"There was passionate support for foreign news reports at the Lowy Institute's media awards in Sydney on Saturday night at which the New York Times columnist Bret Stephens delivered the keynote address... Stephens referred to the controversy that followed Lowy's invitation for him to speak at the media award ceremony, which was to be named after the late ABC broadcaster Mark Colvin. But Lowy removed Colvin's name after a family disagreement. 'I'm aware of the controversy that has gone with my selection as your speaker,' Stephens said." (Guthrie's content shake-up threatens ABC empires, Amanda Meade, theguardian.com, 29/9/17)
Hmm... The controversy that has gone with my selection as speaker.
It appears that Colvin's wife, in particular, objected to her husband's name being associated with that of Stephens. But why? Could it possibly have had something to do with Stephens' Zionism?
Since this was nowhere explicit in Stephens' LI speech (on dissent), presumably only the brows of the more informed in the audience would have furrowed at the ludicrousness of Natan Sharansky being mentioned in the same breath as Galileo, Nelson Mandela, and Rosa Parks, and Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US, being singled out as a victim (of "organized claques of hecklers"/"junior totalitarians" no less!), we really need to look elsewhere for it.
Over at PragerU.com, for example, where Stephens lets it all hang out. Gird your loins for What's holding the Arab world back?:
"In the judo competition of the 2016 Olympics in Brazil, an Israeli heavyweight judo fighter named Or Sasson defeated his Egyptian opponent, Islam El Shehaby, in a first-round match. The Egyptian then refused to shake the Israeli's extended hand, earning boos from the crowd.*
"If you want the short answer for why the Arab world is sliding into the abyss, look no further than this little incident. It illustrates how hatred of Israel and Jews corrupts every element of Arab society.
"You won't find this explanation for the Arab world's decline among journalists and academics. They reflexively blame the usual suspects: the legacy of colonialism, unemployed youth, the Sunni-Shia sectarian divide, and every other politically correct excuse they can think of. For them, hatred of Israel is treated like sand in Arabia - just part of the landscape.
"Yet the fact remains that over the past 70 years the Arab world expelled virtually all of its Jews, some 900,000 people, while holding on to its hatred of them. Over time the result proved fatal: a combination of lost human capital, expensive wars against Israel, and an intellectual life perverted by conspiracy theories and a perpetual search for scapegoats. The Arab world's problems are a problem of the Arab mindset, and the name of that problem is anti-Semitism.
"As a historical phenomenon, this is not unique. Historian Paul Johnson has noted that wherever anti-Semitism took hold, social and political decline almost inevitably followed. Just a few examples:
"Spain expelled its Jews in 1492. The effect, Johnson noted, 'was to deprive Spain (and its colonies) of a class already notable for the astute handling of finance.'
"In czarist Russia, the adoption of numerous anti-Semitic laws ultimately weakened and corrupted the entire Russian government. These laws also led to mass Jewish emigration, resulting in a breathtaking loss of intellectual and human capital.
"Germany might well have won the race for an atomic bomb if Hitler hadn't sent Jewish scientists like Albert Einstein and Edward Teller into exile in the US.
"These patterns were replicated in the Arab world. Contrary to myth, the cause was not the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. There were bloody anti-Jewish pogroms in 1929, Iraq in 1941, and Libya in 1945.
"Nor is it accurate to blame Israel for fuelling anti-Semitism by refusing to trade land for peace.
"Among Egyptians, hatred of Israel barely abated after Prime Minister Menachem Begin returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. And among Palestinians, anti-Semitism became markedly worse during the years of the Oslo peace process.
"Johnson calls anti-Semitism a 'highly infectious' disease capable of overwhelming intellectuals and simpletons alike. Its potency, he noted, lies in transforming a personal and instinctive irrationalism into a political and systematic one. For the Jew hater, every crime has the same culprit and every problem has the same solution. Anti-Semitism makes the world seem simple. In doing so, it condemns the anti-Semite to a permanent darkness.
"Today there is no great university in the Arab world, no serious scientific research, a stunted literary culture. In 2015, the US Patent Office reported 3,804 patents from Israel, as compared with 30 from Egypt, the largest Arab country. Hatred of Israel and Jews has also deprived the Arab world of both the resources and the example of its neighbour. Israel quietly supplies water to Jordan, helping to ease the burden of Syrian refugees, and quietly provides surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to Egypt to fight ISIS in the Sinai. But this is largely unknown among Arabs, for whom the only permissible image of Israel is an Israeli soldier in riot gear, abusing a Palestinian. Successful nations make a point of trying to learn from their neighbours. The Arab world has been taught over generations only to hate theirs.
