What the World Isn’t Being Told about the Israeli-Lebanese Border Incident: My latest at PJM

What the World Isn’t Being Told about the Israeli-Lebanese Border Incident
Don’t look to the MSM to give you the truth about this week’s ambush of IDF reservists.
August 6, 2010 – by Richard Landes Page 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single Page

Share |

Despite the careful “he said … she said” approach of the mainstream news media about the clash along the Lebanese-Israeli border this week, events are quite clear: Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were deliberately ambushed by Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).

In an outdoor press conference held at a lookout point above the Lebanese border where the incident occurred, Ilan Diksteyn, the deputy commander of the Israeli brigade, explained what happened. The IDF had notified the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) of its intentions and complied with multiple requests to delay a routine job that should have started early in the morning and didn’t get going till midday.

According to Diksteyn, he had personally walked the border with the UNIFIL commander and identified all the trees and shrubs they intended to cut down, all approved of as being located on the Israeli side of the border by the UNIFIL commander. The key tree was some 200 meters from the Blue Line, so there was not the most remote possibility that Israel trespassed on Lebanese territory. The IDF even set out the crane without a man in it, just to demonstrate their intentions beforehand.

But no sooner did they put a man in the unit and lift him over the fence than a sniper shot and killed the commanding officer of the unit who was away from the border and observing from a distance. Despite claiming they fired first in the air, and that Israel initiated the hostilities, an LAF spokesman eventually asserted their right “to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty.”

The Israelis claim this was an ambush by units of the Lebanese Armed Forces. And as such, this was an unprecedented new level of aggression. Even the normally cautious UNIFIL, which the previous day had restricted itself to calling for calm and announcing its intention to investigate, eventually — and exceptionally — sided with Israel’s claim that the tree was on their side of the border. Even the Lebanese admit they carried out an ambush.

Read the rest (with the links)…

UPDATE: Skype interview with me and Roger Simon about the Lebanese border incident.

64 Responses to What the World Isn’t Being Told about the Israeli-Lebanese Border Incident: My latest at PJM

  1. incognito says:

    It does not cease to amaze me how Israel and its supporters fail to comprehend and in vain try to “correct the picture, deluding themselves that the world “will realize the truth”. This has become as irrational a posture as any. Even Lebanon, of all arab countries, understands it.

    The systematic anti-Israel attitude of the west and the MSM is now used systematically by arabs as a matter of policy to attack Israel: the arabs DESIGNS their attacks on Israel with it in mind; they can presume with 100% certainty that they will never be blamed or anything they do and that Israel will be always accused. The clear objective is to rely on Israel’s sycophantic appeasement of the west to erode Israel’s ability to defend itself to the point where it is paralyzed.

    Do not be fooled by “strong statements” by the Israeli “leadership”: they are all talk and spineless, particularly Bibi and Barak, 2 utter failures.

    In other words, it’s no longer a matter of the arabs doing their thing. They directly incorporate the west’s anti-Israel west’s posture into their policies and actions from the get go. They are designed with that in mind.

    And given their objectives, they would be dumb not to exploit such an obviously effective aspect. As long as Israel plays this game set by the west and the arabs, it commits suicide as sure as I am now writing these words here.

  2. incognito says:

    BTW, I do not put much into UNIFIL’s supposedly siding with Israel. Even they know that this won’t amount to much in practical terms.

    Can they explain why Indonesian soldiers were frantically gesticulating and shouting to the Israeli soldiers to “stop their activities”? If indeed they were briefed on those activities in the manner in which Israel claims, how was that possible?

    Not to mention their being accompanied by LAF soldiers armed with RPG’s AND JOURNALISTS.

    The west does not care anymore who is the guilty side in the conflict: it has collapsed and it is desperate or it to go away and has convinced itself that the elimination of Israel is the solution. NOTHING will persuade them otherwise, certainly if Israel’s policy is to accept elimination.

    Anything else is conversation.

  3. incognito says:

    Caroline Glick demonstrates that it’s even worse than the MSM media:

    Israel’s made-in-America enemies
    http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/08/israels-made-in-america-enemie.php

  4. incognito says:

    Pertinent quote:

    And so on and so forth. In every single instance, Israel’s willingness to embrace lies about the nature of its enemies has come back to haunt it. Never has Israel gained any ground by turning a blind eye to the hostility of the likes of Salam Fayyad and Saad Hariri.

    It is true; the US is abetting and aiding the war against Israel by sponsoring the LAF and the Palestinian military. But it is also true that the US will not stop until Israel demands that it stop. And Israel will not demand that the US stop building armies for its enemies until Israel abandons the notion that by accepting a lie told by a friend, it will gain that friend’s loyalty.

