Monday, November 5, 2012
Meine DDR
A brilliant, revealing history of the "DDR," the "German Democratic Republic." All in German, takes about an hour and a half to watch. Go for it (if you know German)
Sunday, September 23, 2012
On the Delusion of Worldly Honor
Dr. Bernard L. Madoff
(honoris causa, Yeshiva University, 2011)
Honorary doctorates, award dinners, lists of "best colleges" and "best rabbis," even Nobel and Pulitzer prizes: to what extent does all that glitter indicate real gold ?
Here are my answers:
But see also
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Partners in Hate. Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers
Here is a link to my essay:
Partners in Hate. Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers
And here are links to related writings:
Partners in Hate. Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers
And here are links to related writings:
Why am I providing these links ?
The Google search engine, for reasons that are not clear, yields only Chinese characters as a link to my Chomsky pamphlet.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Ms. Alice Walker and the Jews
It appears that Ms. Alice Walker, holder of a Pulitzer and many other honors, has a problem with, well, what shall we call it ? Zionists, the Hebrew language, Jews as a group ? Let's just say it's complicated.
But here are some things that we do know.
1) It is "humanitarian views that permeate her work." How do we know this ? Why, she herself has told us so. Yes indeed, her views are absolutely humanitarian, we can definitely take her word for that one. What a friend we have in Alice !
2) Ms. Walker is in the news lately because she has refused to allow a Hebrew translation of her book The Color Purple. She has given her reasons to the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel: in brief, she does not want the people of Israel to read her work. Someday perhaps, but "now is not the time." Put otherwise, she does not want to be on speaking terms with the Jews. Not now, but perhaps some day. Well, OK, fine, we can wait.
3) But, as it happens, Ms. Walker once had a Jewish husband, with whom she had a daughter, Rebecca, who is now forty-three. Now Ms. Walker has not been on speaking terms with Rebecca for at least a decade. Look, you can't be on speaking terms with just anybody, can you. Here is Rebecca's account of her relations with her mother.
4) Ms. Walker's negative views of Israel, she says, are based on what she heard as a juror (which she calls a "jurist') on the Russell Tribunal on Palestine:
As you may know, last Fall in South Africa the Russell Tribunal on Palestine met and determined that Israel is guilty of apartheid and persecution of the Palestinian people, both inside Israel and also in the Occupied Territories. The testimony we heard, both from Israelis and Palestinians (I was a jurist) was devastating. I grew up under American apartheid and this was far worse.Of course Ms. Walker has been an anti-Israel activist for many years before she was appointed to this so-called RToP. In fact, according to the NGO Monitor, all the jurors and all the judges on this "tribunal" were long identified as anti-Israel activists. What sort of justice can you expect from a court all of whose members have declared against you long before the trial ? This RTofP, like the other Russell tribunals, is notorious as a kangaroo court pure and simple.
I do know that Ms. Walker does not want me to read what she writes, that if she knew of me, she would no doubt consider herself as not on speaking terms with me. Nevertheless, I now make this attempt, through this blog, to send her a little something that she might wish to consider. Since she is a "jurist," she will no doubt be interested the US Supreme Court's position on tribunals. The following is an excerpt from an opinion by Mr. Justice Black (who was not Jewish, so, dear Ms. Walker, no danger of contamination here) speaking for the Court, In Re. Murchison, et al. 349 US 133 (1955):
A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationships must be considered. This Court has said, however, that "every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 532. Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 14.
UPDATE, June 2013:
Ms. Walker has just published a book of essays, The Cushion in the Road, many of which are devoted to her hatred of Israel, of the Jewish people, and of her Jewish ex-husband. From a review of the book by the Anti-Defamation League:
On several occasions Walker seems to indicate that the purported evils of modern-day Israel are a direct result of Jewish values, alleging that Jews behave the way they do because they believe in their “supremacy.” She suggests that Israeli settlements are motivated by the concept that “possession is nine-tenths of the law,” which she claims is a lesson she “learned from my Jewish lawyer former husband. This belief might even be enshrined in the Torah.”
To read the whole review, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
The Colossal Insensitivity of the New York Times
Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers University student who revealed to the world that his roommate was gay, has now been sentenced to thirty days of jail and was also subjected to world-wide publicity for his bad behavior. "I do not believe that he hated Tyler Clementi," said the sentencing judge, "but I do believe he acted out of colossal insensitivity."
