists. They are culled throughout their corporate professional careers for their patriotism and subservience to the status quo.
The bottom line for them as the US government’s official stenography pool is this–if a US government official (anonymous or not) tells them X, then X is assumed to be true. X is published as true. And if some enterprising journalistic interloper like you exposes the fact that X is not true, then it is the official position of the US government stenography pool that a) exposition of X being untrue makes them appear inept or corrupt cogs in the propaganda wheel, so such exposition is black holed or blacked out, and/or b) you or your source’s character and personal attributes are attacked as suspicious, unworthy, unkempt, sexually deviant, politically dangerous etc. etc. etc. and the stenography pool puts its resources into deflecting attention from the fact of X’s untruth to your character.
Both are very effective at “burying” a story. So maybe it is accurate to say they might “ponder for a second or two” whether X was true or untrue and the implications of that fact. But what they will never do is act to change how they view their jobs in the stenography pool. Because it is subservience to that “US journalistic status quo” for their personal wealth, status and access to the very US officials that make it possible for them to remain in their positions. Because, quite frankly, they are too lazy or too stupid to conduct their own “investigative journalism” and uncover and write about things productively enough to actually make any money off of their endeavors. Much easier just to read the script provided to them and then claim to be journalists.
The only real threat to their “way of life” is that something like First Look Media becomes financially self-sustaining, ideologically unchanged and fearless in the face of prosecutions and lawsuits, and becomes so popular and trusted by the American public that it puts the stake through the dying heart of what is “mass mainstream corporate media” aka nominally free/private propaganda arm of the US government.
Nailed it rr.
I’d add that we are only likely to learn whether these “journalists” take that second or two to ponder such things when they are dead… like the article here a few months ago about how the “respected journalist” really felt as revealed by his personal papers after his death.
My guess is that most of these corporate shills won’t even manage to leave evidence of such reflections because they are incapable of them.
Youtube productions are low budget stuff… The US is going to spend $65 million of US taxpayers dollars over the next 13 years on a public relations/disinformation campaign to reinforce the myth in the American mind that the war against the people of Vietnam was an ‘honorable’ war.
http://warisacrime.org/content/viet-nam-half-century-later
Egypt has supplied thousands of “boots on the ground” dating back to World War I. With a new military dictator in charge and a failing economy is this once proud nation going to send the impoverished under-class into the Syrian fray, or simply keep them home to defend the new Suez canal oil infrastructure from the growing Islamic terrorist states emerging all over the region. Human rights and a democratic government be damned.
Times change. Human rights were more a propaganda weapon during the cold war, (since intellectuals in those days liked to argue about whose system was superior). The supremacy of free markets is now universally recognized and there is also an awareness that traditional human rights can be a restraining force on economic competitiveness; so a rollback is in order. A pendulum never stays still and it would be a mistake to try an arrest it at one particular point in its trajectory.
Egypt therefore represents the leading edge of progress. Hence the words of praise from the Administration are genuine; they shouldn’t be accused of hypocrisy. However, people shouldn’t fear the loss of their rights. The old carefree rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will be replaced by the more responsible rights to die, to work and to serve.
This article is strikingly similar to Sean Hannity’s report complaining about the US government providing F 16 fighter jets and and hundreds of Abram tanks to then elected President Morsi of Egypt in January 2013. Egypt was then led by a government that consistently violated human rights of journalists, opposition parties and disregarded its supporters’ violence against the opposition.
My Lord! It’s getting harder and harder to find good journalists/pundits. We have the choice between an anti-Israel, anti-American (Glenn Greenwald, who chose to stay quiet when the US was giving weapons to human rights violator but anti Israel Morsi) and crazy ignorant right wing pro Israel (Sean Hannity, who chose to stay quiet when the US was giving weapons to human rights violator but anti Hamas Mubarak.
You’re a squalling idiot, and apparently have no idea how easily your either bald faced lie or your complete ignorance can be exposed.
Here is just one of probably a dozen or more examples of Glenn Greenwald writing about the horrors of Mubarak and his Vice President Omar Suleiman:
Vice President Omar Suleiman of Egypt says he does not think it is time to lift the 30-year-old emergency law that has been used to suppress and imprison opposition leaders. He does not think President Hosni Mubarak needs to resign before his term ends in September. And he does not think his country is yet ready for democracy.
But, lacking better options, the United States is encouraging him in negotiations in a still uncertain transition process in Egypt. . . . The result has been to feed a perception, on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere, that the United States, for now at least, is putting stability ahead of democratic ideals, and leaving hopes of nurturing peaceful, gradual change in large part in the hands of Egyptian officials — starting with Mr. Suleiman — who have every reason to slow the process.–New York Times [that day]
Obama’s Man in Cairo
Given the long-obvious fact that the Obama administration has been working to install Suleiman as interim leader as a (dubious) means of placating citizen anger, the above-referenced NYT article today offers a long and detailed profile of the new Egyptian “Vice President.” Unfortunately, the paper of record wasn’t able to find the space to inform its readers about Suleiman’s decades-long history as America’s personal abducter, detainer and torturer of the Egyptian people, nor his status as Israel’s most favored heir to the Mubarak tyranny (though the article did vaguely and euphemistically acknowledge that “the United States has certainly had long ties with Mr. Suleiman” and that “for years he has been an important contact for the Central Intelligence Agency”). –Glenn Greenwald
Kitt, look again. ‘lenk’ is saying that Greenwald withheld criticism of Morsi.