    Israel’s supporters, particularly here, keep referring to the importance of the truth. But it is not just the arabs and the MSM who push lies. It is also Israel who accepts the fundamental lie that if only the west is appeased Israel will be saved. Just the opposite is the case, and in my book it’s already too late to renounce the lie.

  5. incognito says:

    Even more evidence:

    Questions Arise About the UN Investigation into Israel’s Action Regarding Flotilla
    Obama administration assurances prove empty.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/investigation-israels-action-flotilla-continue

  6. incognito says:

    And here’s the lie about Lebanon that is accepted:

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3930681,00.html

  7. incognito says:

    Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy:

    UPDATE: A Lebanese official, speaking on background, strongly disputed Israeli accounts of the clashes. “It was a not a pre-planned ambush,” said the official. “The last thing that the Lebanese wanted is a confrontation and an armed conflict now. So why would they plan to have one with the Israelis and shoot at them?”

    The Lebanese contend that, after Israel informed UNIFIL of its plans to cut down the disputed tree, the Lebanese Armed Forces soldiers on the ground asked for a 24-hour delay, which was refused. The soldiers had requested time to raise the issue within their chain of command. If the Israelis had acceded to the request, the Lebanese believe, the situation could have been resolved peacefully.

    The Lebanese official also said that the soldiers did not initially shoot directly at the Israeli officers, as Israeli officials have claimed, but first yelled at them to stop their work. When the Israelis did not respond, the soldiers contacted their military superiors in Beirut and received approval to fire warning shots. “They got the orders for shooting warning shots from their superiors, but not for shooting at the Israelis,” said the official. “The aim was to avoid a confrontation.”

    The Lebanese government contends that the problems along the Israeli-Lebanese border originate from ambiguity regarding the location of the border dividing the two countries. While the IDF soldiers were behind the Blue Line, the U.N.-demarcated line that was published in 2000, it is not the international border, which is the 1949 armistice line. “The Blue Line is the withdrawal line; it’s not the international line,” said the official. “And the Lebanese have reservations over some spots, including the place where this incident happened.”

    To prevent these incidents from occurring in the future, the Lebanese government is calling for closer coordination between UNIFIL, Israel, and Lebanon in the area. It will also request that the international community work to develop an internationally recognized border separating the two countries that would resolve Israel and Lebanon’s remaining territorial disputes.

  8. Ben says:

    Incognito,
    I appreciate your frustration, and share in it to some extent. I also think your take on the current role of the West is spot on.
    In all sincerity, what do you propose as a solution?
    With the right-minded leadership, can Israel go it alone?

  9. incognito says:

    Shmuel Tamir was a Herut politician who was a constant critic of the Labor governments in the 60′s. At one point the laborites told him: You keep criticizing, but what do you propose as alternative? His reply: I’m afraid that you have screwed up for so long that a time may have come where I have nothing to suggest.

    That is also my response. The first time Israel accepted the fakery of a palestinian people, it started down a suicidal path. It cas consistently intensified concessions and appeasements and it has brought the current situation on itself.

    Even if tomorrow it would reverse course and do what it was supposed to do from the start, it would still be too late. The process is irreversible. And Israel has a corrupt, incompetent elite which is incapable of changing course.

    No matter what appeasement Israel offers, it will now always be interpreted by the west that Israel is in the wrong and by the arabs that it’s weak. The combination is lethal.

    Since Israel is gonna get clubbered anyway, the best it can do is to take the role of “crazy state” which can cause nothing but trouble, a la North Korea. That’s the only way it can regain some respect, and I am not sure even that will save it.

    But there is nobody in Israel who will do that. The jews are again kissing the world’s ass in the hope that it will spare them. They have not learned the lessons of their history.

  10. incognito says:

    By the way, I very much doubt that, as Glick is arguing, the US would stop arming the arabs if only Israel asked.

    Obama’s obvious policy is to empower the arabs to such a degree that Israel would have no choice but capitulate to his ignorant version of the ME. And when Israel falls, he and the world will shed fake tears about another holocaust, just like the world, who contributed to the 1st, did. The world prefers to deplore dead jews to preventing their death.

    The least the jews could do is this time not go like sheep to the slaughter. After all, this was the raison d’etre for Israel, wasn’t it?

  11. Philippe says:

    @Incognito

    RE: deluding themselves that the world “will realize the truth”.

    You are very right, but whop said that just but desesperate causes shouldn’t be fought.

