[News] They simply can't stop lying, can they?
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Jul 26 12:23:43 EDT 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum07262006.html
July 26, 2006
They simply can't stop lying, can they?
Is There a Stronger Word Than "Hypocrisy"?
By WILLIAM BLUM
There are times when I think that this tired old world has gone on a
few years too long. What's happening in the Middle East is so
depressing. Most discussions of the eternal Israel-Palestine conflict
are variations on the child's eternal defense for misbehavior -- "He
started it!" Within a few minutes of discussing/arguing the latest
manifestation of the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then
1948, then biblical times. I don't wish to get entangled in who
started the current mess. I would like instead to first express what
I see as two essential underlying facts of life which remain from one
conflict to the next:
1. Israel's existence is not at stake and hasn't been so for decades,
if it ever was. If Israel would learn to deal with its neighbors in a
non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful manner, engage
in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a viable
two-state solution, even those who are opposed to the idea of a state
based on a particular religion could accept the state of Israel, and
the question of its right to exist would scarcely arise in people's
minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the issue as a justification
for its behavior, as Jews all over the world use the Holocaust and
conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
2. In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it's
the gorilla which has to make concessions in order for the two sides
to progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the
way of concession? Israel would reply to that question: "No violent
attacks of any kind." But that would still leave the status quo ante
bellum -- a life of unmitigated misery for the Palestinian people
forced upon them by Israel. Peace without justice.
Israel's declarations about the absolute unacceptability of one of
their soldiers being held captive by the Palestinians, or two
soldiers being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, cannot be taken too
seriously when Israel is holding literally thousands of captured
Palestinians, many for years, typically without any due process, many
tortured; as well as holding a number of prominent Hezbollah members.
A few years ago, if not still now, Israel wrote numbers on some of
the Palestinian prisoners' arms and foreheads, using blue markers, a
practice that is of course reminiscent of the Nazis' treatment of
Jews in World War II.
Israel's real aim, and that of Washington, is the overthrow of the
Hamas government in Palestine, the government that came to power in
January through a clearly democratic process, the democracy that the
Western "democracies" never tire of celebrating, except when the
result doesn't please them. Is there a stronger word than
"hypocrisy"? There is now "no Hamas government," declared a senior US
official a week ago, "eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the
government is in jail [kidnapped by Israel], another 30 percent is in
hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little." To make the
government-disappearance act even more Orwellian, we have Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in late June about Iraq: "This is
the only legitimately elected government in the Middle East with a
possible exception of Lebanon." What's next, gathering in front of
the Big Telescreeen for the Two Minutes Hate?
In addition to doing away with the Hamas government, the current
military blitzkrieg by Israel, with full US support, may well be
designed to create "incidents" to justify attacks on Iran and Syria,
the next steps of Washington's work in process, a controlling
stranglehold on the Middle East and its oil.
It is a wanton act of collective punishment that is depriving the
Palestinians of food, electricity, water, money, access to the
outside world ... and sleep. Israel has been sending jets flying over
Gaza at night triggering sonic booms, traumatizing children. "I want
nobody to sleep at night in Gaza," declared Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert; words suitable for Israel's tombstone.
These crimes against humanity -- and I haven't mentioned the terrible
special weapons reportedly used by Israel -- are what the people of
Palestine get for voting for the "wrong" party. It is ironic, given
the Israeli attacks against civilians in both Gaza and Lebanon, that
Hamas and Hezbollah are routinely dismissed in the West as terrorist
organizations. The generally accepted definition of terrorism, used
by the FBI and the United Nations amongst others, is: The use of
violence against a civilian population in order to intimidate or
coerce a government in furtherance of a political objective.
Since 9/11 it has been a calculated US-Israeli tactic to label the
fight against Israel's foes as an integral part of the war on terror.
On July 19, a rally was held in Washington, featuring the governor of
Maryland, several members of Israeli-occupied Congress, the Israeli
ambassador, and evangelical leading light John Hagee. The Washington
Post reported that "Speaker after prominent speaker characteriz[ed]
current Israeli fighting as a small branch of the larger U.S.-led
global war against Islamic terrorism" and "Israel's attacks against
the Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah were blows against those who have
killed civilians from Bali to Bombay to Moscow." Said the Israeli
ambassador: "This is not just about [Israel]. It's about where our
world is going to be and the fate and security of our world. Israel
is on the forefront. We will amputate these little arms of Iran,"
referring to Hezbollah.
And if the war on terror isn't enough to put Israel on the side of
the angels, John Hagee has argued that "the United States must join
Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's
plan for both Israel and the West". He speaks of "a biblically
prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the
Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."