Colossal insensitivity deserves punishment, everyone seems to agree. But what happens when the New York Times -- is there a more prestigious paper in the whole world ? -- what happens when this paragon of journalistic virtue engages in a spot of colossal insensitivity of its own ?
On page A15 of last Saturday's paper, the Times published a story (nonsensically labelled a "crime scene" column) entitled "With Dementia, Stepping Outside for Fresh Air Can Mean Going Astray." It is an account of three elderly men who, the story says, experienced episodes of getting lost in the subway or street due to their alleged "dementia." Two of these men are identified both by name and photograph. But in the case of the third, the paper quotes the wife anonymously: "She asked that their [sic] names [sic] be withheld -- 'There's a stigma with these situations,' she said."
The first person is described as an 82-year-old sociology professor with a Jewish name, the second an 80-year old person with an Hispanic name but apparently without an occupational background worth mentioning. The third of these alleged wayward demented, the one whose name is not mentioned because of the stigma problem, is also said to be or to have been a professor.
And, oh yes, the 82-year-old sociologist is said to be the husband of a woman sixteen years his junior. It is on the authority of this woman, as we shall see, that the NYT felt justified in outing the sociologist as "demented."
Well, I must say that I identified with these old men, especially the sociologist. At first I thought that I recognized his name, but this turned out to be in error. (Was I demented here ?). In any case, I felt moved to somehow get involved. After consulting with a journalist friend on the matter of journalistic ethics, I wrote to the Times. Here is the ensuing correspondence:
1) My message to the "public editor" of the paper, whose job, I understand, is that of an independent ombudsman to handle complaints from the public:
There is a sizable sociological literature on the process of stigmatizing individuals. By absolutely sheer coincidence, one of the pioneers of this work was a sociologist who was a close namesake of the sociologist mentioned in this NYT column. (I had at first confused the two.) Journalists do write about sociologists, retired and otherwise, but they do not seem to read their work.
And also, just wondering: all that sensitivity that we are to show to racial, religious, and sexual minorities ... should any of this apply to the elderly ? To some extent, perhaps ?
Colossal insensitivity deserves punishment, everyone seems to agree. But what happens when the New York Times -- is there a more prestigious paper in the whole world ? -- what happens when this paragon of journalistic virtue engages in a spot of colossal insensitivity of its own ?
On page A15 of last Saturday's paper, the Times published a story (nonsensically labelled a "crime scene" column) entitled "With Dementia, Stepping Outside for Fresh Air Can Mean Going Astray." It is an account of three elderly men who, the story says, experienced episodes of getting lost in the subway or street due to their alleged "dementia." Two of these men are identified both by name and photograph. But in the case of the third, the paper quotes the wife anonymously: "She asked that their [sic] names [sic] be withheld -- 'There's a stigma with these situations,' she said."
The first person is described as an 82-year-old sociology professor with a Jewish name, the second an 80-year old person with an Hispanic name but apparently without an occupational background worth mentioning. The third of these alleged wayward demented, the one whose name is not mentioned because of the stigma problem, is also said to be or to have been a professor.
And, oh yes, the 82-year-old sociologist is said to be the husband of a woman sixteen years his junior. It is on the authority of this woman, as we shall see, that the NYT felt justified in outing the sociologist as "demented."
Well, I must say that I identified with these old men, especially the sociologist. At first I thought that I recognized his name, but this turned out to be in error. (Was I demented here ?). In any case, I felt moved to somehow get involved. After consulting with a journalist friend on the matter of journalistic ethics, I wrote to the Times. Here is the ensuing correspondence:
1) My message to the "public editor" of the paper, whose job, I understand, is that of an independent ombudsman to handle complaints from the public:
Sir:
The paper today carries a story on dementia:It starts with "... an 83-year-old retired sociology professor ...." As it happens, I am an 86-year-old retired sociology professor, and I must say that if I were lost in the subway I would not want to be labelled as suffering from dementia in the pages of the NYT.
Here are some questions that arise:
1) who made the diagnosis of dementia ?2) To which the PE replied as follows:
2) who gave informed consent for the diagnosis to appear in the paper ?
3) whose business is the diagnosis of an individual who in no way can be called a public figure ?
