Eric,
You say:
“This is also the latest faux-pas in Pope Benedict’s accident-prone reign that began with his foolish, medieval slurs against Islam”.
Oh no, this is more precisely a faux-pas of Eric Margolis’. Surely you know by this time that the Pope was quoting someone else’s comments, they were not his own. Are we to attribute to you all statements of the Bush White House when you quote them? I’ve admired your writing in the past, so much so that I’ve posted here occasionally. Cetainly you can manage something more edifying than this, eh?
John Lowell
Posted by John Lowell at January 22, 2007 02:34 PM
Pope was certainly not stating those comments as his own, but surely even you know that he was endorsing them…Why else would he bring up that unsubstantiated ethnocentric and intellectually dishonest fabrication of the medieval orientalists???
Posted by williamwallace at January 22, 2007 03:06 PM
william,
You say:
“but surely even you know that he was endorsing them”
Can it be that “even you” in your presumption might not be capable of reaching through to the truth of the Pope’s inner life so as not to take his remarks and their context at face value or are we more likely faced here with a certain animus that you’d otherwise direct inward in the absence of such a splendid opportunity?
John Lowell
Posted by John Lowell at January 22, 2007 04:01 PM
Now, this is just a quote, so don’t think I’m saying this:
Idiom: Split hairs
Meaning:
* If people split hairs, they concentrate on tiny and unimportant details to find fault with something.
Now, I’m only quoting! Don’t get mad!
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at January 22, 2007 04:20 PM
John Williams: Allow me to quote you a piece of history “Ignorance is a Great Disease” and “Idiocy is the language of the Donkey”. Maybe I should quote Iran’s President, it is only a quote, I mean nothing by it!!
Eric: Entertaining column as always, especially the first-hand story about your dealing with secret police.
I believe the Arab world has also suffered significantly at the hands of Communist-like secret police.
I do ponder, was Communisim for the better or worse of humanity ? Maybe many of our troubles are rooted in the Communist state. Just like the Baathis are the root of all problems in the Arab world.
Posted by Tamouh at January 22, 2007 04:27 PM
When Eric quotes Bush’s comments it is to lay them out for criticism. When the Pope was making the quote in question he was doing so to make a point. The point being that his current viewpoint had been held for centuries thereby justifying and validating his current viewpoint.
And point of fact, the re-illumination of post-communist thugs still operating in our world IS most edifying, which was after all, the point of this week’s post.
Many have often wondered about EM’s grudging respect for Pinochet , you only need read above to see his first-hand hatred of good ole commies. Anyone who beat up on commies can’t be all bad in EM’s books. Historically EM has a point. I don’t know of anything that has killed more people than communism did in the last century. And I’m not talking just those fighting against communism, but what communists did to “their own” people.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at January 22, 2007 04:39 PM
Tamouh, was communism for the better or worse of society?
Worse, definitely.
Though capitalism isn’t doing much better looking after humanity.
Posted by D. Canuck at January 22, 2007 04:42 PM
John,
Oh do enlighten us on the inner truth of Pope you exaulted incoherent one…
Next time, when Pope’s bible-belting co-religionists of Middle America call for the bombing of Mecca or an abortion clinic, call founder of other relgions, “demon-possessed”, I’d be sure not to take that on face-value…
I guess, only the Pope would be capable of stating a polemic out of the blue, which he supposedly doesn’t endorses…
Posted by williamwallace at January 22, 2007 05:38 PM
Like Eric, I respect John Paul II, but I don’t understand his support of the Catholic church. The Catholic church was always more interested in power and getting more believers than it preserving traditional values of Catholicism. Now, the Catholic church is not nearly as bad as the Orthodox church which is the most anti-Muslim institution in the world, or as bad as the Evangelical Christian sects who want to bring about the apocalypse, however I’ve never heard any condemnation by the Church of all the serious abuses done by Catholics in Africa, Southeast Asia, or the Balkans.
On a different topic it’s nice to see an anti-Communist column by Eric, it’s been a while since he wrote one. I never knew Eric had such nefarious dealings with the Albanian secret police, but I don’t think they were dangerous outside of Albania. I suspect Eric is a veteran of the CIA, he could have taken care of them.
Posted by Van at January 22, 2007 06:07 PM
william,
I’ll bet you’re so mad you could just spit, huh, william? Imagine it, someone telling you that you’re presumptuous and then going on to suggest that self-hatred grounds the rather uninspired and uninspiring Robert Shelton imitation you just offered us. A suggestion for you, ace: Next time come dressed properly. Don’t forget your sheet and the white hood. You’re a 24 carat phoney dressed as a civilian.
John Lowell
Posted by John Lowell at January 22, 2007 06:33 PM
Mr. Lowell - pleeese! The FACT is the current pope CHOSE the words he spoke so he has to take responsibility for them. I will leave it to you to decide WHY he chose them.
I too fail to understand Eric’s seeming admiration of the Roman Catholic church. Maybe its a sentimental thing. Not to say the church is all bad, but at best it is a mixed “blessing”. I surmise he liked JP2 because the church in Poland was the quiet resistance to the Communist state. A role I appreciate too.
Interesting speculation, Eric a former CIA operative. Strange thing is, I am not shocked to hear it as it does help explain some of his international exposures. And his strident anti-communism to the point where he can applaud a devil like Pinochet who overthrew, with CIA help a democratically elected socialist government.
