Christiane Amanpour has a reputation for serious journalism. She certainly didn’t burnish her credentials with this interview. I’ll be doing a “Dialogue with the Media” on this next week.
TRANSCRIPT (HT/DS)
CA: Even some Israelis who feel that unless they investigate they’re going to get an international investigation. In the Jerusalem Post shortly after the report was made public one writer wrote that the kind of report that came out closed down what could be or should be a vital debate even before it got started because of the heightened nature of this precise report. He said, for instance a debate about, when does negligence become recklessness, when does recklessness slip into wanton callousness, and then into deliberate disregard for innocent human life.
This Israeli writer basically said that this is an area of legitimate debate, but because of the heightened feelings it’s probably not going to happen.
She’s talking about David Landau, famous for his “Oh Condi, it’s been my wet dream to tell you to rape Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians” remark, whose reflections on the Goldstone report I fisked here.
The point that both he and now Jessica Montell made is that, no matter how critical they are of the Israeli army, the notion that the IDF targets civilians is beyond the pale. Not for Goldstone though (see below).
RG: Well, you know, it seems now at least of the prospect of it happening and certainly there has been an active debate, if one reads, and I have been trying to keep up with to the best of my ability with the Israeli media, the report has opened a huge debate within Israel, and that’s a very good thing, and I think its opened a debate internationally and its certainly my hope that the effect of the report will have consequences in the future for the protection of innocent civilians in many places of the world.
On the contrary, the reaction in Israel — even on the Left — is almost across the boards sense that Goldstone blew it by going so far over the top. As for the international scene, only the far-far-left (i.e., someone who thinks the NYT is a warmongering paper) sees what Goldstone sees.
Even supportive editorials (no substance here) are published in marginal places (Mary Robinson in the Daily Times of Pakistan, Richard Falk in Electronic Intifada).
Contrary to his pious wishes, as a number of people have pointed out, the report stands every chance of making things much worse. But Goldstone, as shown in the report he produced, and somewhat like his epigone, Gideon Levy, has a prodigious ability to hear only what he wants to hear.
CA: Do you think it has an effect in terms of other prosecutions. For instance there are people who say, including potentially members of the ICC, that some of what NATO or the US is doing lets say in Afghanistan or in Iraq. The whole issue of civilian casualties has become huge in Afghanistan.
RG: Well, that’s correct. But the United States, I think to its credit, has always taken care to protect innocent civilians. When innocent civilians have been killed and injured, it hasn’t been because it was intentional. It may have been negligent, it may even have been, and I don’t know I haven’t looked in to it, it may have been more than negligent but I have no doubt that it hasn’t been deliberate.
This is literally staggering. Goldstone has no problem extending to the US all the good will and best intentions in the world. He obviously knows nothing about their terrible record in targeted killings (especially under Marc Garlasco’s inspired leadership), including right now, under his very own (highly concerned) nose.
CA: So, again, are you saying that it was intentional in Israel?
RG: Certainly some of it was intentional; there was no mistake about the bombing of civilian building, the legislative council, the sorts of factories, food factories which are civilian that I was talking about. That wasn’t an error. The Israeli army have very precise munitions.
Here’s Goldstone at his “best.” Having systematically ignored all the evidence that Hamas hides in places like this, he can accuse Israel of deliberately targeting civilians. It’s Enderlin (the IDF thought it was Tanzim behind the barrel) and Abu Rahmah (they shot the father and son in cold blood) all wrapped into one. It’s the core of the blood libel and just what even David Landau and Jessica Montell couldn’t buy.
CA: To follow up there, there are some 100 investigations according to the Israelis that are going on, and some 23 or so that are possibly being brought to criminal trial. Does that go to what you were asking for? Because you talked about individual responsibility.
RG; No, not at all. These are secret military enquiries, in very few cases have the victims been spoken to My understanding is that the Israeli military are relying almost entirely on what they get from their own forces. That’s hardly the sort of enquiry that’s going to satisfy victims.
Note the presumption that the IDF soldiers are guilty and their “victims” need satisfaction. Apparently the possibility that the satisfaction of a victimized Gazan population would come from trying Hamas for war crimes doesn’t enter his mental universe. At the press conference yesterday, the Israeli officials were especially indignant about this. After all, there’s no country in the world - bar none - who have a more systematic military review, and to dismiss this out of hand is to undermine the very notion — absolutely necessary — of self-regulation.
CA: I want to play also what Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State here in the United States, has had to say about the report.
HC: We believe that the mandate for the Goldstone Report was one sided, and that many of the recommendations are appropriately dealt with by the institutions within Israel. Therefore we believe that the appropriate venue within the international system is the HRC. We and other nations will be engaged about that but we have grave concerns about the recommendations.
CA: So, first of all, grave concerns about the recommendations. What precisely do you think she means by that?
RG: Well, she may mean having reference to the Security Council. Its difficult to deal with Secretary Clinton’s criticisms without knowing what they are. She wasn’t specific, no, no. . .
CA: I think she said to keep it with the HRC and not to put it to the Security Council.
RG: But the problem is that the HRC has got no enforcement powers at all.
CA: Does it bother you, the reputation the HRC has, which is, basically anti Israeli.
RG: Absolutely, and this is the reason why I initially refused to get involved with what I considered to be a very lopsided unfair resolution. ]I was only when the mandate was broadened that I was prepared to get involved, and certainly I’ve on many occasion spoken about what I consider to be the unfortunate over concentration by the HRC on Israel.
Which he replicates in every word he says and writes…
CA: We talked about each side conducting their own investigations; Israel has its justice, the wheels of justice that turn. [What] would you expect really that you could get out of Hamas in Gaza.
RG: Well Hamas has courts open. There are courts in Gaza. People are convicted. Some people are, regrettably in my view, are sentenced to be executed. But if Hamas hasn’t got the sufficient resources, hasn’t got sufficient lawyers and judges, which I doubt, I’ve no doubt that the international community will fill any gap that there may be in such an absence of resources.
This is the jaw-dropper. As the Israelis say, this guy “lives in a movie.” He really doesn’t get it: Hamas targets civilians, their own and Israeli; Israel targets Hamas and does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, their own and Palestinian.
Hamas would not have hearings to constrain this kind of behavior. On the contrary, it’s their main strategy.
The Hamas court system in action as decribed by the NYT:
On Monday, Dr. Ashour was not the only official in charge. Armed Hamas militants in civilian clothes roamed the halls. Asked their function, they said it was to provide security. But there was internal bloodletting under way.
In the fourth-floor orthopedic section, a woman in her late 20s asked a militant to let her see Saleh Hajoj, her 32-year-old husband. She was turned away and left the hospital. Fifteen minutes later, Mr. Hajoj was carried out by young men pretending to transfer him to another ward. As he lay on the stretcher, he was shot in the left side of the head.
Mr. Hajoj, like five others killed at the hospital this way in 24 hours, was accused of collaboration with Israel. He had been in the central prison awaiting trial by Hamas judges; when Israel destroyed the prison on Sunday he and the others were transferred to the hospital. But their trials were short-circuited.
Note that collaboration with Israel and peaceful desires can easily be confused by the Hamas “courts.”
This is Goldstone at his most “humorous” grotesque. And Amanpour doesn’t bat an eye:
CA: Just a final question, where does on go from here, in terms of international justice, given the controversy over this report.
RG: I think what’s very important is that double standards need to stop. It’s really unfair that international criminal justice only involves smaller weaker powers. I think it’s very important for that reason that the United States should be come much more active and much more involved with the international criminal court. I think its moving in that direction but I’d have to see it move a lot quicker.
Not a clue. How the mighty have fallen.
It won’t play. “This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions,” it says.
Comment by Diane — October 1, 2009 @ 10:39 am
RG: RG: Absolutely, and this is the reason why I initially refused to get involved with what I considered to be a very lopsided unfair resolution. ]I was only when the mandate was broadened that I was prepared to get involved, and certainly I’ve on many occasion spoken about what I consider to be the unfortunate over concentration by the HRC on Israel.
Come off it! Talk about taquiya!
He took on a mandate that even Robinson refused.
He trashed the Israeli judicial system which has judged various cases involving the armed forces.
Goldstone, Are You God?
From the article:
The UNHRC’s mandate to the Goldstone mission was to engage in fact finding. In a court of law, that’s what a jury does. Instead, Goldstone decided to become jury, judge, and executioner.
There are simply no honest grounds for concluding that Israel is unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute its own soldiers or officials. Israel is currently prosecuting a former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, for corruption. Why would it have any problem prosecuting military personnel? History shows that it does not. From 2002 through 2008, Israeli authorities opened 1,467 criminal investigations of alleged soldier misconduct, issued 140 indictments, and convicted 103 defendants. These decisions are subject to review at the highest level of the Israeli judicial system. That isn’t the case even in the United States.
His report repeatedly takes alleged “facts” — which were gleaned from highly unreliable third-party sources — and then draws legal conclusions. Not only was this beyond the mission’s mandate, but the report consistently misstates legal standards on the basis of insufficient factual evidence.
Furthermore, the fact finding was to pertain to Operation Cast Lead (as the Israeli attack on Hamas rocket-launching installations was codenamed). Instead, the mission engages in a rambling analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally (omitting the crucial context of terrorism) and discusses the legalities of “Israeli occupation” and the Israeli wall, all items well beyond the stated scope of the mission.