    Now the US media are one thing but if you read the french ones (for instance) you’ll see that we don’t have it too bad. For example The only title from Le Monde (wrongfully called the reference newspaper in France) came with was :
    Les tirs de l’armée libanaise “injustifiés” pour les Etats-Unis. That I would translate by: For the United-States the shots from the lebanese army were “unjustified”. Note the quotes insinuating that they were unjustified only for the US.

  12. harris says:

    “But there is nobody in Israel who will do that. The jews are again kissing the world’s ass in the hope that it will spare them. They have not learned the lessons of their history.”

    That’s the crucial point. And the jews think that their attackers have some basic rationality. Sometimes they do – like the leaders of Jordan. But that is accidental. But that is a basic property of humans: To assume that the other person is not completely mad and hateful. And to assume that the other person as well longs for a state of peaceful balance. The Israeli falsely assume this. Their enemies viciously exploit this.

    Compare it to the cold war conflict where both sides projected a lot onto the opponent. But noone on both sides – except some isolated individuals – was crazy enough to press towards a full blown war. Both sides were eager to avoid conflicts eventually. The sowjets turned their ships around near Cuba and they silently bargained the removal of missiles from Turkey. At many points the sowjets wanted to buy time in order to develop their economy. Can you image a similar incident involving Bibi and some sworn enemies of Israel: (http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,3924244_1,00.jpg)? And finally the USSR was transformed from within.

  13. incognito says:

    “but if you read the french ones (for instance) you’ll see that we don’t have it too bad.”

    Oh, yes, you do. France, like the rest of Europe has much more serious problems than the media.

    The Israeli falsely assume this.

    Not just the Israeli, the whole west; its culture makes them vulnerable to barbarians. The Israelis just happen to risk being the first to go.

    Can you image a similar incident involving Bibi and some sworn enemies of Israel

    The current leadership will cave in much before it reaches that situation. They do every day.

    Whatever flaws Israel’s founders had — and they had quite a few — they were statesmen. There is no one left, they are all small politicians, most corrupt and incompetent. I can’t forget how Halutz started the war then went out to liquidate his investments; and Barak showing off his luxuries in his high rising expensive apartment to every guest.

    The founders are probably turning in their graves. Not very promising, are they?

  14. Philippe says:

    I meant that compared to the french media, we do not have it too bad in the US.

    I agree that the current leaderships should take a stronger stance. They always respond to falsifications and lies defensively. Or, shamefully do not respond at all. For example the attitude, sometimes hostile, of the Israeli authorities during the Al Durah affair was appalling. Thanks to a french man and a german TV station, this falsification came to light. During the flotilla affair, why didn’t the Israeli demand an investigation into the role of the turkish government?

    I remember that since 1967, one says that Israel has won the war, but lost the propaganda battle. True that the job wasn’t easy, facing a deep hatred that the world opinion was more than happy to swallow without questions.

  15. incognito says:

    I agree that the current leaderships should take a stronger stance. They always respond to falsifications and lies defensively. Or, shamefully do not respond at all.

    Forget that type of response — it would not make a difference.

    They should always fight to win and destroy their enemies. They should always act disproportionate and should not incur losses just so they can save arabs.
    They should always act to surprise and shock. They should always threaten and be unpredictable. They should never agree to commissions of inquiry and they should ignore their results. Push come to shove, they should threaten to use atomic or biological weapons.

    I remember that since 1967, one says that Israel has won the war, but lost the propaganda battle.

    The minute they accepted the lie of the palestinian people they lost everything. And with Oslo they guaranteed it.

  16. incognito says:

    Europe:

    Bye-Bye Britain?
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/026938.php

    As if when they had an army the brits were using them in any meaningful way. Remember the commandos kidnapped by Iran and their behavior?

    Difficult to survive when you no longer have an army, your social fabric is kaput, your politicians are corrupt, ignorant and incompetent and you have a large muslim 5th column which bursts into violence left and right.

    When Achtungmyjihad says it’s over for the west he knows what’s he is talking about. And the US is not far behind.

  17. Defensible Borders to Secure Israel’s Future -

    Rather than any international peacekeeping mission, the best course is bilateral security arrangements.  The Israeli experience with an international presence has been poor. UNIFIL in Lebanon has not lived up to Israeli expectations in preventing the re-armament of Hizbullah after the 2006 Second Lebanon War.  For more on defensible borders to secure Israel’s future, see this piece by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan –  http://www.jcpa.org/text/security/dayan.pdf  and http://www.defensibleborders.org.

     

  18. Eliyahu says:

    The systematic anti-Israel attitude of the west and the MSM is now used systematically by arabs as a matter of policy to attack Israel: the arabs DESIGNS their attacks on Israel with it in mind; they can presume with 100% certainty that they will never be blamed or anything they do and that Israel will be always accused.