Posted by shazam at January 22, 2007 07:33 PM
Eric says that “Poland should be hailed for finally exposing Communist criminals and their pawns.” But what crimes did they commit? What laws did they break? And if as many as one out of five were informants, do they all count as “criminals”?
And as if informing and blacklisting don’t happen in capitalist countries. In fact, Eric says that Poland’s prime minister is trying to take away the pensions of former communists and blacklist them from government employment. Sounds exactly like the allegations against the communists.
How can anyone feel sympathy for what Poland and the various other small Eastern European states “suffered” under communism? Several of them were fascist states and allies of Nazi Germany who participated in the attack/invasion of the Soviet Union (the Poles, under the fascist Pilsudski government, invaded the Soviet Union well before Nazi Germany), an unprovoked assault which cost some 30 million Soviet lives and had the purpose of even much further reducing the Slavic population, the remainder to serve as slaves. This is suffering far beyond anything experienced by the Poles, Germans, etc.
The Poles are far from the innocent victims they’ve been made out to be by Anglo-American propaganda, propaganda serving anti-Russian and anti-Soviet interests. Have the Poles properly addressed their invasion of the Soviet Union? Their fascist past? Their ill treatment (perhaps even genocide) against the Ukrainians? Then pardon me for not applauding their current anti-communist witch hunt.
Posted by hyperbolus at January 22, 2007 10:32 PM
Has anyone here addressed how Third World economies have tended to embrace corrupt statism, because of the influence of Communist propaganda which conflates capitalism with Western imperialism?
Posted by George Carty at January 23, 2007 08:23 AM
So Poland’s PM wants to exclude former communist agents from jobs and pensions. How vindictive and unproductive. When the vanquished become the victors, we see shades of Orwell’s Animal farm. Rather the victors should take a conciliatory stance if they want social cohesion. After all, the number one objective and obligation of a federal or national government is, or certainly ought to be, national unity.
This may mean bringing neutral Justice to bear to process the asocial grievance, but only under the rule of law rather than arbitrary and collective punishment. What State laws did the communist agents break? The status of their State benefits should be predicated on their guilt or innocence on that basis. Let’s face it, under the old communist regimes, where voting with your feet was not an option, you either played ball or were frozen out; most who played ball did so out of a Nature-given will to survive and thrive. Who among us would have acted differently?
Posted by ghawley at January 23, 2007 11:35 AM
Eric says : “In the 1980’s, I faced one of East Europe’s most vicious Communist secret police, which threatened my distant relatives with prison and torture in an effort to get me to write articles attacking its enemies. I adamantly refused, but it was a frightening, ugly business. I finally managed to end it by threatening to kill the specific agents menacing me. I was never bothered again”
Somehow, I don’t believe they were scared of you. Wow, you threatened a powerful secret police. Stop with the bullshit. They would have disposed of you as quickly as sperm attaches to the female egg, if they wanted to.
You give yourself too much credit Eric. Somehow, I don’t think your Army background frightened them even the least bit.
Posted by theking01 at January 23, 2007 12:54 PM
Really, Theking01?
You think that’s BS? Why?
It sounds reasonable to me - he was working for the CIA, assisting the Mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviets… Why couldn’t he have flexed his contacts’ muscles?
Also, just a question - how quickly does the sperm attach to a male egg?
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at January 23, 2007 01:32 PM
I shared a glitter of your reaction theking01 and I think it is how one normally reacts, to shades and degrees, to boasting. In an effort to make sense of out of character comment of Eric’s, I hypothesize the following (ain’t fantasy great?!). He was a journalist who was leaned on to write discrediting remarks about that particular country’s democratically-leaning opposition (who may have been CIA funded). Eric refused because he (a) doesn’t take well to clumsy threats and because (b) he really believed in the cause which he supported in his writings (which may/may not be linked to his (theoretical) role as a CIA “fact-finding” operative. With that preamble, we come to the point. I doubt Eric played super hero - rather I bet he said: “unless you back off, I will get my friends after you”, at which point they realized he was not bluffing. Which alludes to his Cold War spy pals (consistent with his cold war attitude to communism and, sadly, even socialism). Sound reasonable?
Posted by ghawley at January 23, 2007 01:34 PM
The way you put it ghawley, it sounds very reasonable. Sometimes I think Eric exaggerates some of his declarations.
As far as Tovy goes, to answer your question, the sperm attaches to a FEMALE, and not male egg as you wrote, in 4 seconds. It’s a lighting quick operation. So when you are doing the nasty with your woman, you can tell her that, IN FACT, for some or all things, you are pretty quick in bed.
Posted by theking01 at January 23, 2007 02:25 PM
I tend to agree with ghawley. I suspect it was a matter of “my big brother can beat up your big brother”. If your big brother is CIA, you might not have to fight many fights.
Posted by guesswho at January 23, 2007 02:45 PM
Ghawley:
I totally agree. Unfortunately, the notion of victors taking reprisals is all too common; in this country, we still have cases come up that arise from disputes regarding state siezure of lands belonging to crown loyalists during or before the American Revolution. We could learn a thing for two from Mandela, I think, about national unity following independence or civil war, and proper reconcilliation. The Poles could certainly take a page or two from Mandela’s playbook on these matters; prosecute the worst villains at the very top, and pardon the the rank and file; this seems particularly apt when the “rank and file” may have been over a fifth of the population.