Goldstone isn’t one of “Lenin’s idiots” but a calculating thug.
Comment by Cynic — October 1, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Diane,
Where are you because the video plays even in Israel?
Comment by Cynic — October 1, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
RG: But the United States, I think to its credit, has always taken care to protect innocent civilians.
What like dropping leaflets, phoning residents …?
Amazing how he ignored the firing from behind civilians by Hamas operatives; the numerous videos depicting Hamas behaviour; the basing of Hamas in the basement of Gaza’s major hospital etc., etc.
Comment by Cynic — October 1, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
He is glib and slick. He is a tough enemy.
Comment by JD — October 1, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Hello, I guess this is as good of a place as any to post and let you know. I tried to subscribe to your RSS feed, but when i clicked it I got an error that said “Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING” followed by other gibberish that scrolled off the screen. I had to force the page to stop loading because it locked up my browser. Just thought you might like to know.
Comment by RV Sheets King — October 1, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
I’m in LA. Anyway, I’ve read the transcript. Thanks, whoever typed it up. Here’s what jumps out at me as totally disingenous:
Is he kidding?!!! Does ANYONE really believe that? What amazing white-washing of known American sins is this? And Amanpour lets him get away with it.
This is the crux of the Goldstone report. If Israel is guilty, we are all guilty. He dodges it, and she doesn’t blink.
Comment by Diane — October 1, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
I can only surmise that he lives in a different reality. The reality in which Hamas deliberately aims at civilians and celebrates a hit does not seem to exist for him.
He sees a reality in which despite the fact of the proportion of males to females killed Israel must have targeted factories and civilians without cause because Hamas’s witnesses told him so.
His cold, determined manner seemed to say Let us teach these damned Israelis a lesson. Everyone else’s behaviour is explicable (though he has no proof) and will be excused except for Israel’s. He is in no way ashamed of himself. He has convinced himself that he is in the right.
Comment by margie — October 1, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Diane,
After Amanpour’s equivalence of Israeli settlers and ultra religious with Islamists what more would be expected of her.
She certainly has an agenda.
Comment by Cynic — October 1, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
It’s incredible that “respected” Judge Goldstone finds such favor with Hamas “courts.” The NYT reported on their activities during the war against Hamas:
The Hamas court system in action as decribed by the NYT:
On Monday, Dr. Ashour was not the only official in charge. Armed Hamas militants in civilian clothes roamed the halls. Asked their function, they said it was to provide security. But there was internal bloodletting under way.
In the fourth-floor orthopedic section, a woman in her late 20s asked a militant to let her see Saleh Hajoj, her 32-year-old husband. She was turned away and left the hospital. Fifteen minutes later, Mr. Hajoj was carried out by young men pretending to transfer him to another ward. As he lay on the stretcher, he was shot in the left side of the head.
Mr. Hajoj, like five others killed at the hospital this way in 24 hours, was accused of collaboration with Israel. He had been in the central prison awaiting trial by Hamas judges; when Israel destroyed the prison on Sunday he and the others were transferred to the hospital. But their trials were short-circuited.
Note the “regrettable” execution, but without the benefit of a trial.
Comment by Soccer Dad — October 1, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
I would expect Amanpour’s stylish anti-Americanism to kick in and for her to mention atrocities involving the killing of innocents by Americans — starting with Hiroshima (hello!) — and challenge him to explain just what he means by that strange moral gray-zone he defines as: “more than negligent but not deliberate.” What is this? A human-rights equivalent to second-degree murder?
Comment by Diane — October 1, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Goldstone leaves many stones unturned…
Yaacov Lozowick watched Christiane Amanpour’s interview of Judge Goldstone. (video available) He observed: The second is his comparison of the Israeli judicial system and that of the Hamas: Israel’s is secretive and not reliable. Hamas, on the other …
Trackback by Soccer Dad — October 2, 2009 @ 2:07 am
Soccer Dad Amnesty International agrees with the NYT account you quoted.
This is their Feb.10 report.
Comment by margie — October 2, 2009 @ 2:30 am
Apologies: the content of my quotation from Amnesty seems to have twinned itself and insists on including the egregious fact about mostly civilians being killed.
Comment by margie — October 2, 2009 @ 2:34 am
Well, this is just plain stupid!!! I think he might have been drugged and hypnotized while in Gaza and turned into a Hamas propaganda Golem.
There is really nothing more one can comment on that dimwittedness that has not already been said.
What a sad, sad man he is…
Comment by sshender — October 2, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Today it occurred to me that one thing that is often lost in these discussions is that the laws of war were purposely written with a recognition that there are levels of war crime. To effectively protect civilians, the more serious crimes known as crimes against humanity, should be considered first and the less serious crimes addressed later. The Goldstone Report effectively ignores this in its mandate and its prose.
US domestic criminal law sensibly recognizes, for example, that if anyone is killed in the commission of a bank robbery, then all who participated are guilty of murder. It recognizes that the choice to participate in the crime was the choice that if avoided, would have saved the life. They all shared in that precipitating choice and all are therefore guilty of murder.
Likewise, the question of whether attacking a mosque from which Kassams were fired is a violation of the discrimination clause or a justifiable military goal is a much less serious question in terms of protecting the lives and interests of civilians - than whether one party to the conflict was the clear aggressor who initially attacked the civilians of the other - which forced the other to defend itself.
International law as well as common sense dictate that the laws about starting wars of aggression are the most serious rules of all; crimes against humanity which if enforced and effectively punished, would provide the ultimate protection of civilian interests. If Israel had no need to stop the rockets coming from Gaza then there would have been no Cast Lead, no civilian infrastructure destroyed and no civilian lives lost - on either side.
When the UN starts concerning itself with this issue, as Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly requires, before it sends off a stacked commission to examine the actions of one party to the conflict and not the other, then they might expect to be taken seriously by those who actually do care about the protection of civilian lives. As it is, by ignoring this whole body of law (despite numerous formal complaints by Israel of violations by the Palestinians leading up to Op Cast Lead) the signal is sent that anyone who has a gripe with their neighbor for whatever reason can simply try to kill him and suffer no penalty or even critique for it. This seems to apply especially if they are Arabs / Muslims and the neighbor they want to kill is a Jew.
Thus, the Palestinians (and other Arabs) have justifiably seen, for at least seventy years, the attempted killing of Jews and their occasional success at it as a penalty-free means to destroy Israel (and perhaps more crucially, to tighten their grip on their own political power in terms of Arab / Muslim social dynamics). In any case they know there is no possibility they will ever be indicted and punished, much less held to account morally or even criticized by any world body for their aggression - in this case the thousands of rockets that made Cast Lead necessary.
And that’s the problem with the Goldstone report. Not to dismiss its one-sided mandate and the numerous errors of fact; the report is all about the double parking and only a token mention of the murderous violence of the Palestinians that made it necessary for the IDF to go into Gaza to defend Israeli lives. It thus removes any incentive for the Palestinians to ever negotiate and reach a peaceful settlement with Israel and it virtually ensures that their murderous yet profitable behavior will continue.
Comment by Ray in Seattle — October 2, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
It is only under certain conditions that democratic countries (and even some authoritarian ones) will fight. There’s a social contract according to which their government and commanders won’t uselessly sacrifice huge quantities of manpower.
Mussolini, when he was deposed by the leaders of his own party, complained that, unlike Hitler or Stalin, he couldn’t order his soldiers not to surrender, to fight to death, because they would disobey him. The US or the UK army couldn’t simply machine gun down those soldiers who refused to advance towards certain death.
On the other hand, both totalitarian countries and certain primitive regimes where the common soldiers and, even more, the civilians are treated as slaves, can do it, and often do it.
Even though they didn’t achieve military victory, North Vietnam and the Vietcong could, without protest, sacrifice millions of their own until even the Americans lost stomach with it, got tired of killing them or began having second thoughts.
That’s the real problem about fighting countries or groups whose power is effectively based on slavery: they have no trouble about trying to drown their enemies in their own people’s blood. Ultimately, there’s no easy limit to how many of their own they can kill, allow or help to be killed until they reach their goal.
And democracies that, during WW2, were already sensitive and cautious about the lives of their own soldiers and citizens, are growing increasingly sensitive also about the lives of their enemies. If, for instance, 60 years ago, the US was allowed to carpet bomb and even nuke its enemies, I’m not so sure most Americans would their armed forces do such a thing today, not even if the US has been nuked.
Obviously, these praiseworthy feelings among the modern and democratic Western public becomes an incentive and an opportunity for the barbarians who can, thus, devise ways of weaponizing civilization’s best characteristics against itself and for their own use. That’s, actually, the most problematic weapon the barbarians have and, so, they can threaten us in absurd ways by saying: “if you don’t do whatever I want, I’ll kill myself or I’ll burn my daughter alive in front of your cameras.” And we’ll answer: “OK, stop it and you’ll be given anything you want; just don’t make us feel bad about ourselves.”
Comment by nelson — October 2, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Nelson,
Another perfect observation!
they have no trouble about trying to drown their enemies in their own people’s blood
Herein lies the essence of the conflict. This sentence (if it’s not a quote) belongs in the hall of fame among other quotes by the likes of Abba Eban and Golda Meir.
Comment by sshender — October 2, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
sshender,
thanks for that!