"This may be starting to change. Recently, the Arab world has been forced to face up to its own failings in ways it cannot easily blame on Israel. The change can be seen in the budding rapprochement between Jerusalem and Cairo, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.
"But that's not enough. So long as an Arab athlete can't pay his Israeli opposite the courtesy of a handshake, the disease of the Arab mind and the misfortunes of its world will continue.
"For Israel, this is a pity.
"For the Arabs, it's a calamity."
See what I mean?
[*"I have no problem with Jewish people or any other religion... But for personal reasons, you can't ask me to shake the hand of anyone from this State... " (Islam El Shehaby: 'I've respected the judo rules, lespritdujudo.com)]
Showing posts with label Bret Stephens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bret Stephens. Show all posts
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Thursday, February 5, 2015
The Love Song of B. Hussein Obama
From US Ziocon Bret Stephens:
"Even friends of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are second-guessing his decision to accept US House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to address congress next month on the subject of Iran, over loud objections from the Obama administration. The prospect of the speech, those friends say, has sparked a needless crisis between Jerusalem and Washington. And it has left Democrats with an invidious choice between their loyalty to the President and their support for the Jewish state, jeopardising the bipartisan basis of the US-Israel relationship." (The speech Bibi must give in US congress to demand respect, The Wall Street Journal/The Australian, 4/2/15)
Democrats faced with an invidious choice between their loyalty to their President and their support for the Jewish state?
Could there possibly be a plainer statement of just who controls these buggers? Perhaps only this: Democrats face an invidious choice between their loyalty to the President and their loyalty to the Jewish state. (Republicans apparently don't even have to face this invidious choice. There is no question at all where their loyalty lies.)
Just imagine this scenario transposed to Australia: LNP parliamentarians are faced with an invidious choice between their loyalty to the Prime Minister and their support for the Jewish state. (Of course, were such a scenario to eventuate here, my money would be on Israel every time.)
Stephens continues:
"Sensible concerns - except for a few things. Relations between Israel and the US have been in crisis nearly from the moment Barack Obama stepped into office. Democratic support for Israel has been eroding for decades. It was the US President, not the Israeli Prime Minister, who picked this fight."
How dare Obama even look sideways at Israel! How dare he disagree with its leader! The sheer hide of the man!
Doesn't he know his place? Doesn't he know that Netanyahu's more American than he and apple pie put together?
Stephens goes on to describe Obama as having had a "histrionic fit over the Netanyahu speech," and displaying "the mentality of a peevish and callow potentate."
Doesn't he know - to borrow the words of a certain ex-American poet - that he "should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas"?
That he's "not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be"?
But rather:
"... an attendant Lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two.
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous -
Almost, at times, the Fool."
And Prince Bibi?
"The margin of Israel's security is not measured by anyone's love but by the respect of friends and enemies alike. By giving this speech, Netanyahu is demanding that respect. Irritating the President is a small price to pay for doing so."
But of course.
Go kick ass, Bibi!
"Even friends of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are second-guessing his decision to accept US House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to address congress next month on the subject of Iran, over loud objections from the Obama administration. The prospect of the speech, those friends say, has sparked a needless crisis between Jerusalem and Washington. And it has left Democrats with an invidious choice between their loyalty to the President and their support for the Jewish state, jeopardising the bipartisan basis of the US-Israel relationship." (The speech Bibi must give in US congress to demand respect, The Wall Street Journal/The Australian, 4/2/15)
Democrats faced with an invidious choice between their loyalty to their President and their support for the Jewish state?
Could there possibly be a plainer statement of just who controls these buggers? Perhaps only this: Democrats face an invidious choice between their loyalty to the President and their loyalty to the Jewish state. (Republicans apparently don't even have to face this invidious choice. There is no question at all where their loyalty lies.)
Just imagine this scenario transposed to Australia: LNP parliamentarians are faced with an invidious choice between their loyalty to the Prime Minister and their support for the Jewish state. (Of course, were such a scenario to eventuate here, my money would be on Israel every time.)
Stephens continues:
"Sensible concerns - except for a few things. Relations between Israel and the US have been in crisis nearly from the moment Barack Obama stepped into office. Democratic support for Israel has been eroding for decades. It was the US President, not the Israeli Prime Minister, who picked this fight."
How dare Obama even look sideways at Israel! How dare he disagree with its leader! The sheer hide of the man!
Doesn't he know his place? Doesn't he know that Netanyahu's more American than he and apple pie put together?
Stephens goes on to describe Obama as having had a "histrionic fit over the Netanyahu speech," and displaying "the mentality of a peevish and callow potentate."