Professor Cohn, I suggest contacting Mr. Wilson directly...3) And here is the reply I received from Mr. Michael Wilson, author of the column:
I hope this helps.
Best,
Joseph Burgess
Joseph Burgess | Office of the Public Editor | NYT
Note: The public editor's opinions are his own and do not represent those
of The New York Times.
Professor Cohn,4) To which I replied, with perhaps somewhat less courtesy than I should have mustered:
Thanks for your note and your thoughtful questions. Mr. .... was diagnosed by his doctor, I believe; his wife allowed me to interview her and told me everything that you read about him, with her consent that it appear in the paper. True, he is not a public figure, but the story was about people who suffer from this condition in this city, and what the police do when someone disappears. To the extent that such an article might help someone in the future, Mr. ...'s wife must have believed her husband would not mind her sharing with me. I hope I've answered your concerns, and I thank you again.
Best,
Michael Wilson
I do not believe that the wife here has the moral right to consent to a violation of Professor X's privacy. Who gave her this right ? Did a judge declare her husband incompetent ? Did she act in his best interests when she agreed to have his identity revealed, as would be required if authority had been granted to her to speak on his behalf ? Have you considered the harm and embarrassment that your actions may cause Professor X ? How is the potential good of your story -- helping others in the future -- enhanced by divulging his name to the world at large ? If you had written "One victim of dementia -- whom I shall call professor X --" how would that have interfered with any legitimate public interest in the matter ?Looking over this correspondence now, I think that it is telling that Mr. Wilson has the courtesy of addressing me as "professor," presumably because I do not appear to be "demented." But there is no such courtesy in talking about "Mr." X, the allegedly demented retired professor.
As I will argue on a blog that I am planning ("I Beg to Disagree"), your article has all the characteristics of malicious gossip: 1. you cannot be sure of the accuracy of the diagnosis, because ethical physicians may not disclose details to you, and, at any rate, "dementia" is a matter of degree, at best. 2. It is harmful to an elderly person -- who may or may not have had some "senior moments" -- to be labelled as "demented" to his circle of friends and colleagues. For example, this professor may still be active in formal and informal scholarly networks, and to be labelled "demented" may result in both financial and emotional harm.
And, oh yes, I sincerely hope that you will live long enough to have senior moments of your own, and I also hope that, when that time comes, some young reporter on the NYT, even if encouraged to do so by your wife at the time, will not write a juicy little piece on how that old Wilson guy, a retired journalist no less, lost his way in the subway due his deplorable dementia.
There is a sizable sociological literature on the process of stigmatizing individuals. By absolutely sheer coincidence, one of the pioneers of this work was a sociologist who was a close namesake of the sociologist mentioned in this NYT column. (I had at first confused the two.) Journalists do write about sociologists, retired and otherwise, but they do not seem to read their work.
And also, just wondering: all that sensitivity that we are to show to racial, religious, and sexual minorities ... should any of this apply to the elderly ? To some extent, perhaps ?
Thursday, April 5, 2012
How to Achieve Fame and True Recognition
Do you feel that perhaps you have not accomplished as much in life as you might have ? Or do you perhaps feel a little under-appreciated ? Fear not, help is on the way.
Today's mail brings a proposition from a religious organization that offers to list me in its forthcoming journal as a man of high accomplishment, one deserving great honor and recognition. Just how much of these, however, depends on how much I am willing to pay. Here are the choices:
"Patron" $6,000
"Benefactor" $3,500
"Supporter" $4,500
"Angle" $2,000
"Champion" $1,500
"Guardian" $1,000
"Hero" $ 500
"Shepherd" $ 300
Can there be anyone who values the important things in life who would resist such an offer ? Hint: "Hero" seems the best buy, giving a lot for very little.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Concerning the pomposity of calling yourself "doctor" and other such foolishness
Just a few months before I arrived at the University of British Columbia, Queen Elizabeth visited there and signed the guest book. She was of course known as "Her Majesty" to one and all. But what title did she use in the guest book ? Perhaps "My Majesty," thus imitating the pomposity of certain "Doctors" of our day ? No. She signed the book simply "Elizabeth R." True, the "R" alludes to her royal status, but, overall, I think that her signature can serve as a model of modesty for us all.
Elizabeth R. at UBC, 1959
Similarly, some ten years before this royal visit, I had occasion to write to Albert Einstein to comment on a political statement he had made. A few days later I received a courteous reply that assured me that he and I agreed on the matter after all. And he signed his note "A. Einstein." He did not find it necessary to remind me of his doctorate, or of his Nobel prize.