Comment by nelson — October 2, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Oh, I forgot to add one point about the social contract I mentioned in the first paragraph of the earlier post.
Early in the 19th century, Napoleon could still come back from Russia with 2% or 3% of his Grand Armée and be hailed as a hero. Things worked differently then.
A century later, most European countries had universal conscription. Bearing arms and fighting for one’s country had become as much a responsability or obligation as a right. Armies too became more meritocratic and, compared to how they used to be run earlier, their officers were, in a sense, more answerable to their men.
Almost everywhere in the Old World, the outbreak of WW1 was received as good news and, for some time, there was no lack of people who took it as a privilege to be able to fight. Many (as in the UK) enlisted voluntarily.
Three years later, however, after almost 100% of those who enlisted in the beginning were dead, soldiers in most armies were refusing to fight, turning their weapons against their officers or deserting.
Thus, commanders in the next war already knew that they either had to have the means to keep their men fighting (through totalitarian violence: some 20 thousand German soldiers were shot or executed in the Eastern Front) or had to convince them to do so (through propaganda and motivation, of course, but also keeping the losses low, keeping good medical services etc.).
After Vietnam, Algeria and so on, democracies have been reluctant about getting involved in major wars. Israel’s citizen army might look like the exception to the rule, but not even Israel has fought a really costly major war since 1973, that is, for 36 years, a much longer span than the one between WW1 and WW2.
Comment by nelson — October 2, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Nelson, interesting analysis. I have googled some obvious keywords to find out more about “some 20 thousand German soldiers were shot or executed in the Eastern Front” but haven’t found anything yet. Could you direct me to your source for that? I don’t doubt you because I know that Germany lost over 4 million military personnel in that campaign so 20,000 shot for desertion would be a small number (one out of 200) to encourage the rest to hang around until the Soviets could kill them.
About your thesis: There’s a social contract according to which their government and commanders won’t uselessly sacrifice huge quantities of manpower.
I’m not sure I’d put it that way. How about:
The limitations that democratic representative government places on the policy and actions of leaders requires that where great sacrifice is called for (such as in war) there must be overwhelming support among the population for those policies or actions. There may be laws that allow them to instigate such actions without broad support but that opens up huge opportunities for their opposition - such that unless they can quickly sway public opinion overwhelmingly in their favor, will result in their defeat and loss of political power.
Although the effect may be the same I think your description of this as a social contract ignores the practical safeguards built into our system which I think may have a much greater effect in such matters.
I think after the Civil War there was a form of social contract jingoism among Americans - we can and will gladly kick anybody’s ass if they screw with us - but I think that was greatly diminished by the time of WWII. For example, as I understand it, there were plenty of German Bund societies and isolationists like Henry Ford and populists like Lindberg who wanted no part of a war with Germany and thought that Hitler’s ideas about white Arian supremacy sounded pretty sensible. Because of that I think Roosevelt had to tread lightly preparing us for eventual war against Germany.
I think what you are saying is that there’s a social contract in Western democracies that prevents us from effectively fighting necessary wars.
I think I am saying that we have no problem fighting wars if we’re committed to them - but getting (and keeping) committed is a political problem that has built-in institutional disincentives. The implication of this is that the West will always be slow to recognize a military threat unless it is unequivocal and indisputable. Disputability on such matters is too great an opportunity for the opposition to not use it.
I think Bush had an opportunity immediately after 9/11 to mount an effective war against al Queda and other Islamic terrorists that would have enlisted overwhelming American support. I’m not sure yet why he was unsuccessful. I think perhaps he underestimated the deep hatred he had caused on the left by the questionable way a RW Supreme Court put him in office and the huge political opportunity this offered the left. I can’t help but think Gore would have handled 9/11 better and would have mounted a smarter and more effective war against Islamic terrorism that would have had the support of both the left and the right (perhaps only grudgingly). But who knows?
Comment by Ray in Seattle — October 3, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Nelson,
The US or the UK army couldn’t simply machine gun down those soldiers who refused to advance towards certain death.
But during the First World war the ranks of those who refused to go over the “top” to certain death at the hands of the German troops were decimated by their own commander/s.
Comment by Cynic — October 3, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Also, at the time of the 2000 election Gore, based on his past votes and statements, appeared to be a far stronger and consistent supporter of Israel than GWB, who everyone expected to follow his father’s views which were openly hostile toward Israel. And of course, don’t forget who Gore’s VP choice was.
Despite this, and ironically, it may have been the few Jewish votes in Miami, along with some quirks in the US and Florida voting laws that gave the the Supreme Court the ability to declare Bush the winner and get away with it.
Comment by Ray in Seattle — October 3, 2009 @ 10:36 am
Nelson,
Israel’s citizen army might look like the exception to the rule, but not even Israel has fought a really costly major war since 1973,
But, then Israel is fighting in its own backyard.
As one Israeli said to me, after I asked him how he kept going for more than 48 hours non-stop on the Golan heights until the Syrian tanks were stopped, “I looked back and saw my family down in the valley!”
Comment by Cynic — October 3, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Cynic in 24 has jogged me into understanding a little more about Goldstone. I have been marvelling at how he can be as condescening toward the Palestinians as any colonialist of 100 years ago in that he refuses to acknowledge any moral responsibility on their part - thus reducing them to the status of children. Simultaneously he exhibits a readiness to appease them that seems to me nothing short of being terrified into advanced Stockholm syndrome. Given the Jewish experience over the past few centuries along with Israel being located in the middle east with no possibility of retreat and such contradictory impulses become more understandable. I’ve lived long enough to recognize and admit to my own capacity for self delusion so I can see myself backing myself out a limb that way - only to recognize the abyss too late.
Comment by Lorenz Gude — October 3, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Ray and Cynic,
my point is the following:
Western democracies in general were traumatized precisely by WW1. More Brits and Frenchmen died then than in WW2. With the exception of the US army, which arrived only in 1917, all main armies involved were plagued by mutinies when approximately a complete turnover ocurred, that is, when basically all those soldiers who started fighting in 1914 were dead.
WW1 was an extremely wasteful war with almost no real results because the technology of the defenders (mainly machine-guns) was so much more effective than that of the attackers. The mutinies in the Russian army (and Russia was still a more democratic country than Nazi Germany and the USSR would later be) resulted in the February revolution. The war ended only when the German army collapsed, and that happened somewhat later because the Germans entered the war with a larger army and its rate of attrition was lower than that of the other armies.
It is because it became quite difficult to convince democratic voters to accept sustaining such losses that the Western democracies, after WW1, resorted to appeasement. In 1914 men went happily to the front to die for king and country. By 1939 it was different. And there were only two ways to make people fight: for the democracies, by proving that, although war was inevitable, they’d not be used as canon fodder; and for the worst dictatorships, by threatening their soldiers with much worse violence than in the earlier conflict.
I don’t have the numbers right now, but it is easy to see that, in WW2, while France, the UK and the US lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers, Germany, Japan and the USSR lost millions of them. It’s hard to tell, in the absence of the A-bomb and considering how high the losses would be in the case of an invasion, whether the US voters would have backed a continuation of the Pacific war to its bitter end. Nazi Germany and the USSR kept fighting when they had already lost 10% of their population. But Americans got tired of Vietnam after losing something around 50.000 soldiers, that is, 0,02% of its population (enemy losses were 40 times higher). And it is hard to keep the country interested in Iraq even with ten times less losses and a highly motivated professional/voluntary army. One can barely convince the Europeans to fight for anything.
The problem with Israel is not so different, in spite of the wars being fought in its backyard. The ratio of losses in the recent Gaza campaign was 1 Israeli for 100 Palestinians. Being in Israel during the terrorist attacks of the second Intifada was still less dangerous than living in such crime ridden cities like Caracas, Capetown or even Rio de Janeiro. But if Israel had to fight highly wasteful wars constantly, there’d probably be mass emigration from the country. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis could easily move to the US, Europe, Australia.
Comment by nelson — October 3, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
I didn’t check the European or US media, but you are wrong, to say the least, about the reaction in the Israeli media. Though people were critical of Goldstone (that was expected), many also criticized the IDF and governments’s refusal to let an independent investigation check the claims against Israel, and almost all pundits agreed that the report will cause Israel significant damage.
Haaretz’s editorial called Israel to form its own independent investigation comity regarding the events that were described in the Goldstone report (the right-wing Ben-Dror Yemini asked for the same investigation, but only in order to fight the report), Ofer Shelah (Maariv daily) published on Friday a very critical article regarding the IDF and the government conduct and values, so did attorney Avigdor Feldman. Boaz Okun, Yedioth’s legal writer and editor, is taking a similar position for some time, and there are many other examples.
As everyone can read in today’s papers, Things would have been much worse for Israel if the US didn’t force the Palestinian to give up the demand for a UN vote on the report. Israel will probably have to give something in return to Obama for this favor (which in my opinion, is not such a bad thing).
Comment by noam — October 4, 2009 @ 8:27 am
noam strikes again, bringing up haaretz as evidence.
there is no bottom line to ignorance and stupidity.
looks like each time some anti-semite or idiot brings up some cockomamy accusations — sex gum, organ harvesting, intentional killing of civilians — israel should snap to attention and investigate.
idiot.
Comment by oao — October 4, 2009 @ 10:23 am
I agree.