    Incog, in fact, certain Judeophobic Western powers have helped the Arabs design their anti-Israel moves over the years. Think the UK first of all. This ties up with something that you said that I agree with. It was a grave mistake for Israel to accept the Western lie that there was a so-called “palestinian people” never before known in history. The lie emerged in the early 1960s, whereas before the palestinian Arabs had taken pride in pan-Arabism and stressed that. As you may recall, I believe that it was British psywar/cogwar experts who invented the “palestinian people.” Here is a case of certain Western powers fighting the Arabs’ battle for them on the psywar/cogwar front.

    In this vein, Shimon Peres was right about something for a change, when he pointed to the UK as the most hostile major state to Israel in Western Europe. This doesn’t mean that all the British are raving Judeophobes, nor did Peres say that. Inventing the “palestinian people” notion and dwelling on Israeli wrongs, real, exaggerated and imagined, to that “people”, serve two purposes:

    1– they remove any sense of guilt from Western Euros for how they treated the Jews during the Holocaust and for the past 2000 years [actually, RL would qualify the Judeophobia of the early Middle Ages];
    2– they provide a pretext for further persecution and oppression and massacre of Jews. In this context, the idiot Left, most of the “left,” serves the overall policy of certain empires.

  19. Ray in Seattle says:

    Eliyahu, Are you sure about this?

    In this context, the idiot Left, most of the “left,” serves the overall policy of certain empires.

    I’ve seen various surveys that show upwards of 80% of US citizens support Israel in the Arab/Israeli conflict. Even if all rightists supported Israel (what about the neo-Nazis and KKK types who don’t?) and even if not all leftists do (certainly agreed) that still makes a sizable number of “lefties” who do support Israel, like me. (I hold many liberal beliefs and I’ll bet we share some of those).

    I think the right makes a mistake in its blanket condemnations of liberals. You alienate many potential allies and push some of them to anti-Israel forums where their liberal beliefs are not ridiculed.

    I’ve learned to let such attacks on my liberalism in forums like here pass because I believe that supporting Israel in this conflict is the right call and I’ve thought carefully about why I have those beliefs and I can defend them in any forum. But there are many liberals who are not so sure about it. Why risk turning them into Israel’s enemies because they disagree with you about global warming, for example?

  20. Eliyahu says:

    Ray, I did not mean to offend you or like-minded people. I guess that I too –like most folks today– have a hard time defining what “left” and “right” mean. I was not referring to liberals but to these fanatical groups, mainly but not only young people, who march down the street screaming slogans. But all of these terms, not only “left” and “right” but “liberal” and “conservative”, need to be reevaluated and defined more precisely than is usually the case today. I consider myself a liberal but also a conservative. Part of the reason for that is that I want to conserve liberal freedoms, etc. It seems to me that today many self-styled liberals are ready to give some of them up.

  21. Eliyahu says:

    I made several comments on a previous blog post about the validity of the left-right notion today. I would like Incog to see my latest remarks there too, and comment on them, if he likes. See link:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/07/27/my-latest-piece-at-pjtv-cotler-rubenstein-and-herzberg-on-iran-and-the-ngo-giants/

  22. Ray in Seattle says:

    Eliyahu, Thanks for the clarification. And also for the link. I had to start using Google Chrome a few days because my Firefox browser stopped working. Unfortunately, Chrome has crummy RSS support and so I can’t easily keep up with discussions here. I thought that article was pretty much done. I’ll go back now and try to catch up before commenting. Thanks again.

  23. incognito says:

    For more on defensible borders to secure Israel’s future, see this piece by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan – http://www.jcpa.org/text/security/dayan.pdf

    Uzi Dayan is the nephew of Moshe Dayan. When I was in a telegraphy course in the signal corps after my recruiting into IDF, Uzi participated in that course, having been sent there from Sayeret Matkal (if I am not mistaken). I still see him throwing daggers into trees.

    He formed a party called Tafnit that did not get elected to the Knesset. He was forced to join Likud. This is a great example of how Israel’s political system either drives away or coopts the good guys. It’s hard to expect him to come out of this process the same he went in.

    I just had an email exchange with him

  24. incognito says:

    Incog, in fact, certain Judeophobic Western powers have helped the Arabs design their anti-Israel moves over the years.

    Eliyahu, don’t you think I know that? Especially after your posts here? :)

    But you missed my point: What is different is that the anti-Israel attitude and policies is so complete and systematic that the arabs plan their actions based on it.
    That wasn’t the case until recently.

    In this vein, Shimon Peres was right about something for a change, when he pointed to the UK as the most hostile major state to Israel in Western Europe.