Posted by chatman at January 23, 2007 03:07 PM
Chatman - Most interesting about the Loyalists. I wonder if the US response will be consistent with their stance on Cuba, which is all confiscated property must be returned or compensated. Mind you they have yet to support similar claims by the Palestinian diaspora. Ah, history is replete with double standards. To the victor go the spoils.
Wise ones know that places can be switched at the drop of a hat so it pays to be gracious in victory. I recall the post WW2 position of the King of the Netherlands who declined the Allied offer to bestow geographically strategic parts of Germany to the Netherlands as compensation. He had learned the lesson of Versailles and wanted to ensure a lasting peace. I think that calmed the rapacious demands of the victors to kick an already down Germany once again.
Posted by ghawley at January 23, 2007 04:15 PM
George Carty,
You asked if anyone here has addressed how Third World economies tend to embrace corrupt statism because of the influence of Communist propaganda which conflates (had to look that one up!) capitalism with Western Imperialism….
I don’t think any “conflation” is taking place. I can’t think of one example of capitalism in the Third World which is not horribly exploitive of the local populace, causing only misery. Capitalism doesn’t need any opposing propaganda to point out its shortcomings, injustices and imposed paradoxes.
Check out “Darwin’s Nightmare” for an incredible study of how capitalism “helps” those in the Third World. It doesn’t matter what resources the locals have, Western capitalists will steal it from them knowing they can count on Useful Idiots to defend their “capitalism”. It is robbery of epic proportions, by the filthy rich of the poorest of the poor.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10005064-darwins_nightmare/
And no, I’m not a left-leaning nutcase. Nor am I anti-capitalist. Capitalism for all its shortcomings is still the best system we have. But we Westerners allow tremendous injustices to be done in the name of capitalism, while never caring about the consequences until we ourselves suffer them.
DCanuck
Quite the View,
From Atop My Pedestal
Posted by D. Canuck at January 23, 2007 05:00 PM
Ghawley:
It’s really quite amusing. The most recent case I read about was;
Robins Island Preservation Fund v. Southold Development Corporation (959 F.2d 409, 1992).
In 1990, two parties laid claim to a piece of land in New York; one party claimed on siezure and subsequent grant of loyalist land by the State of New York, while the other claims based on a line of descent beginning with the original loyalist owner.
Hence, the dispute turns on whether the siezure of Loyalist land by the revolutionary government of New York in 1779, was proper, given that State of New York was partially occupied by elements of the British Army (Sir Henry Clinton). Granted, the rather impotent seizure occurred before the peace treaty of 1783, but it’s still pretty funny to see the issue pop up over two centuries later. Might’ve been easier if they had just forgiven the loyalists and let them keep their land, since it was likely impossible for anyone at that time to make an educated decision about their prospects for victory.
Posted by chatman at January 23, 2007 05:20 PM
I see rather little interest in the subject, which is a pitty. There is a struggle going on to cut the tentacles of the political-criminal complex using gas and oil money to regain control of the former Soviet satelite countries, and reach further to the West (guess what the former Germany Chancelor is doing). Not so long ago Lituanians had to dispose of their president corrupted by the complex. The Polish “duo excentrico” of the twins in the government is being ridiculed (they are funny, no doubt about that), but they are doing their part in the evolution of the civic system. They will be swept away and the nice guys will come, hopefully after Macierowicz (the new security boss) does his job.
The cleanup could not be done earlier because the society and the state were not stable enough and did not have the EU shield. Ther is now no danger of mob punishment and violent defense, nobody will have his head torn off.
Posted by George at January 23, 2007 10:51 PM
TheKing - I was poking fun at you for pointing out that the egg was in fact female. You were being redundant, and I apologize for both pointing it out, and for pointing it out again.
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at January 24, 2007 09:00 AM
LOL.
Posted by Bino at January 24, 2007 12:02 PM
Damn Tovy for trying to make me look stupid. As for you Bino, shut your ugly trap. Seriously, stop wasting bandwidth with LOL. Please add a more constructive comment.
Posted by theking01 at January 24, 2007 12:29 PM
Yeah, Bino, you could be telling people to shut their ugly traps, constructively (?) -
TheKing - who’s trying?
PS: Is the economy of Russia considered a first world economy? They’re sort of a mafia-controlled state - how well does their economy do now compared to the USSR days? Is their main source of revenue still selling off Cold War weapons?
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at January 24, 2007 01:43 PM
Hey theking01, why the vitriol?
I thought tovy made a funny, and I was raised in a house that felt funnies deserve recognition. Hence my lol. It’s a tip of the hat, if you will.
And now for a wag of the finger:
My trap is far from ugly. It’s really rather fetching. And I’ll keep it ajar as I please.
Relative to your concerns about bandwidth, I’m quite certain the Internets will manage.
Thank you for your constructive post, theking01. You sure know how to set a retarded example!
Posted by Bino at January 24, 2007 02:11 PM
Since Bino has derailed the topic, I will add some au courant news:
Former President Jimmy Carter writes: “I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended.” For more go to:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011907J.shtml
Hamas is a Boy Scout troop compared to the systemic terror and cruelty imposed daily on the Palestinians by Israel. And yet the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Mackay, met with Israeli leaders but not Hamas leaders in his recent fact-finding trip in the region. Pathetic that the Zionists are allowed to shape the West’s foreign policy. The Hamas leader said Canada risks being seen as an enemy of the Palestinians – no surprise given Canada’s pro-Israel stance. Way to be Harper and the Conservatives — you and George and the Republicans are two inedible peas in a pod.