There should be a serious investigation. It’s time to know who was it that didn’t allow the IDF to win, to conclusively defeat Hamas, dismantling its infrastructure, killing all of its leadership and as many as possible of its terrorists and enablers, as well as those of other illegal factions like Islamic Jihad.
Even under Obama I, the Clown, Americans keep using their drones to liquidate Al Qaeda and Taleban leaders and terrorists both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (And, thanks god, Gitmo is still open, though none of the murderers there has yet been executed as many well deserve.) I simply cannot understand why Netanyahu isn’t doing the same, or much more, more enegetically, in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
Nor can I really understand why Haaretz’s journalists haven’t yet been sent to live in Gaza where, as good Hebrew speaking Palestinians, they actually belong. Why isn’t the Israeli government acting against all fifth-columnists who are puting the country, the state and their countrymen in existential risk? That’s what the government has been elected to do, that’s what it is paid for: it exists to defend the life and property of the loyal citizens of the Jewish state against Iranian, Syrian and Arab sponsored Palestinian genocidal agression.
It’s time to investigate, judge and punish those responsible for the stupid evacuation of Gaza. And of southern Lebanon, btw. It’s time also to punish those guilty for the Oslo disaster or, rather, for their betrayal of Israel and its interests.
Israel is the sovereign country of the Jews. It has to answer only to itself and its citizens. Transnational organizations like the UN or the ICC have no legitimacy, no power and no right to interfere in Israel’s decisions and actions. Neither do they have the means to do it.
The US used to be strong and influential enough to pressure Israel, though it couldn’t, for instance, stop Israel from bombing Osirak, thus destroying Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. Actually, Condoleeza Rice was far worse for Israel and more dangerous than Barack Hussein Obama. Nowadays, with a weak, amateurish and pathetic president in the White House, Israel has more freedom to act unimpeded than it ever had since the good old days of Menachem Begin. That’s very lucky and Netanyahu shouldn’t spoil this unique opportunity.
Instead of investigating the IDF, time and money would be better spent investigating B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and other anti-Israeli NGOs. It would also be interesting to know more about mr. Obama, for instance, making his doctoral thesis and other writings public. Bush and his government should be investigated and punished too: why didn’t they stop the building of the Iranian bomb, why didn’t they act decisively against the Iranian government and the ayatollahs?
Comment by nelson — October 4, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Israel and Jews in general have but two choices nowadays: (1) they can either be hated because they are strong, defend themselves and insist in staying alive, or (2) they can allow themselves to be butchered, getting posthumously the world’s (or the so-called international community’s) sympathy, pity and crocodile tears.
It doesn’t seem that hard to choose, does it?
But there’s no lack of leftist Jewish fools who’d rather die (and allow the rest of the Jews to be killed) in order to please the likes of Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Europeans, Obama…
What the hell is wrong with this people’s minds?
Comment by nelson — October 4, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
Shouldn’t, btw, Israel accept a UN/HRW comission that would investigate the killing of Jesus? After all, the Jews have been accused of it for almost two thousand years and it still hasn’t been satisfactorily proved that they are innocent, has it?
The same comission –presided by judge Goldstone himself, who has shown himself to be honest and unbiased– could also investigate the kidnapping and murdering of Christian and Muslim children by Jews who are accused of using their blood to make matzot.
Until eventually cleared of both accusations, the Jews should be considered guilty of those crimes, right?
Comment by nelson — October 4, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
with apologies to oao, who has a longer memory than i, i’ve asked Noam Sheizief, who blogs at The Promised Land to engage in a discussion (again), this time in the comment section. after his comment above (#27), i asked him in a private email about other matters what his general impression of the israeli reaction was, to which he wrote:
I feel that the public is furious at the report, thinking that it totally missed out on what was a justified reaction to the Hamas’ repeated attacks on Israel (I don’t agree).
to which I responded: why not? not to go into a long argument, but have you read the report?
to which he responded:
to be brief:
first, I think Israel contributed to the escalation that led to the war
second, from what I gather - during the campaign, the IDF eased up the opening fire procedure considerably (there are numerous reports on the matter, and the fact that the rate of casualties from enemy fire vs. casualties from friendly fire, which is extremely high, suggest this as well). you can claim that the Israeli army didn’t have much choice, since the hamas’ men were hiding behind and within civilians, but then your conclusion shouldn’t be that Israel didn’t break the law, but rather that war laws should change, as some Israeli scholars claim today.
i have his permission to continue this at the comment section.
here’s my response to his second paragraph:
from what I gather - during the campaign, the IDF eased up the opening fire procedure considerably (there are numerous reports on the matter, and the fact that the rate of casualties from enemy fire vs. casualties from friendly fire, which is extremely high, suggest this as well).
as far as i know, the “numerous reports” tend to be repetitions of themselves from various sources. what are you referring to? as for the rate of casualties, i believe that’s mostly a single incident, so what one would call a statistical outlier, not something to build an argument on.
what i want to know is whether it’s of any significance to you that the UNHRC cd dedicate over 500 pages to Israel’s killing under 1000 civilians in three weeks of urban warfare, and not a sentence to the deliberate killing of 20,000 civilians in order to eliminate the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. mind you, i’m not arguing that Israel should hold itself to that level, but does the world have the right to hold Israel to a level they hold no one else?
you can claim that the Israeli army didn’t have much choice, since the hamas’ men were hiding behind and within civilians, but then your conclusion shouldn’t be that Israel didn’t break the law, but rather that war laws should change, as some Israeli scholars claim today.
as far as i understand, the Goldstone Commission misapplied the law in a number of cases (in addition to ignoring the context of hamas using civilian shields). i think you’re making it mutually exclusive when you need not. a) the IDF didn’t have much choice, and did more to protect enemy civilians than any army in history; and b) the laws of war need to adjust to the conduct of asymmetrical warfare among civilian populations.
Comment by Richard Landes — October 4, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
rl, no apologies are necessary — it’s your blog.
i have a much higher threshold for engaging somebody.
noam is so far from that, he does not even register.
he probably thinks he is applying independent critical thinking in reaching positions critical of israel. i would argue that he actually lacks such thinking in this context.
Comment by oao — October 4, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
refusal to let an independent investigation check the claims
ROFL. Crazy Daffy Duck laughter.
Independent investigation by whom?
Goldstone? Refused to hear Israeli rebuttals.
John Dugard?
Christiane Amanpour?
Comment by Cynic — October 4, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
as far as i understand, the Goldstone Commission misapplied the law in a number of cases
Goldstone makes out that the Hamas’ justice is ok and trashes Israels justice system as not being credible (ask Dershowitz)
Amnesty International’s Media Briefing:
Document - Palestinian Authority: Hamas’ deadly campaign in the shadow of the war in Gaza: Media Advisory
Haaretz report:
Amnesty International: Hamas carrying out ‘deadly campaign’ against opponents in Gaza
AFP:
Amnesty accuses Hamas of eliminating opponents
Amnesty International said the targets included former detainees who were accused by Hamas of collaboration with Israel after escaping from Gaza’s central prison when it was bombed by Israeli forces on December 28.
Some were shot dead in hospitals where they were being treated for injuries suffered during the bombing raid, sometimes in front of distraught relatives, according to the testimony gathered by the human rights group.
“The perpetrators of these attacks did not conceal their weapons or keep a low profile, but, on the contrary, behaved in a carefree and confident — almost ostentatious — manner,” the report noted.
Amnesty said there was “no doubt” that the victims were abducted, killed, shot and tortured by Hamas security forces and armed militias, adding that the evidence was “incontrovertible.”
It called on the “Hamas de facto administration” to immediately end the campaign, accept an independent and impartial investigation and guarantee that victims and witnesses would not be targeted.
And so on and so forth, which makes a mockery of what Goldstone published and shows up his hypocritical demand that Israel permit an independent investigation.
Comment by Cynic — October 4, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
By the way I don’t know what TV Goldstone appeared on (snippet shown on Israel’s Ch 10) where he says that Jews are criticizing him as he has no right to criticize Israel.
Now that is just so wrong and shows how little he is listening to the criticism of his document.
He should be a tort lawyer.
Comment by Cynic — October 4, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
RL,
Why don’t you ask a knowledgeable person to engage in the discussion? Someone who actually knows both the IDF (first-hand) and Israeli media (with a slightly larger horizon than occasional sports reports)?
Of course, as oao rightly put it above, it’s your blog and and it’s up to you. But I’d greatly appreciate engaging someone(s) more reliable.
Comment by E.G. — October 4, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Nelson,
I think that, in democratic regimes, in the course of the past century the threshold for casualties has dramatically lowered. What was acceptable a few decades ago is intolerable today. Paying anything with (usually professional) soldiers’ lives seems too high a price.
My impression is that in Israel, the shift is less massive (the threshold was always very low) but that awareness to enemy losses (or what is presented as losses) has exponentially increased.
But then, in Israel, the war is not a military one anymore. The army is engaged, of course, but so is the police and any citizen.
Comment by E.G. — October 4, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
” CA: So, again, are you saying that it was intentional in Israel?
RG: Certainly some of it was intentional; there was no mistake about the bombing of civilian building, the legislative council, the sorts of factories, food factories which are civilian that I was talking about. That wasn’t an error. The Israeli army have very precise munitions.”