    But of course. Didn’t you read Karsh article on Peres’s
    comments? I guess even an ass-licker like Peres could not escape the reality of Cameron’s behavior.

    In this context, the idiot Left, most of the “left,” serves the overall policy of certain empires.

    The left’s utopian nonsense indicates that they would be easy to manipulate and exploit. They always were by their own leaders.

  25. incognito says:

    Eliyahu,

    Don’t worry too much about Ray.

    Almost everything that is being said here is interpreted as being about him and is offending.

    Those with thin skins should not involve themselves in intellectual arguments.

  26. Ray in Seattle says:

    Eliyahu, I’m still digesting that other thread. But just to be clear, as I stated at the time I did not take offense at your comment – but only asked if such views serve the cause of Israel in the West. My concern was and is for Israel (and the US and Western freedoms) in this conflict, not my personal feelings – or any need to prove I’m right and others are wrong on some issue.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy testing my beliefs against others’ where we differ but I don’t have any problem with honest disagreement. You and I generally disagree on Gore and global warming, for example. I feel no need to insult you or question your intelligence because of that. I don’t think I’ve ever questioned anyone’s intelligence or thinking skills here. Just for the record I’d say you are a reasonable person in most cases who’s views are worth considering even when I disagree with them.

  27. txlady706 says:

    @The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs —
    Israel will never win if they don’t bring everything to the forefront and on to the World stage. Israel, it’s government and military are seen as milksops. The world perceives Israel and Jews as whiners. There is no respectability in that. They need to stop whining and take action. If they can’t take military action, then they need to take LEGAL action. If not legal than some other way. They need to stop allowing the foreign media to MISREPRESENT them and thereby cause injury through slander.

    http://txlady706.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/israel-treason-by-lies-of-the-main-stream-media-an-ambush-by-the-lebanese-misreported-as-israeli-aggression-israel-should-sue-the-press-in-the-uk-courts-for-liable/

  28. Ray in Seattle says:

    Eliyahu, I had a chance to catch up and see that you explained your views on this very well. I largely agree.

  29. Cynic says:

    Eliyahu, Ray,

    For what it’s worth, my take on the matter of Left & Right and all the other terms used in the “political” partisan battles is that we are witnessing nothing more than clichés today, virtual cudgels to supplant facts and a façade for illogic.
    Just any old stick picked up off the ground and brandished in the name of “choose your favourite term”.
    We have Desmond Tutu of all people calling Israel an Apartheid state. That miserable specimen born under the discriminatory rule of a British Governor General and then into the Apartheid era, to accept the trappings of the Anglican Church and sell out their Arab flock in Bethlehem and other Christian towns in the interest of the PLO and PA.
    We need to analyse the mentality behind the behaviour displayed and redefine where we come from and from there define sides.
    The language of communication is being “deconstructed” and the noble words of yore given new meanings in the battle for control of minds, especially the youth, being indoctrinated into the new as the precepts for social interchange, developed over millennia, are discarded.
    There are those who are liberal and would see everybody succeed as they are conservative and wish to retain the rules for peaceful co-existence, while there are those whose envy at those more able than they are generates a dislike, an ire, that demands that they take control and if you like, “lord it over” the successful in life.
    Seems like we are witnessing this gross behaviour in Marbella.

  30. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic, I think there’s a lot of truth in what you say. I’m curious about your reference to Marbella which Wikipedia tells me is a city on the Med coast of S. Spain that has has an Islamic past as most of S. Spain has – but has undergone much high society and European royalty styled intrigue in the last several decades. Is there an common Israeli reference I’m unaware of?

  31. incognito says:

    Cynic,

    I agree with most of what you say, but it does not negate the existence of the L-R spectrum and its relevance for the conflict.

  32. Ray in Seattle says:

    FYI (anyone) – If you haven’t seen it yet Barry Rubin just posted an article that touches on this right/left topic tangentially. This is probably the best explanation I have seen for why most Jews remain steadfastly on the left or even far left politically. He explains it in psychological/belief terms which are the terms that make most sense to me.

    http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/08/explaining-jewish-political-behavior.html

  33. BowlingForSoup1985 says:

    As to Leftists and Liberals, as I see it there are real liberals and then there are posers who are better described as the Stalinist Left, especially when it comes to Israel. They have absolutely no use for the vast majority of Israel’s Left – and I’m not including loons from the extreme far, far Left like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, who represent at best maybe 1% of the Jewish population in Israel and are regarded as jokes there.