Others are less modest. A certain Freiherr zu Guttenberg, German defense minister until he was forced to resign in disgrace last year, felt constrained to call himself "Doctor" despite the fact that his dissertation turned out to be fraudulent. And, similarly, there is the very sad case of Martin Luther King, Jr., who is still often referred to as "Dr. King," despite the fact that his dissertation, too, has been shown to be largely fraudulent.
Outright fraud aside, there is something unseemly in calling yourself "Doctor" in contexts that have nothing to do with the subject matter of your studies.
I have just written a longish piece that explores the folly of such pomposities. You will find it here, on my website.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
How smart is Noam Chomsky ? -- II
Chomsky says that Ron Paul is absolutely correct when he blames the US for 9/11.
How does Chomsky know this ? Because rich Muslims, when polled by the Wall Street Journal, have said so. For Noam Chomsky that is proof positive.
One problem remains: Has Chomsky lost it altogether ?
And as I asked some time ago -- his claque of admirers notwithstanding -- just how smart, really, is Noam Chomsky ?
See also my earlier take on Chomsky's genius.
READ ALSO
Paul Bogdanor, The Top 200 Chomsky Lies
How does Chomsky know this ? Because rich Muslims, when polled by the Wall Street Journal, have said so. For Noam Chomsky that is proof positive.
One problem remains: Has Chomsky lost it altogether ?
And as I asked some time ago -- his claque of admirers notwithstanding -- just how smart, really, is Noam Chomsky ?
See also my earlier take on Chomsky's genius.
READ ALSO
Paul Bogdanor, The Top 200 Chomsky Lies
Monday, January 16, 2012
Why There is No Peace Between Israel and the Arabs
Photo by Ahmed
The rejection of Israel by the Arab elites is so extreme that sometimes it appears comical. One case in point is the ritualistic denial by Arab scholars, for propagandistic purposes, of any ancient Jewish connection to Jerusalem. In brief, according to these professors and, in the case of Jerusalem's Al-Quds University, of official University policy, there were no Jews in Jerusalem before modern times, there was no King David, there was no Jewish Temple. I have documented these pseudo-scholarly distortions in a previous posting.
In the Muslim world, it appears that the word "normalization," when used in connection with Israel, is the equivalent of treason to the faith. Despite the fact that both Jordan and Egypt, alone in the Arab world, have peace agreements with Israel, civic groups like unions and professional organizations in these countries routinely refuse any formal or informal relations with their Israeli counterparts. Again, it is the PMW that has documented this phenomenon.
The Soviets' 1967 line, to which they held to the end of their existence in 1989, had a tremendous effect on the broad spectrum of liberal/left opinion. The Soviets' fiercest opponents on the Left, the Trotskyists, followed their Stalinist enemy/friends in the decisive turn against Israel after the '67 War. The Trotskyists saw themselves in competition with the Communists for the pool of left-leaning "militants." As a result of the Soviet position, it became more and more required for the "revolutionary socialists" and the "anti-imperialists" to include a fierce opposition to "Zionism" in their propaganda. The Trotskyists could not afford to be outbid in the left-wing marketplace. (Of course there were earlier reasons, primarily the inherent Marxist anti-Semitism, that made them vulnerable for this shift. I have discussed these matters here.)
As for the descendants of the old Stalinist movement, most strikingly The Nation magazine of the United States, it is the Soviets' turn against Israel in 1967 that still seems to weigh heavily in its hysterical campaign against Israel. (See my blog on this here). Obviously there are other reasons as well for the liberal/left "anti-Zionism" of our day. Just what these are awaits the careful study of a historian yet to appear.
Conclusion
There is little hope for peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors in the foreseeable future. The reasons for this pessimism lie mainly in the Muslim culture of hate and violence. The "anti-Zionism" of parts of liberal/left opinion in the West -- giving support to the Islamist anti-Israel project -- contributes to the difficulty of finding a solution.
As I write these lines, there are reports of peace talks in Amman between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, under the auspices of King Abdullah. Notwithstanding my very pessimistic view of such talks, which I will explain in this posting, I certainly hope that I will be proved wrong, that my pessimism is misplaced. Time will tell.