He identifies (in contrast to the non-intentional killing of civilians in Afghanistan) the intentional bombing of civilian buildings in the Gaza strip with the intentional killing of civilians!!!!!!
Every halfway clear thinking interviewer could have crushed this antisemitic tool.
Comment by harris — October 4, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=090628
the public hearings
Comment by harris — October 5, 2009 @ 2:08 am
oao, I thought that you were too hard-boiled to fall for the “int’l law” bs.
re the issue of writing new international laws of war in order to deal with so-called asymmetrical warfare.
Actually, the existing laws are misapplied and misrepresented. If new laws were written and enacted they would be too.
Geneva convention IV allows armies to hit military targets in/at civilian locations. See articles 28 and 53. goldstone and the other UN scum pretend not to know those articles. The goldstone report is a big farrago of deceit.
Comment by Eliyahu — October 5, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
A license to kill By Moshe Arens
Comment by E.G. — October 6, 2009 @ 2:44 am
The last place I’d expect to read this is Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1119134.html
Comment by E.G. — October 6, 2009 @ 2:51 am
In both absolute and relative numbers, Israel’s worst war was the Independence War, when it lost 1% of its population. Yet, compared to the closest Jewish battle in memory then, that of the Warsaw Ghetto, where a population roughly equivalent to the Yishuv’s suffered 100% losses, the Independence War was probably also considered a numerical/statistical victory.
Though much smaller also in relative and absolute numbers, the losses in the Yom Kippur War must have seemed terrible especially when compared to those of the Six Day War. In 1973 Israel lost 0,1% of its population, and that’s not a catastrophe even when compared, for instance, to the 0,3% the US lost in WW2, though Israel fought only 3 weeks, while the US fought for over 3 years.
The only scenario, however, in which Israel could suffer losses similar to those of Germany and the USSR (and Poland or Yugoslavia) in WW2 would be a nuclear war. And, though human memory is short, the Jews have suffered catastrophic losses even before the Holocaust, for instance in the huge pogroms that took place in the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War. The number of Jews killed then was in the hundreds of thousands.
For at least 2 years after WW2, many Jewish survivors were murdered in Poland. The total was between 1.500 and 2.500. Compared to the Holocaust, that’s not much, but we should keep two things in mind: the murdered were more or less 5% of the remaining Polish Jewry, and 2 or 3 times as many people died in these pogroms as in the 1967 war.
Thus, compared to their situation for a thousand years or so, Israel has been the safest place for the Jews. The same could be said of the US were it not for the fact that, for more than a decade before WW2, America closed its doors to the European Jews, and there’s no guarantee those doors would be open were something similar to happen in the near future.
International pressure on Israel (things like the Goldstone report) is quite unpleasant, but if even a small and poor country like Honduras has been able (for the time being) to resist it, Israel is much more used to it and can survive.
I’d really like to know what those responsible for Israel’s safety and survival think and are doing about Iran. Whatever happens, it is clear by now that the Bush government was misguided in not doing anything about it. Maybe it has given Israel better information than we know about and more powerful and decisive weapons. Maybe the US administration now is playing both good and bad cops, that is, while the White House and the State Dept. work for appeasement, the CIA and the DD are working on Plan B. Maybe both Bush and Obama have given Israel the iron-strong guarantees it needs. Let’s see.
The bombing of the nuclear reactor in Syria was probably more important than we imagine and, though for political reasons it seems Israel couldn’t go the whole way in Gaza, Israel fought brilliantly and in quite an original, innovative way there. These are good signs. So is the fast weakening of an Obama administration that started very influenced by people like the survivors of the Carter administration, ultraliberals like Samantha Powers and the Arabists at the State Dept. Fifth columnists and Jewish quislings like J-Street are proving also to be less than 100% effective. Everything looks very fluid right now.
Comment by nelson — October 6, 2009 @ 3:15 am
RE: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1119133.html
here’s my comment:
“tally every Israeli that was killed by the Palestinians and every Palestinian that was killed by the Israelis. The numbers will tell it all. No further words will be necessary. The figures will speak for themselves.”
Try the same with American and Japanese casualties in WW2 and it will be easy to make the figures say that the US was the cruel genocidal agressor while Japan was the passive, innocent victim.
Instead of comparing just the total figures, what would the results be, say, if one would compare the number of real non-combatants killed on both sides? Compare, for instance, the number of Palestinian and Israeli women and children (under 14, not under 18) killed in the conflict, and the figures will speak for themselves, yes, but something entirely different.
And please, don’t forget to compare also the number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians with that of Israelis killed by Israelis. Then one will have some idea of what’s different about both societies.
Comment by nelson — October 6, 2009 @ 3:36 am
nelson,
and how many of those Palestinians killed by Palestinians were attributed to Israelis?
Comment by Cynic — October 6, 2009 @ 8:33 am
RL,
first, I think Israel contributed to the escalation that led to the war
I missed this in #32 where NS is so brief that he cannot tell us the how, why and when of it all.
Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005 and then proceeded to suffer a rain of rocket and mortar fire on its civilian population until it launched a military operation in December of 2008, apart from invasions to kill and capture Israeli soldiers; so would NS now digress from what he is doing and please spill the beans - I’m all ears.
Comment by Cynic — October 6, 2009 @ 8:45 am
nelson,
Maybe the US administration now is playing both good and bad cops, that is, while the White House and the State Dept. work for appeasement,
Anne Bayevsky reports in The Weekly Standard that
At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
I think that you are hoping for too much from this current administration and if he is prepared to sink the American Constitution then he doesn’t give a dog’s doo about Israel, Palestinians or the ME which don’t rank in importance for those pulling his strings.
Actually the more this drags on the more it appears that the world is simply using “the Palestinians” as canon fodder.
Comment by Cynic — October 6, 2009 @ 8:57 am
With regard to playing good cop / bad cop the latest seems to indicate that the Administration doesn’t know what to play:
Obama Cuts Off Funding for Iranian Human-Rights Documentation
The Clinton State Department has decided to cut off all funding for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC), which was compiling lists of protestors imprisoned in this summer’s unrest, as well as those who were killed in the crackdown.
Comment by Cynic — October 6, 2009 @ 11:46 am
I think that you are hoping for too much from this current administration and if he is prepared to sink the American Constitution then he doesn’t give a dog’s doo about Israel, Palestinians or the ME which don’t rank in importance for those pulling his strings.
IF he is prepared??????? IF?
Everything he’s done to that undermines the constitution.
I am willing to bet that he doesn’t even know the constitution too well, and if he does, he does not comprehend it.
Much is being made about how smart he is and how well he talks. But if you read those who followed his career closely and deeply (see Laskin in American Thinker), he’s an idiot who managed to fool everybody into an “affirmative action” suspended judgment mode.
Comment by oao — October 6, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
here’s alibama at its best:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/10/06/the-barbaric-relic-look-at-that-caveman-go/
Comment by oao — October 6, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
on alibama’s so-called ME “policy”
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fnewledger.com%252F2009%252F10%252Fobama-and-israel-betrayal-in-the-broken-places%252F&h=42654b45618c25f76f4643c233a3958e&ref=mf
Comment by oao — October 6, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
more on who alibama is and what he’s all about:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024651.php
Comment by oao — October 6, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
rubin on alibama:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/10/iran-eats-obama-administration-for.html
Comment by oao — October 6, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
and more:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/10/obamas-dali-lama-dilemma-good-case.html
Comment by oao — October 6, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
rubin on alibama’s respect for the constitution:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/10/sympathy-for-devil.html
Comment by oao — October 6, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
they never learn do they?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133705
Comment by oao — October 6, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
oao,
he’s an idiot who managed to fool everybody into an “affirmative action” suspended judgment mode.
Maybe he is being manipulated by some who had more foresight than the voters at the time and saw an opportunity to take control by getting him elected?
Comment by Cynic — October 7, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Maybe he is being manipulated by some who had more foresight than the voters at the time and saw an opportunity to take control by getting him elected?
thos who have that power and smarts (and who usually are invisible) do not benefit from most of his policies. so if that happened, they were fooled themselves.
i think the ONLY reason alibama got elected — other than the atrocious republican decay — was his color and his ability to make whites believe he was half white. period. no other reason.
now tell me, would have any white with his zero background, utter ignorance and marination in radical left and liberation theology, been elected? with associates such as rezko, ayers and wright, and with michelle for a wife?
Comment by oao — October 7, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
and according to my thesis that the western education system has collapsed
http://sandbox.blog-city.com/linkblog/jump/?i=512892
it’s becoming easier and easier to fool an increasingly gullible and idiotic public.
Comment by oao — October 7, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/117382
spengler predicted accurately: all talk and no substance
Comment by oao — October 7, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Cynic # 58,
you were not fair to me Mr Cynic. I wanted to say just about the same. Innocent Bambi is manipulated by movers and shakers. There is at least one Kennedy on the board of the Democratic National Committee, not to mention George Tsuris [Soros?] maybe plus some whose names we don’t even know.
I don’t agree with oao that he was elected because he persuaded white voters that he’s half-white. Rather, many white voters felt that it would be nice –even wonderful– to have a black president for a change, especially somebody who spoke so well and who knew how to touch the right psychological buttons with simplistic slogans like: Hope, Change, Me, We are the ones that we have been waiting for, and so forth.
Now if we [the USA] have a black prez, then that means that we are no longer racist, etc. How nice to feel that one is a Good Person, merely by voting for the Apostle of Change who happens to be Black!!