    When far Leftist Israelis like Landau and Montell have problems with the main conclusions of the Goldstone Report, when Gershon Baskin writes of no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, when Breaking the Silence interviewees report of Hamas human shields and boobytraps within civilian populations, when Amos Oz can’t blame Israel for going to war against Hezbollah in 2006 or when Haim Oron (head of Peace Now in Israel) is initially supported OCL in Gaza…..and all this is disregarded as Rightwing supremacist anti-Arab warmongering propaganda by Stalinist Leftists posing as liberals, it’s clear that these bigots view Israel’s Left with the same contempt they have for all the other 99% of Israeli Jews who aren’t willing to slash their own throats.

    The Stalinists don’t even like, endorse, or prop up the most “liberal” Palestinians like Sari Nusseibeh or Ray Hanania. Not to mention they’re indifferent or could care less about Palestinian suffering caused by Arab governments.

    It’s a shame they’re too dumb to realize they’re useful idiots who are hated by Jihadis almost as much as any other infidel.

  34. Eliyahu says:

    Incog, despite what you wrote in #1 above, Yosi Beilin continues with his drivel about the “right policy” obviating the need for hasbara. This was Shimon Peres’s line for many years and we know that Beilin was Peres’ poodle, as Yits’haq

    http://navonsblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/yossi-beilins-intellectual-ghetto.html

  35. Eliyahu says:

    33. [finishing #32 above] … Rabin so generously put it. Peres himself doesn’t talk so much this way anymore. His remarks about the UK establishment indicate that. But Beilin is a stalwart jackass. Now, I agree to a large extent with Emmanuel Navon on Beilin [to which you linked]. But Navon forgets Beilin’s financial incentive to keep on saying these things. Beilin is a paid agent of the EU, and collaborates, in the worst sense of the word, with the EU, the Swiss govt [on the Geneva initiative], etc.

    Beilin in effect lets the Euros off the hook for their “failure” to understand Israel’s problems and for their funding of the PA. He is an apologist for the EU. And in order to apologize for the EU, he has to keep on claiming that Israel is somehow guilty. But whatever Beilin really believes, lets not forget his pecuniary incentive to say what he does. Lets recognize the threat that the EU, especially with its foreign policy commissioner a Britisher, represents for Israel.

  36. Cynic says:

    Ray,

    With Marbella I was trying to portray the mental attitude of one who initially trashed the USA, even though presented with fabulous freedom and opportunity to attend premier institutions of learning and having attained a comfortable upper middle class existence this century who would then go, on obtaining power, to abuse the position by taking a holiday for 5 days in Marbella with 40 friends, flying AirForce 2, at the cost of over $300,000 (courtesy of the British Daily Mail).

    From your link to Rubin he writes:

    First, the threat to real liberal institutions and values come from both extremes of the political spectrum.

    I disagree on a spectrum structure.
    The extremes he talks about are all from a similar mentality which is opposed to that which I presume we, on the other side, adhere to.
    I feel that the threat comes from one type of mind set seeking power at any cost which is totally opposed to the other, liberal in action and conservative because of its retention of its social structure defined over the ages.

    Second, radicals and anti-democratic revolutionaries can pretend to be liberals, just as Communists once did when it suited them, but nobody should be fooled by this impersonation.

    What might be the most adaptable people in world history must continue to adapt to new threats and changing conditions.

    These Jews he refers to have not adapted but continue to genuflect not understanding taquiya or any of the other lies flung their way and wilt at the behaviour of those who stand up for themselves in defense of their right as human beings to be treated with equality and dignity.

  37. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic, Oh, I see – it’s about Michelle. I hadn’t followed her vacation trip. I’ve seen a few articles but had not indulged probably because politics doesn’t interest me much and those articles come off as partisan attacks. I figure if there’s more to notice then I eventually will because there will be ample repetition in any election year.

  38. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic, About the spectrum thing. I think it’s similar to scientists trying to identify species in the rain forest. Animals and ideology both evolve along many different dimensions simultaneously. For scientists (natural or political) to unlump these at any one point in time is not so easy. So, I tend to focus on beliefs rather than labels. Not that that gives me any special insight but it does reduce confusion for me anyway.

    I can’t even label myself. As I’ve said before, I use the liberal here at times but only because this is a conservative dominated site and I don’t want to mislead anyone. (I think also because I don’t want to give in to the sweet call of tribalism.) But I’d have a hard time supporting my liberal creds against anyone who seriously questioned them. Ten years ago it would have been easy but since then either my ideology has shifted to the right or the liberal midline has shifted to the left or both. Or, maybe in those ten years I just became a grouchy old man who doesn’t like anybody very much. ;-)

  39. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic said,

    These Jews he refers to have not adapted but continue to genuflect not understanding taquiya or any of the other lies flung their way and wilt at the behaviour of those who stand up for themselves in defense of their right as human beings to be treated with equality and dignity.

