Tuesday, July 25, 2006
HARRY WOULD HAVE GIVEN 'EM HELL
I could not let this Jackie Ashley Guardian piece on the U.S.'s "extremist theology" pass undisturbed. Here we go:
And what a dreadful thing that is . . . sounding "close to Washington in their language".
Better then, presumably, to bond Britain to say, Hamas or Hezbollah? Right? (NOTE: Satsuma warning.)
Oh, yes, as successfully as European countries acted together, absent interference from Washington, in derailing Iran's nuclear goals?
"They say"? Who are "they" exactly? Evidently the "Foreign Office". Convenient that for Ms Ashley's construct here: unnamed "officials" in the Foreign Office say that.
This is undoubtedly the worst bit of this article. By sleight of keyboard of course Ms Ashley is not attempting to fudge that it is really her own view that what actually drives U.S. policy towards Israel is the "fundamentalist right". Good. For if it is, she should get a job doing something other than writing for a so-called newspaper, because she hasn't the slightest idea what she is talking about here.
Let me explain. Ms Ashley needs someone to tell her it is not his, meaning Bush's, foreign policy. The creation of the state of Israel came about as a direct result of Nazi Europeans' attempt to wipe out the continent's Jewish population. Since that attempted genocide, the U.S. has stood by the democratic Jewish state. (Consider about that timescale what is too easy to overlook: in mid-1944, thousands of Jews a day were being slaughtered in Nazi death camps; by mid-1948, only four years later, Israel was in existence.)
U.S. President Harry Truman played a pivotal role in the creation of Israel. Without his drive to see it come to pass, it probably would never have happened as it did. Truman once remarked famously:
He also said:
Well, there's your proof. Supporter of Israel and someone who had also heard of the Sermon on the Mount. Presumably, the geniuses at the Guardian -- of course, quoting "officials" in the Foreign Office -- believe those mean "Give 'em hell, Harry" was also a member of the "fundamentalist right"?
Following Truman, presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon (of whom Harry Truman once remarked: "Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in." -- presumably, the Guardian agrees with Truman's view on that?), Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and the U.S. Congress similarly supported the state of Israel.
And WHY the U.S. government aided in supporting Israel's creation, and has been an essential supporter since is BECAUSE (here, those who don't understand, please read slowly, so you can manage to take this in) in any fair poll on the matter, such support is repeatedly and clearly endorsed by the American people overwhelmingly. Period.
And guess what else? If the UN's promised Arab state had also been created back in 1948, the U.S. would have supported that too -- and "Palestine" today might well have a prosperous, Arab state next door to Israel. (As an aside, who's fault was that rejection? George W. Bush's? He was not even 2 years old in the summer of 1948. Ah, but that's obviously a measure of how tricky members of the fundamentalist right, like, errr, Truman and Bush were and are. Right?)
Yet despite all the evidence of nearly 60 years smacking them across the face, once again here we are forced to endure yet another repetition of lazy Guardian "shop talk" about how the current U.S. president George W. Bush supports Israel because he is a religious zealot, supported by religious maniacs. Talk about not just ignorance, but also not being able to spot the zealots among the cedars.
If the Guardian is desperately seeking religious zealots supported by a "core" of support from powerful fundamentalists, it would seem they could uncover (pun intended) such without too much effort if they looked at nearly any Islamically-inclined country. Indeed, the Guardian doesn't even need to go THAT far, for as Ms Ashley herself even points out, we are starting to see similar "zeal" become increasingly common in certain U.K. parliamentary constitutencies. (Isn't that just "fundamentally" adorable?)
Back to Ms Ashley's analysis:
Harry Truman also said, "If you can't convince them, confuse them." Definitely. "The talking cure"? Talking assumes there is an end upon which all can reach and agree. That does not seem the case here.
For notice how Ms Ashley has not decreed that Muslims who yearn for the destruction of Israel are obsessed by "a fantasy" also? That omission on her part is understandable, because even Ms Ashley must realize one can't even attempt to make that point, because it isn't "a fantasy": a couple of Iranian nuclear warheads dropped on Israel someday, and Israel will indeed NOT exist.
Bottom line: once everyone -- and yes, that means Muslims also -- ceases dreaming of what they hope to see come about and accepts realities exist, talking may indeed lead to a cure. But not before.