As for now, I hold to a view that took firm form after the Palestinians' definitive rejection of the Camp David - Taba peace efforts of 2000 and 2001. It then became obvious to me, as indeed it did to the Israeli public, that the Arab elites and the Arab "street" will not tolerate a Jewish state, no matter how small, anywhere in what the prevailing Arab view holds to be sacred Arab land, namely Israel.
In brief, I would accept what Professor Richard Landes has described as the Honor/Shame-Jihad paradigm:
As for now, I hold to a view that took firm form after the Palestinians' definitive rejection of the Camp David - Taba peace efforts of 2000 and 2001. It then became obvious to me, as indeed it did to the Israeli public, that the Arab elites and the Arab "street" will not tolerate a Jewish state, no matter how small, anywhere in what the prevailing Arab view holds to be sacred Arab land, namely Israel.
In brief, I would accept what Professor Richard Landes has described as the Honor/Shame-Jihad paradigm:
The [Honor/Shame-Jihad paradigm] understands the Arab-Israeli conflict through the prism of honor-shame culture and Islamic jihad. These elements of Arab culture are the main factors that have made it impossible to reach a solution to the conflict. Arab leaders view any compromise with Israel as “losing face,” since such an agreement would mean recognizing as a “worthy foe” an inferior group that should be subject. Such a blow to Arab honor cannot be tolerated for cultural and political reasons: losing face means to feel utter humiliation, to lose public credibility, and to lose power. In search of lost honor, Arab (and Palestinian) elites, never particularly concerned with the welfare of their masses...
The Arabs' total rejection of any kind of Jewish presence in the Middle East is often hidden by a pervasive policy of forked tongue: peaceful phrases in Western languages directed toward the West, violence of action and incitement to violence in Arabic-language pronouncements.
The atmosphere of Jew-Hatred
Source: Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), Oct. 9, 2009 |
Friday prayer and sermon, unidentified Hamas speaker: "Today we look at Al-Aqsa as it sighs beneath the yoke of the Jews, beneath the yoke of the sons of apes and pigs, brothers of apes and pigs. Destroy the Jews and their helpers."Click here to view |
In the territory of the Palestinian Authority, streets and other public places are regularly named in honor of suicide-terrorists who have died, thus honoring the deeds of Jew-killing as much as the terrorists who gave their all to banish the Jews from the Middle East. The Palestinian Media Watch (an absolutely indispensable resource) has documented this ongoing PA practice. Israeli spokespeople have rightfully pointed out, repeatedly, that the PA here incites to murder, that it thereby contradicts its own verbal professions of non-violence.
Holocaust-denial, currently the most practiced of the anti-Semitic propaganda tropes worldwide, is pervasive in the PA territory as it is in the media of the Arab world. The PA President, Mahmoud Abbas, has a PhD in Holocaust-denial, awarded by a Soviet university:
Holocaust-denial, currently the most practiced of the anti-Semitic propaganda tropes worldwide, is pervasive in the PA territory as it is in the media of the Arab world. The PA President, Mahmoud Abbas, has a PhD in Holocaust-denial, awarded by a Soviet university:
The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism (Arabic: al-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya. Publisher: Dar Ibn Rushd, Amman, Jordan. 1984) is the title of a book by Mahmoud Abbas,[1] published in Arabic.[1] It is based on his CandSc thesis,[2] completed in 1982 at Patrice Lumumba University (now the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia) under the title The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement (Russian: Связи между сионизмом и нацизмом. 1933–1945), and defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.
In the book, Abbas argues that the Nazi Holocaust had been exaggerated and that Zionists created "the myth" of six million murdered Jews, which he called a "fantastic lie".[3][4][5] He further claimed that those Jews which were killed by the Nazis were actually the victims of a Zionist-Nazi plot aimed to fuel vengeance against Jews and to expand their mass extermination.[6] (Wikipedia)One of the most symbolic actions of the Arab elites is the annual observance of "Nakba Day" (Day of the Catastrophe) to mark the establishment of Israel in 1948. Contrary to verbal declarations that PA demands could be satisfied by a return to 1967 borders, the staging of the annual Nakba event consitutes a rejection of Israel even if it were confined to its most limited borders, i.e. those of 1948. These Nakba observances send a powerful message to the Arab "street": the existence of Israel itself is a crime, no matter how small Israel might be; and our cause today is what it was in 1948, when the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon invaded Israel, with material help from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Lybia.