    Yeah, I find that both perplexing and fascinating in a human nature kind of way. I sometimes even see it expressed by Jewish commenters on this site.

    One thing that has become clearer to me in the last couple of years is the amazing persistence of cultural belief. By that I mean the emotional forces in society that induce culturally consistent behavior, not what people say about their beliefs, which can be the opposite. Like the many Jews who take the side of their enemies who happen to be people who blow up innocent civilians to get what they want – contrasted with the same Jew’s stated belief in peace, love and respect for the downtrodden that supposedly drives them.

    It seems to me those emotional forces are somewhat immutable while the words people use to describe their beliefs change from generation to generation with the ideological environment. Like Sophia at Solomonia. In the sixties she would have defended Arabs (and probably did) in terms of class struggle (now that she has revealed her Communist / Socialist leanings). Now it’s all about “They are just like us and so we need to reach out to them”.

  40. incognito says:

    I beat you to it: I already posted the Navon piece in another thread.

    Incog, despite what you wrote in #1 above, Yosi Beilin continues with his drivel about the “right policy” obviating the need for hasbara.

    Yes, I know, and Navon is pretty clear why Beilin can’t stop that.

    As to hasbara, it’s not gonna make per se any difference. The problem is that Israel has bought into the lies of the Pals and the west and its policies are of concessions and appeasement when there is overwhelming evidence that this leads to perdition. No hasbara can overcome that.

    This was Shimon Peres’s line for many years and we know that Beilin was Peres’ poodle, as Yits’haq

    Peres is another utter failure, probably the main responsible for Oslo. And from what I read he is also a despicable hatran. Never heard him say anything meaningful, just stupid slogans. He seems to me to be one of the dumbest politicians Israel ever had.

  41. incognito says:

    As I’ve said before, I use the liberal here at times but only because this is a conservative dominated site and I don’t want to mislead anyone. (I think also because I don’t want to give in to the sweet call of tribalism.)

    How nobel.

    I wonder by what criteria is this site “conservative”, and “dominated”. Is conservative more relevant than liberal? And what

  42. Ray in Seattle says:

    I think “noble” is the word you’re looking for.

    Conservative dominated in the sense that you, Cynic and Eliyahu as well as the site owner – by far the most frequent commenters here – all express a consistently conservative world view.

    Your last question was cut off.

  43. incognito says:

    Yup, sorry, a typo.

    And in what way are we conservative?

  44. Ray in Seattle says:

    Let’s just say that is how I interpret your views. I’d rather not get into a pointless discussion about a definition that could easily cover all of human knowledge and history and still resist resolution.

  45. incognito says:

    Let’s just say that is how I interpret your views.

    Uhuh.

  46. Ray in Seattle says:

    “uhuh”

    If I have somehow missed your liberal sentiments as expressed in your comments to date please take this opportunity to set the record straight. I’m always ready to learn something new ;-)

  47. incognito says:

    I have a feeling you interpret liberal sentiments your own way too.

  48. Cynic says:

    Ray,

    Once upon a time in my life the word liberal appeared to imply “open”; open to discussion, to other opinions and to others participating in a laissez-faire type of life.
    Nowadays those who claim to be or are denoted as liberals characterize their ideological bent in a dogmatic fashion and insist that everybody else conform, if it’s not my way then it’s no way attitude.

    As a “designated” conservative I am completely at ease with other people doing what they want to do with their lives as long as it doesn’t impinge on mine.
    I don’t take offense at others doing “better” than me in the game of life.

  49. Cynic says:

    Ray,

    With regard to your remarks about Sophia in #39.
    In a Solomonia post about Howard Zinn Sophia was adamant in her comment #19:
    Oh by the way: the fact is the Nazis were specifically an anti-Communist movement. Left wing they were not.

    which discloses an ignorance due to the massive disinformation effort of Russia which has had 99% of the world fooled for the past 70 odd years.
    And the media has been very much to blame, apart of course academia and general education.

  50. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic @52,

    Despite the occasional fights that start here between me and incog (which are distractions of no import that I encourage others to ignore) I much prefer to discuss these things with conservatives like you, who are sincere, serious and not just out for a fight with libs.

    I find many views expressed by people who call themselves liberals fairly repugnant. I share your “live and let live” approach to things. So, when I designated you as “conservative” it was in the world-view sense. I’ve repeatedly stated here that sometimes a conservative world-view is the right world-view depending on the particular problem you’re trying to solve. I especially see the conservative response to those who use aggression and violence to get what they want – as the right and moral response. So, it was in no way an insult on my part and I hope you did not take it that way.