The beatification of Israel approaches being a movement. Here is
David Horowitz, the eminent semi-hysterical ex-Marxist: "Israel is
part of a global war, the war of radical Islam against civilization.
Right now Israel is doing the work of the rest of the civilized world
by taking on the terrorists. It is not only for Israel's sake that we
must get the facts out -- it is for ourselves, America, for every
free country in the world, and for civilization itself."
As for the two Israeli soldiers captured and held in Lebanon for
prisoner exchange, we must keep a little history in mind. In the late
1990s, before Israel was evicted from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah,
it was a common practice for Israel to abduct entirely innocent
Lebanese. As a 1998 Amnesty International paper declared: "By
Israel's own admission, Lebanese detainees are being held as
'bargaining chips'; they are not detained for their own actions but
in exchange for Israeli soldiers missing in action or killed in
Lebanon. Most have now spent 10 years in secret and isolated detention."
Israel has created its worst enemies -- they helped create Hamas as a
counterweight to Fatah in Palestine, and their occupation of Lebanon
created Hezbollah. The current terrible bombings can be expected to
keep the process going. Since its very beginning, Israel has been
almost continually occupied in fighting wars and taking other
people's lands. Did not any better way ever occur to the idealistic
Zionist pioneers?
But while you and I get depressed by the horror and suffering, the
neo-conservatives revel in it. They devour the flesh and drink the
blood of the people of Afghanistan, of Iraq, of Palestine, of
Lebanon, yet remain ravenous, and now call for Iran and Syria to be
placed upon the feasting table. More than one of them has used the
expression oderint dum metuant, a favorite phrase of Roman emperor
Caligula, also used by Cicero -- "let them hate so long as they
fear". Here is William Kristol, editor of the bible of neo-cons,
"Weekly Standard", on Fox News Sunday, July 16:
"Look, our coddling of Iran ... over the last six to nine months has
emboldened them. I mean, is Iran behaving like a timid regime that's
very worried about the U.S.? Or is Iran behaving recklessly and in a
foolhardy way? ... Israel is fighting four of our five enemies in the
Middle East, in a sense. Iran, Syria, sponsors of terror; Hezbollah
and Hamas. ... This is an opportunity to begin to reverse the
unfortunate direction of the last six to nine months and get the
terrorists and the jihadists back on the defensive."
Host Juan Williams replied: "Well, it just seems to me that you want
... you just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You
wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to get
into the Middle East ... you're saying, why doesn't the United States
take this hard, unforgiving line? Well, the hard and unforgiving line
has been [tried], we don't talk to anybody. We don't talk to Hamas.
We don't talk to Hezbollah. We're not going to talk to Iran. Where
has it gotten us, Bill?"
Kristol, looking somewhat taken aback, simply threw up his hands.
The Fox News audience does (very) occasionally get a hint of another
way of looking at the world.
Iraq will follow Bush the rest of his life
Here comes now our Glorious Leader, speaking at a news conference at
the recent G8 summit in St. Petersburg, referring to Russian
president Vladimir Putin. "I talked about my desire to promote
institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there's a
free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in
our country would hope that Russia would do the same thing."
It's so very rare that Georgie W. makes one of his
less-than-brilliant statements and has the nonsense immediately
pointed out to him to his face -- "Putin, in a barbed reply, said:
'We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as
they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly.' Bush's face
reddened as he tried to laugh off the remark. 'Just wait'," he said.
It's too bad that Putin didn't also point out that religion was a lot
more free under Saddam Hussein than under the American occupation.
Amongst many charming recent incidents, in May the coach of the
national tennis team and two of his players were shot dead in Baghdad
by men who reportedly were religious extremists angry that the coach
and his players were wearing shorts.
As to a "free press", dare I mention Iraqi newspapers closed down by
the American occupation, reporters shot by American troops, and phony
stories planted in the Iraqi press by Pentagon employees?
The preceding is in the same vein as last month's edition of my
report in which I listed the many ways in which the people of Iraq
have a much worse life now than they did under Saddam Hussein. I
concluded with recounting the discussions I've had with Americans
who, in the face of this, say to me: "Just tell me one thing, are you
glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power?"
Now we have a British poll that reports that "More than two thirds
who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power
seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view
said President George W. Bush hypocritically championed democracy as
a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests." The American
embassy in London was quick to reply. Said a spokesperson: "We
question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a
better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and
threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders."
They simply can't stop lying, can they? There was no evidence at all
that Saddam was threatening any people outside of Iraq, whatever
that's supposed to mean. It may mean arms sales. Following the Gulf
War, the US sold around $100 billion of military hardware to Iraq's
"threatened" neighbors: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, and Turkey.