The rejection of Israel by the Arab elites is so extreme that sometimes it appears comical. One case in point is the ritualistic denial by Arab scholars, for propagandistic purposes, of any ancient Jewish connection to Jerusalem. In brief, according to these professors and, in the case of Jerusalem's Al-Quds University, of official University policy, there were no Jews in Jerusalem before modern times, there was no King David, there was no Jewish Temple. I have documented these pseudo-scholarly distortions in a previous posting.
In the Muslim world, it appears that the word "normalization," when used in connection with Israel, is the equivalent of treason to the faith. Despite the fact that both Jordan and Egypt, alone in the Arab world, have peace agreements with Israel, civic groups like unions and professional organizations in these countries routinely refuse any formal or informal relations with their Israeli counterparts. Again, it is the PMW that has documented this phenomenon.
Violent Hatreds in the Muslim World
These Islamist manifestations of hatred against the Jews are very disturbing, but they must be seen against the larger, equally disturbing background of Islamist hatreds and violence that have nothing to do with Israel or the Jews, but which nevertheless have a bearing on the conflict between the Arabs and Israel. The point here is that if the Arabs (and the Muslim world) behaves so violently in its internal conflicts, what hope is there for more pacific behavior when it comes to the Jews ?
First and most conspicuously, there is the conflict in Syria. The Assads' regime, which from its very inception in 1970 declared itself as among the most implacable of foes of Israel, today kills thousands of its own people. This development, unlike some of the others I am about to relate, has been well reported and needs no elaboration here.
The Iraq-Iran war of 1980 to 1988 was among the most savage in history. Here is part of Wikipedia's description:
The war came at a great cost in lives and economic damage—half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers as well as civilians are believed to have died in the war with many more injured—but it brought neither reparations nor change in borders. The conflict is often compared to World War I,[17] in that the tactics used closely mirrored those of that conflict, including large scale trench warfare, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges, use of barbed wire across trenches, human wave attacks across no-man's land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds. At the time, the UN Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war." However, in these UN statements it was never made clear that it was only Iraq that was using chemical weapons, so it has been said that "the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian as well as Iraqi Kurds" and it is believed[18][19][20] that the "United States prevented the UN from condemning Iraq".[18]
The bloody warfare by the Arabs of the Sudan against its fellow religionists in Darfur (as well as against the Black population of the South) is still ongoing. It has received some Western attention, but the fact that most of the aggression emanates from Arab sources is not often mentioned. (There are now some new reports of warfare within the South, involving the Nuer and their neighbors, none of which are Muslim.)
And then there is the bloody repression of the people of Iran by its own government.
The violence in Somalia -- perhaps the most unfortunate country in the world -- seems mostly initiated by the Islamist Al-Shabaab, although it would take a specialist to sort out the various actors in that continuing disaster.
Of very great relevance here is the bloody story of intra-Palestinian violence. Here is an account from Wikipedia:
Intra-Palestinian violence was a prominent feature of the Intifada, with widespread executions of alleged Israeli collaborators. While Israeli forces killed an estimated 1,100 Palestinians and Palestinians killed 164 Israelis, Palestinians killed an estimated 1,000 other Palestinians as alleged collaborators, although fewer than half had any proven contact with the Israeli authorities.[4][5]And then there are the very frequent mutual killings by Fatah and Hamas.
In short, over and above its violent Jew-hatred, the Muslim world harbors a virulent culture of internal violence. One would think that this topic should be of interest to would-be peacemakers like Peace Now and JStreet, but -- guess what -- these and allied groups are generally mum on the subject.
Which brings us to
The Evolution of bien-pensant thinking on Israel
The intransigence of the Arab elites would matter less if it were not for the support it receives, at least implicitly, from an apparently growing anti-Israel current in the liberal/left circles of the West.
Today we are used to seeing more than a few committed enemies of Israel in academia and in the high-brow punditry, whom Schleiermacher might have called the cultured despisers of Israel and Jews. That was not always the case. For the first twenty years or so of its existence Israel generally enjoyed, if not approbation, at least a modicum of good will among such classes.