Doesn't he know - to borrow the words of a certain ex-American poet - that he "should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas"?
That he's "not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be"?
But rather:
"... an attendant Lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two.
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous -
Almost, at times, the Fool."
And Prince Bibi?
"The margin of Israel's security is not measured by anyone's love but by the respect of friends and enemies alike. By giving this speech, Netanyahu is demanding that respect. Irritating the President is a small price to pay for doing so."
But of course.
Go kick ass, Bibi!
Friday, January 9, 2015
Tel Aviv Dreaming
In the hoary tradition of Palestine denial, beginning with the Balfour Declaration's (1917) designation of 90% of Palestine's population as "the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," and Lord Balfour's breath-taking statement that "in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country... The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land,"* comes the following gem from the pen of Ziocon hack Bret Stephens:
"Palestine can never hope to compete with Israel except in the sense that the fantasy of Palestine will always have an edge on the reality of Israel. Over a beachfront lunch yesterday in Tel Aviv, an astute Israeli friend had the following counter-fantasy. What if Western leaders refused to take Mahmoud Abbas's calls? What if they pointed out that, in the broad spectrum of global interests, from Eastern Europe to the South China Sea, the question of Palestinian statehood ranked very low - on a par with, say, the prospect for independence for the Walloons? What if these leaders observed that, in the scale of human tragedy, the supposed plight of the Palestinians is of small account next to the human suffering in Syria or South Sudan?" (Fantasy of a Palestinian state will always have edge on reality of Israel, The Wall Street Journal/ The Australian, 8/1/15)
[*Memo to Curzon, 11/8/19]
"Palestine can never hope to compete with Israel except in the sense that the fantasy of Palestine will always have an edge on the reality of Israel. Over a beachfront lunch yesterday in Tel Aviv, an astute Israeli friend had the following counter-fantasy. What if Western leaders refused to take Mahmoud Abbas's calls? What if they pointed out that, in the broad spectrum of global interests, from Eastern Europe to the South China Sea, the question of Palestinian statehood ranked very low - on a par with, say, the prospect for independence for the Walloons? What if these leaders observed that, in the scale of human tragedy, the supposed plight of the Palestinians is of small account next to the human suffering in Syria or South Sudan?" (Fantasy of a Palestinian state will always have edge on reality of Israel, The Wall Street Journal/ The Australian, 8/1/15)
[*Memo to Curzon, 11/8/19]
Saturday, December 4, 2010
WikiLeaks 2
Following WikiLeaks' release of the latest batch of US embassy cables, Israeli propaganda and its spear carriers in the corporate media have hilariously begun painting America's Arab clients as the driving force behind the push for an attack on Iran, and Israel as some sort of innocent bystander*:
"One also has to wonder what effects the Wikileak's disclosures might have on other articles of liberal policy faith. Are Israeli Likudniks and their and their neocon friends (present company included) the dark matter pushing the US toward war with Iran? Well, no. Arab Likudniks turn out to be even more vocal on that score." (Leaks force policy wonks to grow up, Bret Stephens, The Wall Street Journal/The Australian, 1/12/10)
Stephens is, of course, alluding to the likes of the Saudi king who colorfuly urged the Americans "to cut the head off the snake," and the UAE defense chief who referred to the Iranian president as "Hitler." (Fears of a nuclear Iran: ME leaders speak about their powerful neighbor, New York Times, 28/11/10)
But the cables also reveal are far more ambivalent attitude on the part of USrael's Arab allies: "Although the UAE regards Iran as one of its most serious threats to national security, UAE officials are reluctant to take actions that could provoke their neighbor and compromise their extensive trading relationship." (Cable from US Embassy in Abu Dhabi, 29/4/06)
So this is the dark matter pushing the US toward war with Iran?