Posted by shazam at January 24, 2007 05:00 PM
Since Bino has derailed the topic, allow me to add something au courant:
Former President Jimmy Carter writes: “I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended.” For more go to:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011907J.shtml
Hamas is a Boy Scout troop compared to the systemic terror imposed on the Palestinians by Israel. And yet the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Mackay, met with Israeli leaders but not Hamas leaders in his recent fact-finding trip in the region. Pathetic that the Zionists are allowed to shape our foreign policy. The Hamas leader said Canada risks being seen as an enemy of the Palestinians – no surprise with our pro-Israel stance. Way to be Harper and the Conservatives — you and George are two inedible peas in a pod.
Posted by shazam at January 24, 2007 05:03 PM
Sorry about the double post- I got a message from the new web moderator (there to screen out abusive postings) saying I was cleared to post after I posted so I did it again.
Posted by shazam at January 24, 2007 05:07 PM
Hey Shazam, did you notice mass resignations from the Carter Centre in the last couple weeks?
I also liked how he refused to debate Dershowitz at Brandeis University.
PS - Love the scapegoating. Yeah, I derailed the topic with a single post that contained 3 letters, for which I was attacked.
Posted by Bino at January 24, 2007 05:33 PM
Be a little honest at times Bino and also inform us all how that sleeze bag zionist Dershowitz refuses to debate Normon Finkelstein, read article at the link for the story;
http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12292006.html
Even I would not give a critter like Dershowitz the time of day and you expect an Ex-Prez to debate this fool.
Read how Jonathan Cook lays it out;
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook01192007.html
You zionists never wish to be honest and face reality
Posted by oldfan at January 24, 2007 06:23 PM
LOL.
Oldman, first off, I hope I don’t get scolded for responding to you.
Now, for every “counterpunch” link you give me, I could send a counterpoint link right back. Big whoop.
Example: This one is as much tripe as the ones you just linked, except it’s actually about the topic Shazam introduced…Jimmy Carter:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26045
Frontpage sucks, eh? Yeah. So does Counterpunch.
But more importantly, why are you turning this in to a debate about Alan Dershowitz when we were talking about Carter? Simply because I brought him up in the context of Carter? Wow.
The fact is a number of people resigned from the Carter Center in mass protest within the last few weeks.
The other fact (I only my post made 2 points relative to Jimmah, both were factual, and yet your call me dishonest and change the subject. Nice) is that he refused to debate Alan Dershowitz.
Here:
“I don’t want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz,” Carter said in Friday’s [December 15, 2006] Boston Globe. “There is no need … to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.”
The school’s debate request, Carter said, is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation’s most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory… . “There is no debate in America about anything that would be critical of Israel,” he said.
“President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate; then why won’t he debate?” said Dershowitz… .49
Professor Dershowitz has replied to former President Carter’s criticism further:
As Carter knows, I’ve been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times—certainly more times than Carter has been there—and I’ve written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won’t debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It’s not that I know too little; it’s that I know too much.50
He reiterates:
Carter’s refusal to debate wouldn’t be so strange if it weren’t for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate over the issue of the Israel-Palestine peace process. If that were really true, Carter would be thrilled to have the opportunity to debate… . When Jimmy Carter’s ready to speak at Brandeis, or anywhere else, I’ll be there. If he refuses to debate, I will still be there—ready and willing to answer falsity with truth in the court of public opinion.”50
Subsequently, Brandeis University and President Carter came to an agreement about his visit, which they say has no pre-conditions. The event is open only to “the Brandeis community” and the university has refused to allow Dershowitz to attend the speech, although he is being given an opportunity to present a “rebuttal” after the speech is over.
And finally, Oldfan, as far as dismissing him as “scum” and a “fool”, he was the youngest ever professor of law at Harvard and has led a very, very successful life as a lawyer, professor, author and commentator. You might not like his stances, but I’d sure love to see how your resume compares. LMAO.
Posted by Bino at January 24, 2007 07:28 PM
Yes, Alan Dershowitz is very successful. And I’ve no doubt he would have been no less successful had he lived in the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany. Why? Because his only “principle” is pursuit of personal success. He believes in nothing else. He’s a professional liar (and plagiarizer), a careerist, an ideologue, a shameless self-promoter. He’s certainly no scholar. His books, all his writing and commentary in fact, are mere propaganda (ultimately for the sake of self-promotion). He’s nothing more than a courtier, a real low-life.
How does he compare with Jimmy Carter? What good has Dershowitz done for the world, for the United States, or even for Israel, to compare with Jimmy Carter? It’s almost shameful to even mention them together in the same sentence. I applaud the former president and peace-maker for not descending into Dershowitz’s swamp.
I’ve been reading Norman Finkelstein’s book “Beyond Chutzpah”. You should read it, Bino, if you’re at all interested in understanding the difference between scholarship and propaganda, or between decency and indecency.
Posted by hyperbolus at January 24, 2007 09:48 PM
Hyperbolus, I totally agree. Carter need not debate just anyone on these issues, particularly a man so rabidly devoted to unilaterally promoting the Israeli’s expansionist and inhuman agenda.