As to the world being a better or worse place ... only Iraq itself
was and is the issue here, not the world; although if the world is a
better place, why am I depressed?
The peculiar idea of tying people's health to private corporate profits
Steven Pearlstein is a financial writer with the Washington Post,
with whom I've exchanged several emails in recent years. He does not
ignore or gloss over the serious defects of the American economic
system, but nonetheless remains a true believer in the market
economy. In a recent review of a book by journalist Maggie Mahar,
"Money-Driven Medicine", Pearlstein writes that the author tries to
explain "why health care costs so much in the United States, with
such poor results." She has focused on the right issues, he says,
"the misguided financial incentives at every level, the unnecessary
care that is not only wasteful but harmful, the bloated
administrative costs." However, "in making the case that the
health-care system suffers from too much free-market competition and
too little cooperation, Mahar means to drum up support for a publicly
funded national system. But in the end, she mostly makes a convincing
case that no health-care system will work unless we figure out what
really works and is cost effective and then get doctors, hospitals
and patients to embrace it."
"Unless we figure out what really works and is cost effective" ...
hmmm ... like there haven't been repeated studies showing that
national health plans in Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and
elsewhere cover virtually everyone and every ailment and cost society
and individuals much less than in the United States. Isn't that
"working"? I spent five years in the UK with my wife and small child
and all three of us can swear by the National Health Service; at
those times when neither my wife nor I was employed we didn't have to
pay anything into the system; doctors even made house calls; and this
was under Margaret Thatcher, who was doing her best to cripple the
system, a goal she and her fellow Tories, later joined by "New
Labor", have continued to pursue.
And then there's Cuba -- poor, little, third-world Cuba. Countless
non-rich ill Americans would think they were in heaven to have the
Cuban health system reproduced here, with higher salaries for doctors
et al., which we could easily afford.
It should be noted that an extensive review of previous studies
recently concluded that the care provided at for-profit nursing homes
and hospitals, on average, is inferior to that at nonprofits. The
analysis indicates that a facility's ownership status makes a
difference in cost, quality, and accessibility of care.
Sale! Western Civilization! New, Improved! $99.99, marked down from
$129.99. Sale!
There's currently a call in the United States to get rid of the
one-cent coin because it costs 1.2 cents to make the coin and put it
into circulation and because many people find the coins a nuisance. I
have another reason to get rid of the coin -- hopefully, doing so
would put an end to the ridiculous and ubiquitous practice of pricing
almost everything at amounts like $9.99, $99.99, or $999.99. Or $3.29
or $17.98. What is the reason for this tedious and insulting
absurdity? It began as, and continues to be, a con game -- trying to
induce the purchaser to think that he's getting some kind of bargain
price: Less than $10! Less than $100! In my local thrift shop,
catering almost exclusively to poor blacks and Hispanics, virtually
all prices end in .97 or .98 or .99. Every once in a while, when the
nonsense has piled up to my nose level, I ask a shop manager or
corporate representative why they use such a pricing system. They
scarcely have any idea what I'm talking about. Sometimes in a shop
when I'm discussing with a clerk the various price options of
something I'm thinking of buying, and I say, "Okay, let's see, this
model is $60 and ..." S/he'll interrupt me with: "No, it's $59.99."
And let's not forget gasoline. Priced at $2.60.9 per gallon. Or
$3.24.9 per gallon. That's 9/10. It's been suggested that it was the
oil companies that began this whole silliness.
Is this any way for people to relate to each other? Comes the
revolution, and we write a new constitution, Paragraph 99 will ban
this practice.
You can't make this stuff up
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread." Anatole France, 1844-1924
On April 14 a federal appeals court ruled that the Los Angeles Police
Department cannot arrest people for sitting, lying or sleeping on
public sidewalks on Skid Row, saying such enforcement amounts to
cruel and unusual punishment because there are not enough shelter
beds for the city's huge homeless population. Judge Pamela A. Rymer
issued a strong dissent against the majority opinion. The Los Angeles
code "does not punish people simply because they are homeless," wrote
Rymer. "It targets conduct -- sitting, lying or sleeping on city
sidewalks -- that can be committed by those with homes as well as
those without."
William Blum is the author of
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567512526/counterpunchmaga>Killing
Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War
II,
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567511945/counterpunchmaga>Rogue
State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power. and
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1887128727/counterpunchmaga>West-Bloc
Dissident: a Cold War Political
Memoir<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567511945/counterpunchmaga>.
He can be reached at: <mailto:BBlum6 at aol.com>BBlum6 at aol.com
The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20060726/84fa73a9/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list