Well, no. This is:
"[Meir] Dagan [Israel's Mossad Chief] reviewed Israel's five-pillar strategy concerning Iran's nuclear program, stressed that Iran is economically vulnerable, and pressed for more activity with Iran's minority groups aimed at regime change... Instability in Iran is driven by inflation and tension among ethnic minorities. This, Dagan said, presents unique opportunities, and Israelis and Americans might see a change in Iran in their lifetimes... Dagan described how the Israeli strategy consists of five pillars... B) Covert Measures: Dagan and the Under Secretary [Nick Burns] agreed not to discuss this approach in the larger group setting... E) Force Regime Change: Dagan said that more should be done to foment regime change in Iran, possibly with the support of student democracy movements, and ethnic groups (eg Azeris, Kurds, Baluchs) opposed to the ruling regime." (US embassy cables: Israel grateful for US support, guardian.co.uk, 28/11/10; Cable from US Embassy in Tel Aviv, 31/8/07)
[* "One of the clear revelations from those leaked cables is that numerous Arab leaders have asked the Americans to take military action to stop Iran getting military weapons. One might note that this does rather give the lie to the insane notion - peddled not least by US academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt - that an all-powerful Jewish lobby is the only group in the world so exercised by a nuclear Iran as to consider supporting military action. Instead, all over the Arab world, rulers are begging the Americans to do anything they can, even military action, to stop Tehran acquiring nukes." (WikiLeaks cables expose Arab states' hypocrisy over Iran, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 4/12/10)]
"One also has to wonder what effects the Wikileak's disclosures might have on other articles of liberal policy faith. Are Israeli Likudniks and their and their neocon friends (present company included) the dark matter pushing the US toward war with Iran? Well, no. Arab Likudniks turn out to be even more vocal on that score." (Leaks force policy wonks to grow up, Bret Stephens, The Wall Street Journal/The Australian, 1/12/10)
Stephens is, of course, alluding to the likes of the Saudi king who colorfuly urged the Americans "to cut the head off the snake," and the UAE defense chief who referred to the Iranian president as "Hitler." (Fears of a nuclear Iran: ME leaders speak about their powerful neighbor, New York Times, 28/11/10)
But the cables also reveal are far more ambivalent attitude on the part of USrael's Arab allies: "Although the UAE regards Iran as one of its most serious threats to national security, UAE officials are reluctant to take actions that could provoke their neighbor and compromise their extensive trading relationship." (Cable from US Embassy in Abu Dhabi, 29/4/06)
So this is the dark matter pushing the US toward war with Iran?
Well, no. This is:
"[Meir] Dagan [Israel's Mossad Chief] reviewed Israel's five-pillar strategy concerning Iran's nuclear program, stressed that Iran is economically vulnerable, and pressed for more activity with Iran's minority groups aimed at regime change... Instability in Iran is driven by inflation and tension among ethnic minorities. This, Dagan said, presents unique opportunities, and Israelis and Americans might see a change in Iran in their lifetimes... Dagan described how the Israeli strategy consists of five pillars... B) Covert Measures: Dagan and the Under Secretary [Nick Burns] agreed not to discuss this approach in the larger group setting... E) Force Regime Change: Dagan said that more should be done to foment regime change in Iran, possibly with the support of student democracy movements, and ethnic groups (eg Azeris, Kurds, Baluchs) opposed to the ruling regime." (US embassy cables: Israel grateful for US support, guardian.co.uk, 28/11/10; Cable from US Embassy in Tel Aviv, 31/8/07)
[* "One of the clear revelations from those leaked cables is that numerous Arab leaders have asked the Americans to take military action to stop Iran getting military weapons. One might note that this does rather give the lie to the insane notion - peddled not least by US academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt - that an all-powerful Jewish lobby is the only group in the world so exercised by a nuclear Iran as to consider supporting military action. Instead, all over the Arab world, rulers are begging the Americans to do anything they can, even military action, to stop Tehran acquiring nukes." (WikiLeaks cables expose Arab states' hypocrisy over Iran, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 4/12/10)]
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Israeli Settlements: No Thanks
What the Australian public thinks of Israeli settlements - from the Sydney Morning Herald's online poll Have Your Say:
Date: 2-4/4/10
Respondents: 1,382
Question: Do you support Barack Obama's stand against Israel's construction of Jewish settlements in occupied territories?
Yes: 73.9%
No: 8.2%
Don't Know: 17.9%
Support for Israel may be in the Prime Minister's DNA, but almost three-quarters of Herald respondents have not been similarly genetically altered.
If, on the other hand, you read Murdoch's Australian and its recycled Wall Street Journal propaganda pieces, you may have encountered the following: "Pop quiz: What does more to galvanise radical anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world: (a) Israeli settlements on the West Bank; or (b) a Lady Gaga music video?" (Islamists' real target is seriously Gaga, Bret Stephens, 5/4/10)
If, like those Herald respondents above, you answered (a), Bret reckons "you are perfectly in synch with the new Beltway conventional wisdom, now jointly defined by Pat Buchanan and his strange bedfellows within the Obama administration," which is his way of telling you you're a right dickhead. If, however, you answered (b), Bret reckons "you probably have a grasp of the historical roots of modern jihadism," which means he thinks you're pretty cool because, like him, you know that it's really Western tits and bums that get your jihadis going, not Israeli settlements.
Always a better class of polling in the Murdoch press.