[yes, I know, he’s brown rather than black. In fact, my Litvak grandfather, a NATIVE of Belarus, was about as dark as obama but Obama’s crowd would still have called him a white racist (because he was a Jew), I suppose, even though he was a NATIVE too. But then, aren’t we all natives of some place? By the way, can I get a professorship at the University of Chicago on account of my grandfather’s skin color?]
Comment by Eliyahu — October 8, 2009 @ 7:07 am
thos who have that power and smarts (and who usually are invisible) do not benefit from most of his policies. so if that happened, they were fooled themselves
No it’s not the monetary terms per se but the power that they want to manipulate the state.
They want to be king of the castle even if they are standing on a heap of rubble.
Comment by Cynic — October 8, 2009 @ 8:09 am
Eliyahu,
Without getting into the polemic of “affirmative action” vs. “manipulated” (IMHO it doesn’t really matter), may I draw your - and others’ - attention to the fact that pre-election BHO was colourless. It’s only post-election that he turned coloured. Officially (i.e., MSM), that is.
Comment by E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 8:13 am
Cynic,
O/T now here’s some Schadenfreude-eliciting stuff:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125496307463272193.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world
Comment by E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 8:15 am
Back to the topic:
Watch out for the Goldstoners
By Ari Shavit
Comment by E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 8:18 am
Eliyahu,
Well before the election my wife had summed him up as an empty suit (”this guy should be in Hollywood”) just from listening to him speak and watching his body language, and I wondered how people came to put him forward as the Democrat candidate knowing that he was without substance; which has become glaringly obvious today.
Maybe the “indoctrination” over the years of TV news and commentary, coupled with a degraded system of education, has reduced the average American’s ability to think (not to say that people elsewhere are free from manipulation) and has made it easier for a cabal to orchestrate events and insinuate a nobody into office.
Just looking at this cartoon:
Run away! Run away!
sums up his ability.
Actually there’s another underneath which sums up “rational humanitarian” thinking.
Comment by Cynic — October 8, 2009 @ 8:32 am
E.G.,
denies he took part in a smear campaign against his rival. “It would have caused [my] death as a politician,” Mr. de Villepin told the court.
Well that is cause for great hilarity. Did the judges actually give him the benefit of the doubt?
Schmearing is part and parcel of their arsenal of tactics to beat the rival.
Do you think he was being Goldstoned?
Comment by Cynic — October 8, 2009 @ 9:56 am
1. I don’t agree with oao that he was elected because he persuaded white voters that he’s half-white.
2. Rather, many white voters felt that it would be nice –even wonderful– to have a black president for a change, especially somebody who spoke so well and who knew how to touch the right psychological buttons with simplistic slogans like: Hope, Change, Me, We are the ones that we have been waiting for, and so forth.
Isn’t 2 essentially the same as 1? alibama simply exploited the very gullibility of the whites that you describe.
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 10:42 am
No it’s not the monetary terms per se but the power that they want to manipulate the state.
Money IS power. You don’t have the latter without the former, as you can see where America is in bankruptcy.
The powers that be could not have been sure about alibama, what with ayers and wright marinating whatever he has in his head. Perhaps rezko convinced them otherwise.
They want to be king of the castle even if they are standing on a heap of rubble.
looks like they’re getting their wish.
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 10:46 am
pre-election BHO was colourless. It’s only post-election that he turned coloured. Officially (i.e., MSM), that is.
not to mention his islamic roots.
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 10:47 am
O/T now here’s some Schadenfreude-eliciting stuff:
“But the three-hour confrontation shed little light on the protracted case.”
Only a french court could believe otherwise.
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Maybe the “indoctrination” over the years of TV news and commentary, coupled with a degraded system of education, has reduced the average American’s ability to think (not to say that people elsewhere are free from manipulation) and has made it easier for a cabal to orchestrate events and insinuate a nobody into office.
that’s about 80% of the explanation, if not more.
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 10:52 am
shavit gets it.
those who don’t are utterly dumb.
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 11:00 am
EG says, “Without getting into the polemic of “affirmative action” vs. “manipulated” (IMHO it doesn’t really matter), may I draw your - and others’ - attention to the fact that pre-election BHO was colourless. It’s only post-election that he turned coloured. Officially (i.e., MSM), that is.”
I think there is some truth to your observation. Consistent with my theory that the MSM is mostly concerned with selling ad space by attracting the greatest consumer following - before the election, noting Obama’s blackness was gauche - and could be interpreted as an attempt to campaign against his election (i.e. racist) by calling attention to his otherness.
After the election that danger largely disappears - or rather it is even transformed into its opposite - a form of praise, as in, “isn’t it wonderful that we have a black president and not the usual stuffy old war-monger white guy”.
In both cases the MSM are pandering to the non-conscious beliefs of the largest possible number of readers by affirming their sentiments and making them feel secure - all warm and fuzzy inside.
Of course, one could imagine that there is some secret MSM high-level cabal that determined that the day after election day was the precise moment that all MSM views on discussing Obama’s blackness would switch so that we uneducated and ignorant sheep could be held ever more tightly under their control.
Now repeat after me, “Obama is the One, Obama is the One . . “, until you no longer feel any threat from the left. ;-)
Comment by Ray in Seattle — October 8, 2009 @ 11:04 am
Many Americans seemed to be quite tired of the conventional politicians, people about whom and about whose past they knew (or thought they knew) a lot, and whom they disliked exactly because of this. They probably wanted an outsider, someone uncompromised with what they saw as the dirty job of politics. In these circumstances, though Obama was a guy whose past was entirely political in one way or another, he had so little past that this lack, comparatively, absolved him of those sins usually associated with older, more experienced or better known politicians. In short: though he had never been anything except an insider, his very short CV and the way it was presented made him look like an outsider. His ethnic background and the vacuous abstraction of whatever he said made it even more difficult to associate him to politics as usual (all this, of course, with the help of a press that spent much more time talking about the past and life, real or imaginary, of one side’s candidate for VP than telling anything concrete about the favorite presidential candidate).
And there’s another point about Obama which, for me, became obvious after the Olympics affair. The trouble about his (and his wife’s) speech wasn’t really the narcissism it is accused of, but rather something different. For instance, the stress on “diversity”: this is an almost absolutely American (and maybe British) preoccupation. Actually, nobody else in the world (much less in the Third World) cares about this. To think that the world shares America’s preoccupation with race, with remorse about the past and so on is absolutely provincial and misinformed. Still, I believe that (for some reason that eludes me) Americans were too worried about their self-image and many voted with this in mind, choosing a president that would make them look good, nice and be loved elsewhere, and they did this in the same way an American university or firm tries to please the country’s lobbies and liberal establishment, something that has no real echo outside the US.
For most foreigners, the fact the America has an Afro-American president now is either irrelevant or may even be a handicap since much of the world is actually racist, while the more cynical part of it see Obama not as a result of his own (or his community’s) merits, but rather as a product of Affirmative Action, something most of the world either loathes or despises.
The very fact that so many Americans voted with an eye on the fictitious or irrelevant global public opinion tends, in most of the world, to be seen as ridiculous and risible. And that for several reasons: they don’t quite understand why the strongest, most powerful and richest country would like to court people who should rather be courting the US (that’s considered childish); they cannot take seriously an election so determined by the need to please the world, by reasons of international public relations. After all, most governments on the planet do not take into consideration even their own people’s opinion, do they? Obama’s election was, among other things, a proof of Americans’ disconnectedness and self-centeredness, of their actual incapacity to try and see their country as the rest of the world sees it. And it’s easy to see this in the Obamas’ Olympics speeches: they didn’t even try to talk about anything that interests or could seduce the rest of the world because all they know how to do is to talk about those topics which are central in their own country’s narrow liberal circles. They delivered basically the same speeches they would have delivered at any Ivy League campus – and this applies also to Obama’s speech in Egypt and at the UN. They know a very narrow, insulated segment of a very narrow insulated region, social/professional caste, and they projected it on the whole of the rest of the world. So did, after their own way, many of the voters who elected Obama. I think Marxists used to call this phenomenon “alienation” or “false class consciousness”. These people, their faithful followers and, at least for some time, a large part of the American electorate translated the universe in terms of their own restricted micro cosmos.
Comment by nelson — October 8, 2009 @ 11:08 am
Cynic,
Do you think he was being Goldstoned?
a. That’s his own specialty.
b. Not as yet.
Comment by E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 11:08 am
Ray,
That would be a case of MSM using the wrong washing powder…
Comment by E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Nelson,
I only agree with the “new face” and egocentric parts of your analysis.
You forget the anti-Bush feeling, both world-wide and US. It’s hard to tell how much of it is/was overblown by MSM but it was very present.
Regarding foreign reactions to the election - I saw thrill and enthusiasm (much of it still persisting) at the wonderful courage and maturity of those Americans we (Europeans) used to think of as childish.
Whether the candidate was good or bad for the US never concerned foreigners (except those interested in a weak US), and the elected one symbolises the America of our fantasy: the land of endless possibilities.
Comment by E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 11:48 am
E.G.,
I think nelson looks further afield than Western Europe and considers the behaviour of Africa, Asia and South America.
