Last night, I was channel surfing, and I came across shows adjacent to each other numerically.
One show’s topic was “Radical Islam”. Many people interviewed in this piece, which I won’t describe as journalism but Goebbels-like propaganda, were the same people who chimed on why the US should pursue military action in Iraq. Daniel Pipes was referred to as a “Middle East Scholar”. Daniel Pipes is nothing of the sort. He founded Campus-Watch, an online publication which lists professors that are critical of Israel. I read the articles contained in CampusWatch fairly regularly, so I am familiar with which articles receive a thumbs-up or thumbs-down (literally there is a little thumb symbol). The website is a disgrace meant to intimidate professors who criticize Israeli policy, that’s all. The comments by professors contained on the site do not rise to the level of anti-semitism in general. It’s the online version of David Horowitz’s most-dangerous professor book, which is an ideological first cousin. I read the first 10 entries or so in Horowitz’s book. Same premise basically ; if you criticize Israel and you are a professor, then you will make some list of some lame emotional blackmailer like Pipes or Horowitz.
I flipped back and forth between both shows because I wanted to watch both shows. It’s a shame that the programmers did not coordinate their propaganda a little better so as to maximize the viewership that was reached. They competed with each other timewise.
The other show was Beck’s interview with Benjamin Netanyahu. A little background on Netanyahu before I give you the core message Netanyahu brought to the discussion table:
Netanyahu became notorious when he proclaimed on national television that the 9-11 attacks were “great for Israel”. He argued that since the US was a victim of terrorism, Americans then knew what Israelis felt like, and thus the bond between the countries was strengthened, and Israel had a green light to repress the Palestinians more, under the umbrella of “fighting terrorism”. He called the 9-11 attacks “great for Israel”.
“Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention was focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”
He said this while speaking to students at Bar Ilan university (nov 24, 1989)
He was referring to Tiannamen Square (spelling).
These are but two of his public comments, which I feel let readers know exactly who the man is.
Anyway, Beck had Netanyahu on his show, and with his flashy command of the English language and his snappy suit, he comes across more as an American or European than a man from the Middle East. The premise of his entire argument is that the US must take out Ahmadinejad. He’s dangerous, trying to get nukes, hates Jews, wants to wipe them off the map, wants to start another Holocaust, the same old recycled de-bunked arguments, blah blah blah.
Before I am described as an apologist for Ahmadinejad, let me clarify a few points before I make the main point:
1. Ahmadinejad said in Farsi : “Eventually the Zionist regime in Tel-Aviv will fade into history”
as do most regimes, even the US empire will do so (sooner not later if we continue on disastrous courses)
Western media translation ” Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map”. The Farsi quote is accurate, I have read many articles on the mistranslated piece. If bloggers wants to start an aside on this point, fine.
2. Ahmadinejad said “If the Holocaust occurred, and was perpetrated by western European powers against European Jews, then why should the Palestinians be made to suffer?”
He went on to say that it should have been western European countries that provided a Jewish homeland and not the Palestinians.
Western Media translation “Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust “
Now, I do not see the point of challenging the existence of the Holocaust. All evidence points to its occurrence. Assume for a moment that Hilberg’s number of 5.1 million Jews exterminated or Dawidowicz’s number of 5.8 million Jews exterminated are challenged, the actual number of Jewish victims is disputed among the scholars who have studied the issue very closely. Hilberg’s landmark “Destruction of the European Jews” was the first account of the Holocaust, and he is called unofficially the Dean of the Holocaust Historians. There are disputes among the scholars of how many Jews were exterminated. I do not find these discussions useful at all. Even if only 1 million were killed, it was a genocide, plain and simple. A tragedy of immense proportion occurred.
However, I roundly reject the uniqueness argument of the Holocaust. I think it is shameful to suggest that no other suffering by other groups approaches the degree of suffering that Jews experienced during the Holocaust.
The Christians murdered by Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, the slaughtered villagers by Pol Pot, the genocide of 1/3 of the East Timorese, the Native Americans which were sytematically killed and displaced by the US government …
These were all horrible atrocities, and none should be trivialized by comparing the suffering of each group to the suffering of another group
So Ahmadinejad should not make statements which express doubt that the Holocaust happened.
But I do agree with the central point that the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust, yet history shows that they have been made to suffer as a result; their lands dispossessed, their families displaced. Explain the justice in that situation.
Anyway, back to Netanyahu. He is on Beck’s show and basically saying that the US should take out Iran.
The same arguments are being used by the same principals, that Iran needs to be dealt with, and the US should do it. The main principals making the argument are Israeli officials, pro-Israel neocons that distanced themselves from Bush recently because of Iraq, the same people who supported AIPAC’s national week-long symposium calling for Iran to be dealt with.
What scares me is that I think the Bush admin might try and pursue an action on Iran before January, when he knows he would not be able to do it.
Evidenced from the chatter last night on the boob-tube concerning the Iran threat (to Israel, not the US), I think the media and the various neo-con hotbed think-tanks (which i also monitor closely) are beginning to prepare, i.e indoctrinate, Americans for a possible action on Iran.
The real question is will Americans allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes once again, with a government and media and influential think-tanks recycling the same garbage arguments it used for invading Iraq? I hope the answer is no, but what do Americans do if the government decides to pursue military action with Iran anyway?
If there is an action in Iran, I renew my argument the real reason will be to maintain petro-dollar hegemony. Iran is very close to getting its oil bourse up and running, and even though Americans will see Israelis and neocons arguing for US action, to protect Israel, this is but one facet.
birth of iranian oil bourse = death of the us dollar
= another depression
= americans waking up to see the deceit that permeates US society
= 2nd american revolution
= principled government for a while
= another cycle of power-hungry people using citizens and soldiers in a grand game of chess
= back to where we are today