A detailed, probing history of the evolution of such bien-pensant views remains to be written (are you listening, Mr. or Ms. Recent Graduate ?). Suffice it to say, while objectivity (at least) could be counted on in the past, this is no longer the case. Of course it is easy to exaggerate the importance of figures like Tony Judt, Mearsheimer, Walt, etc.: when I attend AIPAC conferences, I find the most liberal members of Congress come out very strongly for Israel, no less so than the conservatives. Nevertheless, it would seem that strongly hostile views and strongly hostile action are fairly common in liberal-left circles, especially so in the more activist groups like Occupy Wall Street (on this, see my piece here) and the politicized Lesbian groups.
While the overall picture of changes in the bien-pensants' viewpoint remains to be examined, the position of one part of this public -- that of the Communists, their followers, and their lineal descendants -- is clear. The Soviet Union broke diplomatic relations with Israel after the 1967 War, on June 10, 1967, and, for geo-political reasons, aligned itself with the Arab enemies of Israel, especially with Syria. I happened to have been in Paris at the time, and I well remember the shock of French Jewish protesters at a demonstration against the sudden change of the line of the French Communist Party (PCF). "We will not forget this," I remember one speaker declaiming, addressing the Party hacks. Annie Kriegel has provided us with the text of a surprisingly anti-Semitic speech delivered by Benoît Franchon, Secretary of the Communist-controlled CGT union, one of the top PCF leaders, at the Thirty Seventh National Congress of the CGT, held in Nanterre from June 12 to 16 of 1967:
The Evolution of bien-pensant thinking on Israel
The intransigence of the Arab elites would matter less if it were not for the support it receives, at least implicitly, from an apparently growing anti-Israel current in the liberal/left circles of the West.
Today we are used to seeing more than a few committed enemies of Israel in academia and in the high-brow punditry, whom Schleiermacher might have called the cultured despisers of Israel and Jews. That was not always the case. For the first twenty years or so of its existence Israel generally enjoyed, if not approbation, at least a modicum of good will among such classes.
A detailed, probing history of the evolution of such bien-pensant views remains to be written (are you listening, Mr. or Ms. Recent Graduate ?). Suffice it to say, while objectivity (at least) could be counted on in the past, this is no longer the case. Of course it is easy to exaggerate the importance of figures like Tony Judt, Mearsheimer, Walt, etc.: when I attend AIPAC conferences, I find the most liberal members of Congress come out very strongly for Israel, no less so than the conservatives. Nevertheless, it would seem that strongly hostile views and strongly hostile action are fairly common in liberal-left circles, especially so in the more activist groups like Occupy Wall Street (on this, see my piece here) and the politicized Lesbian groups.
While the overall picture of changes in the bien-pensants' viewpoint remains to be examined, the position of one part of this public -- that of the Communists, their followers, and their lineal descendants -- is clear. The Soviet Union broke diplomatic relations with Israel after the 1967 War, on June 10, 1967, and, for geo-political reasons, aligned itself with the Arab enemies of Israel, especially with Syria. I happened to have been in Paris at the time, and I well remember the shock of French Jewish protesters at a demonstration against the sudden change of the line of the French Communist Party (PCF). "We will not forget this," I remember one speaker declaiming, addressing the Party hacks. Annie Kriegel has provided us with the text of a surprisingly anti-Semitic speech delivered by Benoît Franchon, Secretary of the Communist-controlled CGT union, one of the top PCF leaders, at the Thirty Seventh National Congress of the CGT, held in Nanterre from June 12 to 16 of 1967:
They [war correspondents] have shown us -- replete with the details that go with a great demonstration of faith -- a ceremony at the Wailing Wall.... The presence of certain high financiers conferred upon it a significance that had nothing to do with the religious fervor which the true believers who participated thought to find in it. The spectacle makes us think that, as in Faust, it was Satan who led the dance. Nor was the golden calf missing; there it was, just as in the Gounod opera, standing up contemplating its feet, amid the blood and the filth, the results of these diabolical machinations. And indeed, we are told the two representatives of a cosmopolitan tribe of bankers attended this saturnalia, people well known throughout the world: Alain and Edmond de Rothschild. At their feet lay the dead, still bleeding. Among them were Jewish workers, who died for them; Jordanian workers and peasant, who also died for them. (from l'Humanité, June 17, 1967; reproduced in Kriegel, The French Communists, p. 163-4).