Especially pertinent is his statement:
1. they don’t quite understand why the strongest, most powerful and richest country would like to court people who should rather be courting the US (that’s considered childish); they cannot take seriously an election so determined by the need to please the world, by reasons of international public relations.
grovelling almost, given some of the speeches, especially when one considers that one and a half billion are Muslims (for the obvious reasons already discussed on this blog).
2. For instance, the stress on “diversity”: this is an almost absolutely American (and maybe British) preoccupation. Actually, nobody else in the world (much less in the Third World) cares about this. To think that the world shares America’s preoccupation with race, with remorse about the past and so on is absolutely provincial and misinformed.
Comment by Cynic — October 8, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Nelson, Americans are generally anti-politician and that applies doubly to the Republican camp for which government is always wasteful and inept. This is echoed reliably in the MSM where new presidents are always given a grace period but then the appeal of tabloid style and unfounded smears of Jerry Springer-like politics soon becomes irresistible in terms of total ad dollars put in the bank.
Americans, like any electorate where reasonably free speech is available - will place their votes according to which candidate or party gives them that warm fuzzy feeling and against the candidate or party that makes them feel in any way threatened - a cold scratchy feeling in contrast.
A threat, in this case, is any belief expressed by the candidate that threatens or challenges the voter’s closely held emotional identity beliefs - “emotional” being the key word. The stronger the emotional threat experienced, the more they will feel it necessary to justify their choice post-facto by dressing it in the raiment of selective objectivity.
This can be observed as many of the more passionate will be motivated to spend countless hours devising justifications for their choice and disguising these as erudite and objective discussions on various internet blogs[1]. But most will just read the editorials of trusted partisans and/or watch cable programs of the same where such salve can be more easily found passively - paid for by a few moments’ exposure to some corporate sponsors’ ads. It all feels so good. It must therefore be a product of one’s superior reason and objectivity. Better education and critical thinking skills too, no doubt.
[1] I don’t mean this as a criticism of your comment. I think you do a better job than most of keeping your emotional motivations in check. But we’re all guilty of this to some extent and it’s good to recognize it occasionally as I have done in this comment.
Comment by Ray in Seattle — October 8, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
As to why The One got elected, much has to do with the economic collapse. Up to then, McCain was ahead.
But it is funny that during the campaign, whoever mentioned his middle name, Hussein, was a Bad Guy, a Racist. But then in his inauguration speech, he himself stressed his Muslim identity and insinuated that American Muslims were numerous and more important to America than American Jews, which no president had ever done before.
He followed up with the Arab TV interview, other gestures and remarks [also by Hilary], and then the Cairo speech, which some point to as a turning point in the Israeli public’s perception of him as hostile. At Cairo, he himself stressed his Muslim background. Isn’t that curious: Mr Good Christian, parishioner at Rev Wright’s very pious church for 20 years, became Hussein, the transracial president of Muslim background who instinctively understood the Tiers-Monde, il Terzo Mondo, merely because of who his father was, a father whom he hardly knew. The change from Mr Good Christian to Sayyid Hussein was a matter of abracadabra, overnight magic Change. Don’t you see? There has been Real Change. And it was magical!!
Comment by Eliyahu — October 8, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Eliyahu said, “But then in his inauguration speech, he himself stressed his Muslim identity and insinuated that American Muslims were numerous and more important to America than American Jews, which no president had ever done before.”
Did he really? Can you quote that passage for me?
Comment by Ray in Seattle — October 8, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
nelson,
it’s called guilt.
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
and there are plenty of those who capitalize on it, including alibama and those he brought to power.
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
ray,
when there is nothing in their background to give them intellectual skills, the only thing they got is emotions, so that’s hardly surprising.
intellectual training may not eliminate emotions, but they sure provide some balance. without that…
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
grovelling almost, given some of the speeches, especially when one considers that one and a half billion are Muslims
if you are ignorant and naive about other cultures and if you strive for personal popularity instead of the interests of your country, that’s what you do.
ironically, grovelling to muslims gets you the opposite effect: contempt. but that’s exactly what ignorance will do. so much for him growing up in a muslim country and for his intelligence.
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
Cynic,
I willingly admit my Eurocentric view, which was taken to balance what I found Nelson’s overgeneralization.
It’s very likely that most people (Europeans included) “don’t quite understand why the strongest, most powerful and richest country would like to court people who should rather be courting the US” - but they’re full of joy about this turn of events. Many consider themselves as having been humiliated by arrogant US (yes, even those who were twice saved by GI’s).
And diversity is more and more an issue in Europe, especially given its demography and its auto-flagellation about its colonial imperialist past.
Comment by E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
Many Americans seemed to be quite tired of the conventional politicians, people about whom and about whose past they knew (or thought they knew) a lot, and whom they disliked exactly because of this. They probably wanted an outsider, someone uncompromised with what they saw as the dirty job of politics. In these circumstances, though Obama was a guy whose past was entirely political in one way or another, he had so little past that this lack, comparatively, absolved him of those sins usually associated with older, more experienced or better known politicians. In short: though he had never been anything except an insider, his very short CV and the way it was presented made him look like an outsider. His ethnic background and the vacuous abstraction of whatever he said made it even more difficult to associate him to politics as usual (all this, of course, with the help of a press that spent much more time talking about the past and life, real or imaginary, of one side’s candidate for VP than telling anything concrete about the favorite presidential candidate).
And there’s another point about Obama which, for me, became obvious after the Olympics affair. The trouble about his (and his wife’s) speech wasn’t really the narcissism it is accused of, but rather something different. For instance, the stress on “diversity”: this is an almost absolutely American (and maybe British) preoccupation. Actually, nobody else in the world (much less in the Third World) cares about this. To think that the world shares America’s preoccupation with race, with remorse about the past and so on is absolutely provincial and misinformed. Still, I believe that (for some reason that eludes me) Americans were too worried about their self-image and many voted with this in mind, choosing a president that would make them look good, nice and be loved elsewhere, and they did this in the same way an American university or firm tries to please the country’s lobbies and liberal establishment, something that has no real echo outside the US.
For most foreigners, the fact the America has an Afro-American president now is either irrelevant or may even be a handicap since much of the world is actually racist, while the more cynical part of it see Obama not as a result of his own (or his community’s) merits, but rather as a product of Affirmative Action, something most of the world either loathes or despises.
The very fact that so many Americans voted with an eye on the fictitious or irrelevant global public opinion tends, in most of the world, to be seen as ridiculous and risible. And that for several reasons: they don’t quite understand why the strongest, most powerful and richest country would like to court people who should rather be courting the US (that’s considered childish); they cannot take seriously an election so determined by the need to please the world, by reasons of international public relations. After all, most governments on the planet do not take into consideration even their own people’s opinion, do they? Obama’s election was, among other things, a proof of Americans’ disconnectedness and self-centeredness, of their actual incapacity to try and see their country as the rest of the world sees it. And it’s easy to see this in the Obamas’ Olympics speeches: they didn’t even try to talk about anything that interests or could seduce the rest of the world because all they know how to do is to talk about those topics which are central in their own country’s narrow liberal circles. They delivered basically the same speeches they would have delivered at any Ivy League campus – and this applies also to Obama’s speech in Egypt and at the UN. They know a very narrow, insulated segment of a very narrow insulated region, social/professional caste, and they projected it on the whole of the rest of the world. So did, after their own way, many of the voters who elected Obama. I think Marxists used to call this phenomenon “alienation” or “false class consciousness”. These people, their faithful followers and, at least for some time, a large part of the American electorate translated the universe in terms of their own restricted micro cosmos.
E.G.
Can it be that even in Europe (as in my country, Brazil), those more likely to be happy about Obama’s election (then, when he was elected) were the members of the liberal, intellectually-minded middle classes, like journalists, teachers, professors, lawyers, university students etc.? I’d also add that, quite probably, Obama made a better impression in Western than in Eastern Europe. (And yes, the anti-Bush image was central, mainly after eight years of relentless militant demonization of anything Bush did or say. But then, it is also easy to make Hamas look good after demonizing Israel and the “evil Zionists” for decades.)
My impression (but that’s just that) after living in France was similar to the one I got in Brazil: there’s a huge divide between the noisy opinion of some liberal groups (as those above) and the rather more conservative point of view of the hoi polloi (from taxi drivers and concierges to waiters, blue-collar workers, low income people etc.).
I’ll give just one –but, as in the US, a central– example of that divide: much of the Brazilian (and French, possibly British etc.) liberal middle-classes and intelligentsia see crime as a socially determined problem, that is, questions of education and wealth redistribution have to be solved in order to get to its so-called root causes; but much of the rest of the people in such countries see crime as an individual option and responsibility. The first category see criminals as victims (of society, of capitalism’s unfairness etc.); the second sees them, well, as criminals who have to be punished or from whom the rest of the people needs to be protected.
By the way, Brazil is also, like the US, basically a center-right country, as can be seen in the fact that a slight majority of the population here rejects abortion (which is illegal) and would probably back the capital penalty for aggravated blood crimes. It is possible the same applies in large parts of even Western Europe, but that the noisy elites and their spokespersons in the media and academia tend to drown those opinions with their more “enlightened” ones.