Oh, yes, the try to blame the U.S. smokescreen. Guardian readers of course feast (many vegetarian-style, of course) on that, but the rest of us might also ask this: What actually happened to that "peace process"? The Guardian could start its investigation on that by first asking Israel's obvious "partners in peace" in Gaza, in southern Lebanon, in Damascus, and most of important of all, in Tehran.
Speaking of Tehran, in a Guardian piece back on June 2, Jonathan Steele lectured everyone that they are, well, wrong:
Interestingly, a broadcast entity named Al-Jazeera thinks otherwise (October 26, 2005):
Presumably, that is 1) a deliberate mistranslation by the Arab broadcaster. Or 2) no one at all speaks any Farsi at al-Jazeera.
It gets even worse. Even though the Islamic Republic of Iran's "news agency" itself had told us:
And that:
. . . all that was probably just a bad translation too. For as we all know also, no one in the Islamic Republic of Iran's official "news agency" speaks Farsi either. Right? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, July 25, 2006
I could not let this Jackie Ashley Guardian piece on the U.S.'s "extremist theology" pass undisturbed. Here we go:
...Tony Blair, Margaret Beckett and David Cameron are keeping on the pro-Israeli side of neutral, sounding close to Washington in their language...
And what a dreadful thing that is . . . sounding "close to Washington in their language".
...In a world possibly on the edge of wider war, with Syria and Iran involved as diplomatic and military backers of Hizbullah, do we really want to bond ourselves to Washington? That chimes with what Labour MPs are getting from their constituency parties, particularly in those parts of the country with large Muslim populations...
Better then, presumably, to bond Britain to say, Hamas or Hezbollah? Right? (NOTE: Satsuma warning.)
...It is not difficult to see where this thinking leads. European countries would act together, independently of Washington, and the UN would be vigorously supported in its calls for a ceasefire...
Oh, yes, as successfully as European countries acted together, absent interference from Washington, in derailing Iran's nuclear goals?
...The real drive behind Bush's enthusiasm for Israel, they say, is the much more powerful Christian fundamentalist right, who see the country as God's covenant to a chosen people. It is Bush's own core vote that is driving his foreign policy...
"They say"? Who are "they" exactly? Evidently the "Foreign Office". Convenient that for Ms Ashley's construct here: unnamed "officials" in the Foreign Office say that.
This is undoubtedly the worst bit of this article. By sleight of keyboard of course Ms Ashley is not attempting to fudge that it is really her own view that what actually drives U.S. policy towards Israel is the "fundamentalist right". Good. For if it is, she should get a job doing something other than writing for a so-called newspaper, because she hasn't the slightest idea what she is talking about here.
Let me explain. Ms Ashley needs someone to tell her it is not his, meaning Bush's, foreign policy. The creation of the state of Israel came about as a direct result of Nazi Europeans' attempt to wipe out the continent's Jewish population. Since that attempted genocide, the U.S. has stood by the democratic Jewish state. (Consider about that timescale what is too easy to overlook: in mid-1944, thousands of Jews a day were being slaughtered in Nazi death camps; by mid-1948, only four years later, Israel was in existence.)
U.S. President Harry Truman played a pivotal role in the creation of Israel. Without his drive to see it come to pass, it probably would never have happened as it did. Truman once remarked famously:
I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have in it now. I believe it has a glorious future before it - not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.
He also said:
I do not believe there is a problem in this country or the world today which could not be settled if approached through the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount.
Well, there's your proof. Supporter of Israel and someone who had also heard of the Sermon on the Mount. Presumably, the geniuses at the Guardian -- of course, quoting "officials" in the Foreign Office -- believe those mean "Give 'em hell, Harry" was also a member of the "fundamentalist right"?
Following Truman, presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon (of whom Harry Truman once remarked: "Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in." -- presumably, the Guardian agrees with Truman's view on that?), Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and the U.S. Congress similarly supported the state of Israel.
And WHY the U.S. government aided in supporting Israel's creation, and has been an essential supporter since is BECAUSE (here, those who don't understand, please read slowly, so you can manage to take this in) in any fair poll on the matter, such support is repeatedly and clearly endorsed by the American people overwhelmingly. Period.