Dershowitz is a smart man and a relentless careerist, but as an intellectual, he is inconsistent, and his works are both contradictory and often propagandistic. For a guy who practices criminal law, and has published extensively about principles of negative retribution, civil and human rights, and even animal rights as creating a moral foundation for fair treatment of people, I have a hard time stomaching his justification of public and regulated torture. The notion that torture is justified in ‘extraordinary’ circumstances is intellectually bankrupt, and as an attorney and professed legal scholar, he should be ashamed of himself for promoting it. But when I read his article proposing that Israel plow down entire Palestinian villages in reprisal for attacks, I was mortified that he has been able to retain his Harvard professorship.
As one of my colleagues at school once said, her alma mater (She at Harvard’s undergrad program) could do the world a great service by rescinding Ralph Nader’s law degree; I would add that Harvard should serious consider and rescinding Alan Dershowitz’s tenure at HLS.
Posted by chatman at January 24, 2007 11:17 PM
If his is such a fraud, it would certainly be quite easy, telling, and devastating for the wise and learned Carter to dismiss him in a public forum. As a matter of fact, I can think of nothing that would make lots of you folks happier! Imagine, AD eating crow in a public forum!
Again, Carter claims to have written a book (which led to the resignation of a large number of Carter Centre ppl) in order to foster debate and dialogue relative to the Palestine/Israel conundrum. To foster dialogue and debate.
But he won’t debate a man who, by your accounts, is a total joke. Check.
Oh, the high road? Now we’re gonna take the high road where an ex-president (a position this board so consistently respects) needn’t bother lowering himself to debate a Harvard professor?
Look, Jack Layton is a complete joke and total buffoon, but Canucks everywhere were aghast Harper wouldn’t engage in more dialogue and debate with him WRT Afghanistan. I kinda felt the same, but I guess I’ll give Harper a pass, since he needn’t lower himself to debating “fools”.
To be honest, I don’t even care. Shazam is the one who led us off topic. I’d rather sit in silence and appreciate this weeks entry from Eric - the first in a long time that I took no issue with.
Cheers!
Posted by Bino at January 25, 2007 09:15 AM
Bino, I am shocked and dismayed that you would present Dershowitz as a worthy debater with President Carter. The fact that you would even know, let alone follow and promote that lying disinformation propagandist drama queen says more about you - your values and ideology - than anything else.
Hyperbolus, you are well meaning and offer wisdom, but to paraphrase Jesus, offering truth to Bino is like tossing pearls before swine. His promoting Dershowitz makes it completely clear that he is a defender of the Zionist cause. How sad and cruel. Theking02 posting earlier on is right on. Bino is not here to learn but rather to defend and impart HIS Zionist faith, which as we all know comes from a place of a closed heart. He does waste bandwidth, even if the breadth was infinite.
Posted by shazam at January 25, 2007 10:00 AM
I’m sorry folks, but Bino isn’t a punching bag. People are allowed to have differences of opinion.
Bino, they’re not reading your words anymore, they’re merely scanning them for fuel for insults and what not.
In that sense, you are a lot like Eric Margolis, who also gets that same kind of treatment.
Lately, Bino hasn’t been promoting what a lot of people have been rabidly calling a zionist agenda.
I’ve spoken to him privately outside of this message board, and he’s just a regular person the rest of us who just enjoys discussing intelligent topics with intelligent people.
In fact, my favourite thing is when some of the self-declared Anti-Bush-Leftist people on this board shout down from atop their high horses things like, “to paraphrase Jesus, offering truth to Bino is like tossing pearls before swine”
I doubt Jesus would have been so mean spirited, Shazam.
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at January 25, 2007 10:22 AM
Tovy,
It is quite sweet to see you are standing up for the underdog. But yea defender of Lost Causes, realize that Bino actively attracts such responses for a reason, and it is not because he has a different opinion. We have seen reasoned discourse amongst the willing to grow in this board. Rather it is because Bino has an agenda.
Can you really defend his argument that the likes of a spiritually-evolved and principled man like Jimmy Carter should expose himself to be used as a prop by a self-seeking self-promoter lying bully like Dershowitz? I thought not.
Most people are here to learn. THAT willingness is an indicator of intelligence. So far Bino has not shown any inclination to rise above his ideology.
So it IS a matter of pearls before swine. I did not quote a higher power to bolster my position. It is a great analogy befitting of the situation. Let’s not forget, Tovy, that Jesus, who was born enlightened and lived a life of Love with a completely open heart chakra despite the real threats imposed by a conniving self-interested then-religious establishment, He who was a saint and prophet, was also capable of appropriate anger as when he threw the money lenders out of the temple. This did not make them his punching bag.
I will now endeavour, once again, to follow my own admonition, and that of others as regards Bino, to ignore him.
Posted by shazam at January 25, 2007 10:37 AM
“Bino is not here to learn but rather to defend and impart HIS Zionist faith, which as we all know comes from a place of a closed heart. He does waste bandwidth, even if the breadth was infinite.”
Ugh. Shazam, why do you do this? It is beyond childish… to paraphrase, ‘I am too good, smart, and open minded to argue with Bino, who is a closed minded Zionist stoogie who puts the wrong people on a pedestal’ Very disappointing, and you do it all the time, just because you totally disagree with what he says and the positions he espouses; sometimes I wonder if you even read what he writes before responding with your knee-jerk “I hate you Bino” invective.