I believe that, with all the marginalized anti-Semitism that could be found in the Stalinist movement for years before, the decisive turning point came at this point, in 1967. The upshot of course is well known: how the "German Democratic Republic" became a bastion of "anti-Zionism;" how the Lumumba University in Moscow turned out doctors of Holocaust-denial (see the case of Abbas, above), etc. etc.
The Soviets' 1967 line, to which they held to the end of their existence in 1989, had a tremendous effect on the broad spectrum of liberal/left opinion. The Soviets' fiercest opponents on the Left, the Trotskyists, followed their Stalinist enemy/friends in the decisive turn against Israel after the '67 War. The Trotskyists saw themselves in competition with the Communists for the pool of left-leaning "militants." As a result of the Soviet position, it became more and more required for the "revolutionary socialists" and the "anti-imperialists" to include a fierce opposition to "Zionism" in their propaganda. The Trotskyists could not afford to be outbid in the left-wing marketplace. (Of course there were earlier reasons, primarily the inherent Marxist anti-Semitism, that made them vulnerable for this shift. I have discussed these matters here.)
As for the descendants of the old Stalinist movement, most strikingly The Nation magazine of the United States, it is the Soviets' turn against Israel in 1967 that still seems to weigh heavily in its hysterical campaign against Israel. (See my blog on this here). Obviously there are other reasons as well for the liberal/left "anti-Zionism" of our day. Just what these are awaits the careful study of a historian yet to appear.
Conclusion
There is little hope for peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors in the foreseeable future. The reasons for this pessimism lie mainly in the Muslim culture of hate and violence. The "anti-Zionism" of parts of liberal/left opinion in the West -- giving support to the Islamist anti-Israel project -- contributes to the difficulty of finding a solution.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
How clean are the countries that do not recognize Israel ?
There is a fairly reliable index of corruption in the various countries of the world, the Corruption Perception Index, according to which the "cleanest country" (New Zealand) is rated 9.5, and the lowest (Somalia) is rated 1.0. The average country receives a score of 5 or 6.
Now, of the 192 members of the UN, Israel has diplomatic relations with 156. The remaining 36 governments refuse to have such relations with Israel, some more vociferously than others. Quite a few go so far as to deny that Israel exists at all. The full story is told here.
As it happens, the countries that refuse to have diplomatic relations with Israel are, by and large, among the most corrupt in the world, some having a cleanliness score of no more than 1 or 1.5 out of ten. The average rating for these refusal countries is 3.16. (The US has a score of 7.1, Israel 5.8). Below are the scores of all the 36 governments that refuse to deal with Israel:
Now, of the 192 members of the UN, Israel has diplomatic relations with 156. The remaining 36 governments refuse to have such relations with Israel, some more vociferously than others. Quite a few go so far as to deny that Israel exists at all. The full story is told here.
As it happens, the countries that refuse to have diplomatic relations with Israel are, by and large, among the most corrupt in the world, some having a cleanliness score of no more than 1 or 1.5 out of ten. The average rating for these refusal countries is 3.16. (The US has a score of 7.1, Israel 5.8). Below are the scores of all the 36 governments that refuse to deal with Israel:
| Afghanistan | 1.50 |
| Algeria | 2.90 |
| Bahrain | 5.10 |
| Bangladesh | 2.70 |
| Bhutan | 5.70 |
| Bolivia | 2.80 |
| Brunei | 5.20 |
| Chad | 2.00 |
| Comoros | 2.40 |
| Cuba | 4.20 |
| Djibouti | 3.00 |
| Guinea | 2.20 |
| Indonesia | 3.00 |
| Iran | 2.70 |
| Iraq | 1.80 |
| Kuwait | 4.60 |
| Lebanon | 2.50 |
| Libya | 2.00 |
| Malaysia | 4.30 |
| Mali | 2.80 |
| Mauritania | 2.40 |
| Morocco | 3.40 |
| Nicaragua | 2.50 |
| Niger | 2.50 |
| North Korea | 1.00 |
| Oman | 4.80 |
| Pakistan | 2.50 |
| Qatar | 7.20 |
| Saudi Arabia | 4.40 |
| Somalia; | 1.00 |
| Sudan | 1.60 |
| Syria | 2.60 |
| Tunisia | 3.80 |
| United Arab Emirates | 6.80 |
| Venezuela | 1.90 |
| Yemen | 2.10 |
| average | 3.16 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)