And guess what else? If the UN's promised Arab state had also been created back in 1948, the U.S. would have supported that too -- and "Palestine" today might well have a prosperous, Arab state next door to Israel. (As an aside, who's fault was that rejection? George W. Bush's? He was not even 2 years old in the summer of 1948. Ah, but that's obviously a measure of how tricky members of the fundamentalist right, like, errr, Truman and Bush were and are. Right?)
Yet despite all the evidence of nearly 60 years smacking them across the face, once again here we are forced to endure yet another repetition of lazy Guardian "shop talk" about how the current U.S. president George W. Bush supports Israel because he is a religious zealot, supported by religious maniacs. Talk about not just ignorance, but also not being able to spot the zealots among the cedars.
If the Guardian is desperately seeking religious zealots supported by a "core" of support from powerful fundamentalists, it would seem they could uncover (pun intended) such without too much effort if they looked at nearly any Islamically-inclined country. Indeed, the Guardian doesn't even need to go THAT far, for as Ms Ashley herself even points out, we are starting to see similar "zeal" become increasingly common in certain U.K. parliamentary constitutencies. (Isn't that just "fundamentally" adorable?)
Back to Ms Ashley's analysis:
...Israel's dream of wiping out Hizbullah is a fantasy. There is no long-term alternative to a balanced, international, diplomatic attempt to bring peace. The talking cure might be slow, but it is the only one there is...
Harry Truman also said, "If you can't convince them, confuse them." Definitely. "The talking cure"? Talking assumes there is an end upon which all can reach and agree. That does not seem the case here.
For notice how Ms Ashley has not decreed that Muslims who yearn for the destruction of Israel are obsessed by "a fantasy" also? That omission on her part is understandable, because even Ms Ashley must realize one can't even attempt to make that point, because it isn't "a fantasy": a couple of Iranian nuclear warheads dropped on Israel someday, and Israel will indeed NOT exist.
Bottom line: once everyone -- and yes, that means Muslims also -- ceases dreaming of what they hope to see come about and accepts realities exist, talking may indeed lead to a cure. But not before.
...This is no wonks-only debate. It is bubbling up through local parties and across Britain. Quite right too. For years we were told the Middle East peace process was in hand, led by the US. Now the neocon world order is disappearing in clouds of smoke and columns of refugees.
Oh, yes, the try to blame the U.S. smokescreen. Guardian readers of course feast (many vegetarian-style, of course) on that, but the rest of us might also ask this: What actually happened to that "peace process"? The Guardian could start its investigation on that by first asking Israel's obvious "partners in peace" in Gaza, in southern Lebanon, in Damascus, and most of important of all, in Tehran.
_____________________________
Speaking of Tehran, in a Guardian piece back on June 2, Jonathan Steele lectured everyone that they are, well, wrong:
...Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map"...
...The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about...
...The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about...
Interestingly, a broadcast entity named Al-Jazeera thinks otherwise (October 26, 2005):
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map...
...Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam"...
...Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam"...
Presumably, that is 1) a deliberate mistranslation by the Arab broadcaster. Or 2) no one at all speaks any Farsi at al-Jazeera.
It gets even worse. Even though the Islamic Republic of Iran's "news agency" itself had told us:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned countries or leaders who have taken measures to acknowledge the Zionist regime under pressure or due to lack of sound understanding that they will be confronted with the wrath of the Islamic ummah and will forever be disgraced.
Speaking at a conference dubbed "World without Zionism" here Wednesday which was attended by thousands of students, he said any country which acknowledges the Zionist regime will actually be acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.
He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.
Ahmadinejad referred to the Zionist regime's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of Palestinian territory and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge the Zionist regime of Israel...
Speaking at a conference dubbed "World without Zionism" here Wednesday which was attended by thousands of students, he said any country which acknowledges the Zionist regime will actually be acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.
He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.
Ahmadinejad referred to the Zionist regime's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of Palestinian territory and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge the Zionist regime of Israel...
And that:
...The president called on the public and the Palestinian combatant groups to be vigilant and added that if they manage to overcome the new conspiracies of the world arrogant powers, the way would be paved for destruction of the Zionist regime and establishment of a national Palestinian government...
. . . all that was probably just a bad translation too. For as we all know also, no one in the Islamic Republic of Iran's official "news agency" speaks Farsi either. Right? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, July 25, 2006