If you feel tempted to say such things, perhaps you should hold your tongue (and your typing fingers) for the benefit of those of us who don’t so deeply object to lively debate against people with hardened policy positions. The fact that you persist on this line is truly disappointing to those of us who enjoy a spirited debate, particularly with those we don’t agree with.
Posted by chatman at January 25, 2007 10:42 AM
I didn’t see your response Shazam, but again, your comments demonstrate closed mindedness in its own right; it really doesn’t matter if he has an agenda or not; if he makes a debatable point, you either debate it or ignore it. Your internet based psychoanalysis of Bino, or your convictions about Bino’s ‘agenda’ should not justify your insulting conduct. And if you want people to ignore him, you had best, as you already mentioned, follow your own advice.
I enjoy what you write, I really do. But this kind of posting sullies discourse at large. As often as you say that it’s Bino that is ruining the blog with his agenda, you should read what you write in response to see who is taking the dialogue where.
Posted by chatman at January 25, 2007 10:49 AM
Chatty, You too have added to my resolution to ignore him. I would add that it is not possible to “debate” with a true believer. My anger at Bino is about what his ideology implies for real people in a real situation, namely the Palestinians, so I ask you to bear with my impatience for it comes from a good place, namely overdue supporting peace with justice.
Cheers.
Posted by shazam at January 25, 2007 11:05 AM
Why is Dershowitz not ready to debate Norman Finkelstein, a jew himself who has lost family in the holocaust(Dershowitz has derided Finkelstein as an anti-semite for his views on israeli policy).
Finkelstein has issued him an open challenge any time any where, but so far Dershowtiz has been a no show, I wonder why eagerness to debate Carter and run away from Finkelstein?????
Some of the details are outlined in the article by Finkelstein, I posted yesterday.
Posted by oldfan at January 25, 2007 11:05 AM
Oldfan:
Look at how Dershowitz characterizes his intellectual opposition; his comments about Finkelstein below…
“You’ve probably never heard of the author, unless you travel in neo-Nazi, radical Islamic or hard left circles. His name is Norman Finkelstein. Yes he is a Jew. His parents were even Holocaust survivors, though he suspects his mother of having been a kapo (“really, how else would she have survived?” he asks rhetorically). […]”
[He is not] a scholar with any credentials. “
The guy lays out “facts” just as an attorney writing a complainant brief might; use the facts to lead your reader to the “only logical conclusion.” Clearly, he plays fast and loose with the facts without actually altering them, but then, most practicing lawyers do.
Little surprise to me that Dershowitz is unwilling to debate Finkelstein. While Carter certainly should debate or ignore people at his discretion, I have little doubt that, while Carter could summon considerable substantive merit to his position, Dershowitz could hit him pretty hard with cosmetic tricks like this.
Posted by chatman at January 25, 2007 11:23 AM
My only thoughts on yet another attack by Shazam:
Re: “We have seen reasoned discourse amongst the willing to grow in this board.”
Translation: Whomever is not bleating along with the gang shall be smeared a “Zionist” enemy with a “closed heart” not worthy of debate. Yippie!
Re: “Can you really defend his argument that the likes of a spiritually-evolved and principled man like Jimmy Carter should expose himself to be used as a prop by a self-seeking self-promoter lying bully like Dershowitz? I thought not.”
Translation: The guy who believes what I believe is above reproach, natch, but the guy who believe the opposite of what I do is a “a self-seeking self-promoter lying bully”.
Go it. Check.
You know, I don’t think Eric is a big fan of Hitchens, but he found it a worthwhile endeavor to debate him publicly not long ago, and even managed to refrain from pathetic smears and ad hominem attacks. You could learn something on this front.
Posted by Bino at January 25, 2007 11:47 AM
Here is a Chomsky piece on Dershowitz:
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20060817.htm
Posted by Weary at January 25, 2007 12:14 PM
Here is a Dershowitz piece on Finkelstein:
http://www.alandershowitz.com/news.php
Isn’t this fun?
Posted by Bino at January 25, 2007 12:40 PM
So everyone knows, Bino asked me to flame him to protect my own reputation on this list. Thank you, Bino, for behaving like a compassionate bodhisattva in this matter, but no, I have no need to detract from statements and perspectives that I accept as reasonable, rational and thought-out.
Just a little something interesting to point out some of the psychological conflicts in Shazam’s arguments: I don’t include the “Dershowitz would have thrived in Nazi Germany,” because that’s just WAY too easy to slam. But to give you an impression of how strong the emotional control mechanism is in all us humans (yes, I believe in the Matrix, so sue me) - Shazam, vehicle of perfection, contradicts himself:
Everyone imagine if this was an acceptable condition to strike someone without any actual influence in the world situation: “My anger at Bino is about what his ideology implies…”
So, Shazam here is admitting his lack of control over his emotions. In fact, he goes so far as to admit that he is blinded by anger, and closed to the concept of open-mindedness towards what he perceives as Bino’s ideology.
Shall I continue? Yes.
“Let’s not forget, Tovy, that Jesus, who was born enlightened and lived a life of Love with a completely open heart chakra despite the real threats imposed by a conniving self-interested then-religious establishment, He who was a saint and prophet, was also capable of appropriate anger as when he threw the money lenders out of the temple. This did not make them his punching bag.”