  51. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic @53, Here’s where it gets interesting. You say Sophia is ignorant. I find her to be very intelligent and articulate. She’s a good writer. But is she ignorant?

    I’d say she has been exposed to more information on the topic of ME conflict than 90% of US citizens. I don’t think she’s insincere either. So why do I disagree so strongly with her at times? It’s because she and I hold different emotionally charged beliefs about the conflict.

    Despite what we all like to believe about out own ideological beliefs we do not acquire them from careful logical analysis of the human condition and its history. We get them mostly by osmosis from friends and family as we grow up. Those create emotional forces (biases) in our minds that can not be resisted. Sophia had communists and socialists in her family, as did many Jews in her age group, who loved her and cared for her. A logical analysis of the history of communism and socialism is not going to make her despise communists and socialists or their ideology. That’s just how it works.

    She’s a good person who’s misguided beliefs IMO contribute to the ongoing attempted destruction of Israel. Or, maybe she’s right and it’s my beliefs that are doing that. But, it sure is intriguing trying to figure it out and that’s why this is an interesting forum – despite the distractions.

  52. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic, Is the media to blame? Whether one buys and believes the Chicago Tribune or the Daily Worker depends on the beliefs they carry with them to the news-stand.

  53. incognito says:

    Cynic,

    Open mindedness is a trait that either conservatives or liberals could have; it is usually only the extremes of the species that are closed-minded.

    Open mindedness is function of intellect which involves judgment. It’s certainly not “everything goes”. It’s selectiveness based on knowledge, evidence and reason.
    When intellect is weak emotions are strong and may result in closed-mindedness. Of course, as always, dealing with humans there are exceptions and variations.

    Left-right continuum is not defined by open/closed mindedeness, but by the SUBSTANCE of beliefs, by ideology.

    That’s why I am usually dismissive of Ray’s perspective on things. He is the one who is closed minded who deems himself a liberal and people who disagree with him as conservatives and closed-minded.

    Implicit in his perspective is that if you don’t think like him, you’re a conservative and closed minded.

    When arguing with the religious I always ask: Is there ANY evidence that you might accept the inexistence of god?. Invariably they say no, or shut up and go. THAT’s closed-mindedness.

  54. incognito says:

    Like Sophia at Solomonia. In the sixties she would have defended Arabs (and probably did) in terms of class struggle (now that she has revealed her Communist / Socialist leanings). Now it’s all about “They are just like us and so we need to reach out to them”.

    which discloses an ignorance due to the massive disinformation effort

    Heh, heh, what do you know: leftism is relevant just in the way I explained, and willful ignorance is involved.

  55. incognito says:

    Cynic,

    I responded to your exchange with Ray but the filters ate it. I hope Richard will post it.

    Ray admits that he has “his own interpretation of things”. He prefers people who may disagree with him but don’t directly call him on the flaws in his arguments; that’s “looking for a fight” and a distraction.

    You see, there are good conservatives and bad conservative.

  56. incognito says:

    Cinders of Lebanon
    The United States abandoned Beirut, and Israel takes the blame
    By Lee Smith
    http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/42192/cinders-of-lebanon/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cinders-of-lebanon

  57. Eliyahu says:

    Cynic, the Communists [USSR and Comintern] and Nazis collaborated at different times. They formed an alliance in September 1939 which brought about WW 2. Their foreign ministers called for a joint “struggle for peace” while they were both occupying Poland.

    http://www.netanyahu.org/peacmovthena.html

    The Nazi-Soviet Pact is one of the reasons that I don’t believe in a “left-right spectrum.”

  58. Cynic says:

    incognito,

    Open mindedness is a trait that either conservatives or liberals could have; it is usually only the extremes of the species that are closed-minded.

    This phrase is an example of why I dislike the nomenclature defining sides.
    If one is closed minded then one cannot be a liberal in the original sense of that word and neither for that matter a conservative. A “closed minded” person is dogmatic in their ideology and not open to discuss another’s point of view nor accept a compromise on policy.
    No matter whether liberal or conservative the extremes usually portray the similar mentality and variations in their behaviour just classes within that mental group. That’s why for my own satisfaction I grouped the Communists, Nazis and Fascists as Socialist Sects because the end result of those orders is always the same.

  59. incognito says:

    Cynic,

    We must agree to disagree.

    One can be a liberal closed-minded to anything conservative, or a conservative close-minded to anything liberal.

    Unlike you, I don’t define the spectrum in terms of how closed one mind is, but on ideology. You can have an ideology but be open to others having another and not imposing yours on them.

    Since the extremes meet, that explains the similarity in mentality as well as the sometimes cooperation, although that is much more likely to be pragmatic than ideological.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>