I think, on the other hand, that I’m not being personally unfair to Obama when I say that most people who own a company or are in high position in someone else’s wouldn’t have hired someone with such a meager CV and about whom so little was (and is still) known as Obama to be a high ranking director or CEO. But then, when one is looking, say, for a doctor or a lawyer, one is not anxious to hire an “outsider” without a diploma or a previous career. In such cases, whenever possible, one wants the most well known, famous professional who has already proved to be competent at the job. I don’t really think that any normal person, when it comes to choose his/her heart surgeon, will pay much attention to criteria like affirmative action — and the same would apply if we could choose the pilots in the planes we are travelling in.
But that’s politics in democratic countries (and they are not, cannot be better in authoritarian or totalitarian ones). The very same intelligentsia that praises Obama’s rather mysterious degrees in Ivy League schools defends our blue-collar, hardly literate (but clever as a fox) leftist president here (Lula) and, to whoever reminds them how better his predecessor, a university professor, was, answers with accusations of “elitism”.
Unlike most conservatives, I don’t feel at ease accusing Obama of being this or that in the same way I thought there was very little I could say about Bush personally. I know neither of them, have never talked face to face to them and so on. In merely personal, individual terms, I know much less about each than about my building’s caretaker, and also know that their positive and negative images were/are media fictions. But I think I can begin to evaluate the Obama administration (not any individual guy as such, but most of the government) by a lot of other kind of information I had or am getting daily, by comparing it to other administrations in the US, to other countries and reading and trying to understand history and human nature. That’s basically what most of us can rationally do, isn’t it?
Comment by nelson — October 8, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
Oh, sorry.
By accident, I reproduced also my last comment along with the new.
The new one begins at the 5th paragragh with:
E.G.
Thanks.
Comment by nelson — October 8, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
black on white:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024663.php
Comment by oao — October 8, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Nelson,
from 5th paragraphe to the next 3- YES.
That’s my impression too. Vocal “elite” makes “public opinion”. even when it interprets opinion polls.
Regarding skills, I’m afraid the medical analogy is not the most appropriate one, the hoi polloi don’t really have much choice in the system that receives so much praise on the other side of the pond. Except if they’re Moslem and wouldn’t have a male MD for a woman or a female one for a male.
Besides, the proven skills of an old bull vs. the fresh approach of a young promising star is a thorny question in politics. Even a not so young’s lack of experience may be problematic: I think Begin was criticised for that (too) in 1977 (Eliyahu? oao?).
Aside from the fact that BHO doesn’t raise my sympathy, I really have nothing to say about the person. I consider (or at least try to figure out) his acts.
Just like Nixon who, it seems, wasn’t a great Judeophile but I do recall and thank his (administration’s?) vital airlift to Israel in 1973.
Comment by E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
oao 91,
A. It’s too early to judge the effects of any policy. Really unfair.
B. What I read is that African-Americans have had their level of expectation sky-high and, with no miracle happening within the past few months, it just sunk.
Comment by E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
oao- My deep excuses.
The Nobel committee doesn’t think it’s too early.
Comment by E.G. — October 9, 2009 @ 4:41 am
Even the AP sounds surprised.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/09/world/AP-EU-Nobel-Peace.html?ref=global-home
Now what will the pundits say/write?
Comment by E.G. — October 9, 2009 @ 5:40 am
Well, there’s at least one advantage about this laughable (and scary) Nobel Prize.
Clinton forced Israel into accepting Oslo and many other things because he wanted that prize quite badly.
Obama obviously wanted it too. Now that he has it, he is free not to do anything to get it. That is to say: in the long run, the Europeans and especially those sad Scandinavians have just lost much of the leverage they had with him. Anyway, it would have been cleverer to give him the prize just before the next presidential election. (And if we consider that the last American president to get the prize was Carter, well, you can guess the rest.)
On the other hand, just thinking about what may come next, I’d like to know if the Catholic Church has ever canonized anyone who was still alive.
Comment by nelson — October 9, 2009 @ 8:18 am
E.G.,
but they’re full of joy about this turn of events. Many consider themselves as having been humiliated by arrogant US (yes, even those who were twice saved by GI’s).
Schadenfreude old chap.
What could be better than seeing that which humiliated them, bowing and scraping, groveling and asking forgiveness.
(With just 10 days in office the Name was subscribed for the Nobel Prize - in time 02/01/2009; and he won it, so somebody is pleased with him)
By the way if anyone has noticed those arrogant Israelis are at it again causing anguish for America:
‘U.S. furious over Israeli incitement against Obama’
The U.S. administration is furious over Israeli incitement against President Barack Obama, Democratic congressmen close to Obama told an Israeli source who returned from a visit to Washington this week.
…………..
The source, who met in Washington with administration officials and members of Congress, told Haaretz he was stunned by the level of anger there over attempts to portray Obama to the American public as an enemy of Israel because of his efforts to restart peace talks and freeze settlement construction.
Well I suppose anyone suggesting a Judenrein part of Jerusalem is not exactly a friend and not exactly the kind of change expected.
Then again maybe this “Israeli source” is Yossie Balin or maybe even Gideon Levy?
Comment by Cynic — October 9, 2009 @ 8:33 am
Nelson,
Did you see an interview with Michael Moore where he whines about capitalism and that he had to scrape, beg and steal to start out making films?
Nasty capitalists wouldn’t bail him out with nothing in his CV.
Comment by Cynic — October 9, 2009 @ 8:48 am
Cynic,
see my Levy comment on the Beeb thread.
Comment by E.G. — October 9, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Cynic,
O/T.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/08/university-league-tables-oxford
Comment by E.G. — October 9, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Nasty capitalists wouldn’t bail him out with nothing in his CV.
not to mention his incitement to bring them down.
Comment by oao — October 9, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
and why exactly didn’t the govt — the better non-capitalist alternative according to him — fund his genius?
Comment by oao — October 9, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Just like Nixon who, it seems, wasn’t a great Judeophile but I do recall and thank his (administration’s?) vital airlift to Israel in 1973.
Funny you should mention that — martin kramer (i think) has linked to a piece on nixon’s airlift. Quite puzzling really, given his anti-semitism. and he really smacked kissinger and schlesinger to come off their asses and give israel double what it needed when they were bickering among themselves.
possibly nixon could separate between his personal attitude and strategic considerations and moved to counter the soviet moves.
Comment by oao — October 9, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
It’s too early to judge the effects of any policy.
wanna bet? I can already see some of the effects: the economic ones (see spengler) and the ME ones (see rubin) both of whom predicted them.
The Nobel committee doesn’t think it’s too early.
“”I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize,” Obama said.”
what a bald lie.
you really did not think that the nobel committee did it because of the “effects” did you? do you really believe those assholes are capable of comprehending the reality, let alone the future? swedes?
Comment by oao — October 9, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
The U.S. administration is furious over Israeli incitement against President Barack Obama, Democratic congressmen close to Obama told an Israeli source who returned from a visit to Washington this week.
the development is one of “the world against” israel and the nobel contributes to that. this is something that i, spengler and others have predicted. alibama is gonna use this to screw israel and endanger its existence.
lieberman is trying to work around that by expanding relations beyond the US, but he will find that difficult.
to reiterate: the world in its decadence, has decided that the jewish state is too much of a problem and that it’s a convenient scapegoat to solve its self-inflicted problem and there is very little israel can do about it.
Comment by oao — October 9, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
On the other hand, just thinking about what may come next, I’d like to know if the Catholic Church has ever canonized anyone who was still alive.
isn’t the nobel the secular equivalent to canonization?
all this says more about the west than it does about alibama. it is hard for me to understand how anybody can argue with me about the collapse of the west.
Comment by oao — October 9, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
oao,
I did apologise! (Which is the
rightleft thing to do nowadays)http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100013074/obamas-won-the-nobel-peace-wtf/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODIzNzJmOGQ0NGI4OTNlZjliOGVjMGY1OTBmMjY0OTA=
Comment by E.G. — October 9, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
spengler on the prize:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/10/09/peaced-off/
Comment by oao — October 9, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
E.G.,
University College London, which leapfrogged Oxford, coming fourth after Yale in the league tables.
After Yale is not saying much nowadays. :-)
Comment by Cynic — October 9, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Phil Baty, the deputy editor of Times Higher Education magazine which published the tables, said: “Oxford comes out with perfect scores on reputation but citations per staff have slipped slightly while
Reputation, reputation? Like the BBC?
And the staff; what have they been up to? Naughty?
Comment by Cynic — October 9, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
rubin on the prize:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-what-more.html
Comment by oao — October 9, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Reputation, reputation?
As hitchens says, it used to be that reputation was judged by one’s work; now one’s work is judged by one’s reputation.
and as rubin says: the prize is all you need to know to figure out the world. it does not live by reality but by wishful thinking. and that kills it.
Comment by oao — October 9, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Cynic,
And the staff; what have they been up to? Naughty?
Why, they’ve been so worried about horrid Gâza… n’est-ce pas, and also, apparently served a not-so-excellent Bordeaux, and found it of absolute necessity to compensate by augmenting their consumption of Port. Wasn’t a good year for cricket either, I’ve been told.
Comment by E.G. — October 9, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Yes, self-fulfilling prophecy does seem to be at work here.
Comment by E.G. — October 9, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
[…] A few weeks ago, Richard Goldstone stated in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour: Well, you know, it seems now at least of the prospect of it […]
Pingback by The Day In Israel: Sun Oct 18th, 2009 : Israellycool — October 18, 2009 @ 9:53 am