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if an individual wants to deify a human being. The problem I have here is, Bino doesn’t exactly have the power of the Pharisees, who felt threatened by Jesus’ teachings that ALL ARE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF “god” - and yet, there is a tendency here to assume that, if the “evil” Pharisees opposed Jesus’ desire to make sacred ground actually sacred, that anyone opposing such values, which ultimately became Christian values, must be in cahoots with the modern Neo-Con Pharisees.
ino has told me on numerous occasions that it’s not so much that he’s a zionist, as he accepts the right for Israel to exist.
Imagine how the Americans would feel if Monarchists still insisted that America had no right to exist, as it was a British colony before? Would they not look like giant bum-holes?
Anyway, please, Shazam, allow your eyes and ears to see and hear what is ACTUALLY going on, before you get lumped in with the Ramparts of this list.
Wow, Eric, you sure can stir up a pot! Keep-a-goin’!
Tovy, rockin’ on the rock in the stream.
Posted by Tovy at January 25, 2007 01:18 PM
Bino,
I see you enjoy tit-for-tat. In an attempt to foster intellectually open and informed discussion, would you kindly reply to the following:
(A) Have your read the item posted by Weary?
(B) Have you read the one by Finkelstein posted by Oldfan?
© If you read them, do you still maintain that a man with the dignity and reputation of Carter expose himself to a polemicist like A.D.? Would you if you were Mr. Carter? If so why? If so why? If not, why not?
Posted by shazam at January 25, 2007 01:23 PM
Tovy, Your blind allegiance to Bino has made you intellectally dishonest. So much so that I surmise your note to be a collaboration between you and Bino.
For starters, I did not say I was blinded by my anger. You did. Nor was my anger blind. In fact my anger at the implications of Bino’s support for Israeli policies and spokespersons is appropriate, but I already explained that. So Tovy, allow YOUR own eyes and ears to perceive what is going on before you jump in a pubic defender.
As for Bino’s concern about the survival of the Jewish state motivating his positionso this board, well, South Africa once had an apartheid policy too, which was appropriately condemned by the world community and which subsequently changed. Did South Afirca disappear? No. Just the racist ideology and all the cruelty practised in its ugly name. Yes, it would be awesome if the Zionists saw all men as created equal, as then they would have to disband their discriminations.
Like others here, I am waiting for Bino’s response to my previous post.
Posted by shazam at January 25, 2007 02:06 PM
Shazam,
(A) Have your read the item posted by Weary?
Yes. This morning.
(B) Have you read the one by Finkelstein posted by Oldfan?
Yes. Last night.
It might shock you to know that right behind me as I type this, Chomsky’s “Hemegony or Survival” is sandwiched between Hitchens “Love, Poverty and War” and Martin Booth’s “Cannabis” – both of which are great books, BTW.
c) If you read them, do you still maintain that a man with the dignity and reputation of Carter expose himself to a polemicist like A.D.? Would you if you were Mr. Carter? If so why? If so why? If not, why not?
Yes, I firmly believe that if Carter believes in himself, his convictions, beliefs and opinions, which I imagine he does, he should not back down, which is exactly what he did. I understand you hold him in amazingly high regard. Fine. I don’t hold AD in one-tenth of the regard you seem to have for Jimmah. Cool. I’m not saying he should be debating mental patients on street corners. The fact of the matter is, as much as you and others detest AD, he is a very bright, well-known academic who is calling Carter out.
Believe in yourself? Wrote a book on a controversial subject to “spark debate”? Awesome! Now back it up.
Would I? Yeah. I would. Now you know why.
PS - I wrote this in Word a minute ago, came here to post it and saw your latest post. Perfect. Collaberator. With him or against him - kinda like W!
Posted by Bino at January 25, 2007 02:19 PM
That was a well explained response Bino. Thank you.
I disagree, however, that A.D. is well known AS an academic. He has been shown up as, to be polite, disengenuous if not dishonest. And nor do I concur with your that A.D. called Carter out. Your very terminology here implies Carter wrote lies and got caught by A.D. I know you can’t believe that (at least I hope you don’t). In keeping with his character, he has challenged Carter for his own aggrandizement - gee, he got to put down a President in defense of Israel! My hero! However, Carter did not back down from his challenge so much as decline to allow himself to be set up. I imagine President Carter would be willing to speak to Brandeis without strings attached. FYI, I have seen the Zionists in action against renowned speakers in other university settings. Sure made me glad I don’t live under their heel.
Posted by shazam at January 25, 2007 03:03 PM
I love when people forget what they wrote.
Posted by Tovy at January 25, 2007 03:09 PM
Shazam:
Do you agree with this statement or not:
The security of Israel must be guaranteed. The Arabs must acknowledge openly and specifically that Israel is a reality and has a right to exist in peace, behind secure and recognized borders, and with a firm Arab pledge to terminate any further acts of violence against the legally constituted nation of Israel.
Posted by Bino at January 25, 2007 04:05 PM
bino,
Why do such statements never discuss/address both sides of the issue? You can’t have one without the other. Besides, the statement emplies that all Arabs speak with one voice, are unified and would be collectively bound by the statement.
Will every last Jew agree to treat all Arabs as equals? Some moderates might, but the hardliners - never. Ditto for the other side of the fence. (and in this case… “fence” is not a metaphor!)
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at January 25, 2007 04:17 PM
D - It is one of Carter’s “two key requirements” in his new book.
I’m wondering if Shazam agrees with the statement.
And IMO, it really is written in a way that can provide a simple yes/no answer. It’s a pretty fundamental question.