Date: 2-4/4/10
Respondents: 1,382
Question: Do you support Barack Obama's stand against Israel's construction of Jewish settlements in occupied territories?
Yes: 73.9%
No: 8.2%
Don't Know: 17.9%
Support for Israel may be in the Prime Minister's DNA, but almost three-quarters of Herald respondents have not been similarly genetically altered.
If, on the other hand, you read Murdoch's Australian and its recycled Wall Street Journal propaganda pieces, you may have encountered the following: "Pop quiz: What does more to galvanise radical anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world: (a) Israeli settlements on the West Bank; or (b) a Lady Gaga music video?" (Islamists' real target is seriously Gaga, Bret Stephens, 5/4/10)
If, like those Herald respondents above, you answered (a), Bret reckons "you are perfectly in synch with the new Beltway conventional wisdom, now jointly defined by Pat Buchanan and his strange bedfellows within the Obama administration," which is his way of telling you you're a right dickhead. If, however, you answered (b), Bret reckons "you probably have a grasp of the historical roots of modern jihadism," which means he thinks you're pretty cool because, like him, you know that it's really Western tits and bums that get your jihadis going, not Israeli settlements.
Always a better class of polling in the Murdoch press.
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Cunning Little Devil!
The absolute all-time favourite pastime of Zionist propagandists is finger-pointing. It's a variation on the obnoxious little bugger in the classroom who, when caught out for some misdemeanour by his teacher, invariably accuses the teacher of picking on him, denies he was doing anything, and alleges, contradicting himself, that so-and-so elsewhere was doing it too. A beautiful example of same appeared - where else? - on the opinion page of The Australian of 22/4/09. The heading read:
Outrage reserved for Israel: Why do Muslim countries care so much more about Palestine than Chechnya, asks Brett Stephens The Wall Street Journal
And, without even reading it, you knew exactly where Stephens was coming from: "I have a hypothesis. Maybe the world attends to Palestinian grievances [or "alleged mistreatment of Palestinians," as Sheridan has it] but not to Chechen ones for the sole reason that Palestinians are, uniquely, the perceived [!] victims of the Jewish state." You can see it in your mind's eye, can't you? That obnoxious little Stephens brat screaming at his teacher: You're always picking on me! And that finger, that bloody little, snot-covered finger, pointing straight at a group of his classmates sniggering away down the back of the room.
But, credit where credit's due. Young Stephens has grown up (well, sort of) and provided us, in the above sentence, with the key to the liberation of Tibet, no less! Now, if only we could get the Chinese to contract out their occupation of Tibet to the experts of the Israel Occupation Forces (IOF), then "maybe the world would attend to Tibetan grievances."
But hang on! There's more to that title than meets the eye. Why do Muslim countries care so much more about Palestine... ? As in, why does Uzbekistan (or Kosovo or even Chechnya) care so much more about Palestine... ? Stephens is pulling a swiftie here. Because if we substituted Arab for Muslim, then the answer would be obvious: Arab countries care more about Palestine than Chechnya because Palestinians are fellow Arabs. But that simple answer wouldn't lend itself to Stephens' enduring proclivity to finger-point, now would it? Some things never change. The cunning little devil!
Outrage reserved for Israel: Why do Muslim countries care so much more about Palestine than Chechnya, asks Brett Stephens The Wall Street Journal
And, without even reading it, you knew exactly where Stephens was coming from: "I have a hypothesis. Maybe the world attends to Palestinian grievances [or "alleged mistreatment of Palestinians," as Sheridan has it] but not to Chechen ones for the sole reason that Palestinians are, uniquely, the perceived [!] victims of the Jewish state." You can see it in your mind's eye, can't you? That obnoxious little Stephens brat screaming at his teacher: You're always picking on me! And that finger, that bloody little, snot-covered finger, pointing straight at a group of his classmates sniggering away down the back of the room.
But, credit where credit's due. Young Stephens has grown up (well, sort of) and provided us, in the above sentence, with the key to the liberation of Tibet, no less! Now, if only we could get the Chinese to contract out their occupation of Tibet to the experts of the Israel Occupation Forces (IOF), then "maybe the world would attend to Tibetan grievances."
But hang on! There's more to that title than meets the eye. Why do Muslim countries care so much more about Palestine... ? As in, why does Uzbekistan (or Kosovo or even Chechnya) care so much more about Palestine... ? Stephens is pulling a swiftie here. Because if we substituted Arab for Muslim, then the answer would be obvious: Arab countries care more about Palestine than Chechnya because Palestinians are fellow Arabs. But that simple answer wouldn't lend itself to Stephens' enduring proclivity to finger-point, now would it? Some things never change. The cunning little devil!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)