I see I misunderstood whatever it was “lenk” is trying to say, but Glenn has been critical of Egypt’s political corruption and human rights abuses since forever.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/03/us-supported-egypt-188-protesters-sentenced-die-days-mubarak-freed/
Pick a five year old kid on the streets and ask him or her to explain you the following sentence:
“Glenn Greenwald, who chose to stay quiet when the US was giving weapons to human rights violator but anti Israel Morsi”
After the kid explains you the meaning of that sentence, then ask him or her whether your response to that sentence would qualify you as “a squalling idiot”.
You will be amazed to notice how sharp the reading comprehension of a five year old kid is!
Did Greenwald write articles critical of Morsi, or not?
Dude, find that five year old kid again and ask him or her whether it would be a good idea to challenge my argument by sharing with everybody an article from Greenwald in which he strongly criticizes the US for sending sophisticated weapons to anti Israel Morsi who led a government that barred the judiciary from challenging his decisions, that consistently charged journalists that questioned its policy and whose supporters openly used violence against the opposition.
That five year old kid might help you understand that posting Greenwald’s consistent criticism of US military support of human rights violators Mubarak and Sisi who were willing to make deals with Israel while he has consistently ignored US military support of human rights violator Morsi who was historically anti Israel actually makes you “a squalling idiot”.
Something that one would hope that a five year old would either understand or learn to understand is that it is ignorant in the extreme to be labeling someone (Glenn Greenwald in this case), who criticizes the actions of a government such as Israel and of the US, “Anti Israel” or “Anti American,” due to his factual writings of criticisms about the actions or in-actions of those governments.
However, it appears that you are incapable of providing factual writing of criticisms of the US by Greenwald when the US government supports militarily another government with poor human rights records that shares his opinion regarding Israel. Maybe it is just coincidence that Greenwald decides to criticizes US military support to Egypt only when governments that are lenient to Israel are in power regardless of the human rights record of the other leaders. Yes, maybe, but I still think a five year old would find that bizarre at least. And he or she having a basic intelligence would definitely understand it is more about being pro or against Israel (US) than being concerned about Egyptians’ human rights.
“We have the choice between an anti-Israel, anti-American (Glenn Greenwald”–lenk
Also know as:
America! Love it or Leave it!–Lenk
In which case, Sean Hannity — as happens once in a blue moon — got something right. Do you agree that the U.S. should not be arming authoritarian regimes like those of either Morsi or Sisi?
I don’t generally offer critiques of this nature, but – you really ran entirely off the rails with the last sentence of this piece, Glenn.
The one where he questions the true priorities of the US government? That it only opposes repression when such opposition can be used as a propaganda tool. There’s nothing controversial or radical about that idea. The US government cares about its interests, not those of others. The usual illustrative example is Saudi Arabia, but there are many others, currently and historically.
Indeed, the US and its media would oppose an entirely democratic country with a government that has broad popular support among its population, if it’s closed off to American corporations and American control.
Example 1a: Iran
Would it be vulgar to point out that supporting an Egyptian regime which will not apparently seek to renegotiate its treaty with Israel is a prime motivating factor here?
“None of that is new: a staple of U.S. (ISRAELI) foreign policy has long been to support heinous regimes as long as they carry out U.S. (ISRAELI) dictates, all in order to keep domestic populations in check and prevent their views and beliefs (which are often averse to the U.S.[ISRAEL]) from having any effect on the actions of their own government.”
Corrected.
French, English, Israeli, US … does it matter which State sells arms to buyers often financed by the very States which produces and distributes arms?
Yes, tyrants need weaponry to maintain their autocratic power (remember those tear gas canisters manufactured in the US during the original Egyptian protests?)
But it might be that compliance with/dependence upon Western arms dealers drives more foreign policy than ideology or military allegiance. If true “there” (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) isn’t it equally true “here” (US, Britain, France, Israel)?
I suspect arms dealers learned a valuable lesson during the Iranian revolution. All their contracts void with a revolutionary change in government. (This is how stuff like Iran-Contra develops — an essential mutual interest between antagonistic parties.) In the old world (the cold war era) client states had to align with one or another arms dealer but with the end of the Soviet Union, so also the end of cheap arms — rather the end of competitive bidding. The Arab spring — especially in Egypt — highlights this dynamic.
Fledgling governments (e.g., Morsi) works to establish ideological frameworks — a revolutionary agenda — while the military doesn’t care about ideology or practical politics. The graft, the pay-offs, and the arms dealers guarantee the irrelevance of ideology. The warrior class always prevails in all civil conflicts — moreso when governments sponsoring arms dealers individually benefit from the uninterrupted supply of military equipment.
No longer is GM good for America … now Boeing (etc.) defines American international political interests. This is the scam: weapons bought by foreign aid (taxpayer money returned to the domestic corporations redistributed to facilitating pols and bureaucrats) ensure the warrior class in these client states remains in power — and wealthy — there and here (internationally and domestically.)
If you believe the armies of most of these western dictators are a warrior class,you are mistaken,They are historic surrender monkeys,whose only success is against unarmed civilians.Their bellicosity depends on American bribery.
We haven’t seen nothin yet over there in Egypt.
Incompetence, cowardice and graft doesn’t prevent inclusion in a class.
If this were the case, there wouldn’t be a Democratic party in America — only two wings of the Republican party (the Softies and the Rigid).
By “warrior class” I mean people whose careers and income are associated with the military of a state.
It’s quite common everywhere on earth and in every historical era.
What about US Generals and the loot they have accumulated through these agreements and wars? Millionaire mercenaries.