Here is the other “key”:
The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israel’s permanent legal boundary. [I agree] The unwavering official policy of the United States since Israel became a state has been that its borders must coincide with those prevailing [sic] from 1949 until 1967 (unless modified by mutually agreeable land swaps), specified in the unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 242, which mandates Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories. [I agree] This obligation was reconfirmed by Israel’s leaders in agreements negotiated in 1978 at Camp David and in 1993 at Oslo, for which they received the Nobel Peace Prize, and both of these commitments were officially ratified by the Israeli government. [I agree] Also, as a member of the International Quartet that includes Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union, America supports the Roadmap for Peace, which espouses exactly the same requirements. [I agree] Palestinian leaders unequivocally accepted this proposal, but Israel has officially rejected its key provisions with unacceptable caveats and prerequisites. [Not so sure I agree - Hamas doesn’t recognize any prior agreements, let alone Israel’s right to exist]
Posted by Bino at January 25, 2007 04:36 PM
The statement you quoted reminds me of the Quebec separatist party referendum question - it defies a simple answer. The basic nature of the statement casts Israel as the victim, an innocent wanting to get along if only its neighbours would let it. This is a bald illusion as Jonathan Cook has so well articulated. See The Recognition Trap at
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0291.htm#Top
And, Chatman has touched on the essentially racial nature of the statement by its reference to Arabs as opposed to neighbouring states and peoples, each of which would sign on, and likely would, if they got something in return (like a return of their land seized by the US-backed Israeli military and subsequently settled by Zionist fundamentalists).
I am not a Palestinian so I cannot perforce to speak for them. I feel I can with some confidence assert the following conditions are needed before the lop-sided statement you ask me about (and that seems to be a precondition to the cessation of Israeli hostilities) can be signed onto by them.
First, Israel would abide by 242, a resolution you indicate you support. Second, Jerusalem would be a shared or an international city, not just a Jewish one wholly under Israeli control. Third, the Palestinians would have meaningful compensation for the loss of their property subsumed by Israel. Fourth, the State of Israel should admit to and apologize for the terror of Irgun, Stern, and so on. Fifth, Israel must agree to enable the unimpeded flow of goods and services into and out of Palestine. Sixth, Israel must cease its secret service activities intended to thwart the success of the State of Palestine or to try to control their destiny. Seventh, non-Jews resident in Israel would continue to live there and be treated as other Israelis and not lose the right of return when they go abroad.
You see, it takes two to make peace, and Israel, not Palestinians, are in the drivers seat and best able to show generosity and set the tone of cooperation. But since that implies recognizing the humanity of “Arabs” and returning property, especially land, I doubt the Zionist fundamentalists will allow it; no leader will have the courage — looked what happened to Rabin.
Posted by shazam at January 25, 2007 05:18 PM
Thanks, B.
Oiy!
Interesting how EM’s article on “Red Ghosts Haunt Eastern Europe” turns into an Arab/Isreali discussion. Let me see if I can get us back on track.
Which do you agree with…
1) Better Dead Than Red
2) Better Red Than Dead
There… back on topic!
DCanuck
“I’m The Re-Decider!”
Posted by D. Canuck at January 25, 2007 07:19 PM
In reply to that well-considered question,
I guess it depends on… How Red is Red?
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at January 25, 2007 07:21 PM
Omigod… I’m pulling a Rampart and conversing with myself.
DCanuck
BHurtin’
Posted by D. Canuck at January 25, 2007 07:23 PM
Shazam started it.
Posted by Bino at January 25, 2007 07:30 PM
Did so!
Posted by shazam at January 25, 2007 08:01 PM
I see that Bino really is unaware of the difference between decency and indecency. Dershowitz (like Hitchens, like Bino?) is totally uninterested in open and honest debate/dialogue. He only wants to smear Carter and any other prominent opponent or even critic of Israeli violence. That he can’t understand why Carter refuses such “debate” shows that Bino is unable to comprehend what it means to be a decent, honorable human being.
Tovy, you bring up one, and only one, good point. Dershowitz (not Bino) is indeed a Pharisee (is Bino a wannabe Pharisee?). Carter debating Dershowitz would be something very much like Jesus debating the Pharisees. Or Jesus debating the Prince of Lies, in which case Carter’s refusal rightly follows precedent.
(By the way, Tovy, it was I, not shazam, who said that Dershowitz would have done well in Nazi Germany, and I stand by my claim.)
Posted by hyperbolus at January 25, 2007 09:59 PM
In his rush to be pubic defendant, Tovy got his facts and story line confused. If you tell a big enough lie boldly, people will tend to believe you because they (we) are basically decent and unconsciously ascribe decency to others. Including those who are not at all decent. We want to believe the best and hence refuse to believe anyone could be so audacious as to loudly expound innuendoes and disinformation with a straight face. Hitler certainly was good at it.
Bino, I was surprised that you said if you were Carter you would have entered the ring with Dr. D. Most naive. Dr. D is a hit man, uninterested in a real debate, the truth; rather he is interested in scoring points, falsely and gratuitously, whatever way it takes to discredit a critic of Zionist fundamentalism in the spirit of friendship to Israel and compassion for the Palestinians. But you know all this. Which tars you as Dr. D. Jr.
Posted by shazam at January 25, 2007 10:18 PM
LOL. Have a great weekend!
Sincerely,
Dr. D. Jr.
Posted by Bino at January 26, 2007 09:20 AM