The following is an excerpt from the above linked-to article by Mitchell Anderson:
How are we feeling about the new Canadian Camelot? Justin Trudeau is young, movie star handsome, and projects the confident hope of his famous pedigree. All of North America seems swept up in the romance of his remarkable moment, and of course there are obvious reasons to celebrate.
Like 70 per cent of the voting public, I am savouring the end of the Stephen Harper era as one might relish being released from a Turkish prison. His insidious regime edged us toward a mean and narrow vision of Canada that was becoming almost unrecognizable…
I likewise fear the NDP will over-react to the election results, engaging in an acrimonious internal blood-letting that the left is grimly renowned for. Admittedly Tom Mulcair had the comparative charisma of a furry fireplug on the campaign trail, however by all accounts he is a capable and principled leader who might well have made a fine Prime Minister.
My online response to the above linked-to article and my online responses to a commenter who responded to my comment, follows:
This is another example of NDP operatives rallying to keep the corporatocracy’s NDP alive. I hope he succeeds. Let the corporatocracy have this NDP and let progressives be very, very aware of what’s going on and leave this NDP to it’s own devices. (It’s such a good thing that the troublemakers want to maintain this NDP instead of pretending to be with us, expressing an interest in starting from scratch. With them wanting to use this NDP, that’s progressives’ opportunity to purge them out, simply by leaving them behind.) Let real progressives create a real progressive alternative, as long as we feel we have to somehow use this undemocratic electoral system to create a social system that doesn’t have inequality at it’s core. Mulcair is so far from principled it isn’t funny. You don’t write off thousands of imprisoned Palestinians, kept on a diet by their occupiers calculated to keep them alive only, while regularly slaughtering them and possess any right to wear the label of principled.
People here can read Max Blumenthal’s “The 51 Day War – Ruin And Resistance In Gaza” to get an idea of the kind of people the principled Mr Mulcair defends.
“A January 2008 Israeli military study called “Food Consumption in the Gaza Strip – The Red Lines,” estimated the required daily caloric intake in Gaza at 2,279 per person “in order to maintain the basic fabric of life…
“A report broadcast on Israel’s Channel 2 news profiled one of the artillery crews posted on the border of Gaza. (A comment attached to the video dates the footage as taken on August 3, 2014.) The report is an eight-minute broadcast portrait of an all-female unit with a few male trainers and soldiers assigned to help them carry the 15-kg artillery shells they log into Gaza neighborhoods with regularity. “Every two minutes we fire a shell [into Gaza],” Corporal Noam Casman, a young female conscript, told Channel 2. Throughout the broadcast, the soldiers are seen signing each 120 and 155 mm artillery shell they launch with messages like, “To Adi, Good luck with the new job!”
“The shelling depicted in the news piece appeared to be so random that the soldiers must have had little idea where the munitions were falling. And the atmosphere they had time to play backgammon and eat delivered sushi in the shade. “This one’s because I haven’t showered in a week!” one of the troops exclaimed as a smiling member of her unit luanched another mortar.” – pages 6, 45
As SNL’s Chevy Chase used to say “Trouble in the middle east…..” Even if Isreal disappeared tomorrow, there would still be trouble in the middle east. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen etc… Almost seems to be that if you can’t fight with Isreal, there is always another country or perhaps your not of the same faith neighbour in your country that you can shoot at. Complex difficult and impossible to solve situation. Rockets go one way, artillery shells go th e other way…..stupidity on both sides, but then that’s what war is, stupidity.
To dismiss the slaughter of Palestinians this way disgusts me. Always will.
Did not dismiss anything of the sort. I clearly said it was stupid on both sides. The plight of Palestine is a concern for the world. What I did say and will stand behind, it is a complex, difficult and impossible situation. Can’t see the world adopting pre-45 borders. Can’t see Isreal vanishing. Can’t see the Palestinian residents of Gaza accepting Isreal. Can’t see a change ever happening. What is, in your opinion, the solution?
There’s a number of ways I could answer your question. I can’t make others care. And too many don’t. And their ranks are swelling. I see that everywhere I look. (And the irrationality is astonishing. Nazi Israelis – led by the Ultras, namely fans of Israel’s soccer team – will beat on fellow Israelis who protest their government’s genocidal policies and actions. Since 2010, the racism in Israel has become open, with the passing of a law in the Knesset that requires citizens to take oaths of loyalty to the ‘Jewish’ state (http://bit.ly/1S3JUPM). Israel is to be pure, like Ukraine, where the neo-Nazis seek out and murder and torment those, like Jews, who are not pure, white, Ukrainian.) As a Christian (who has actually studied the Bible and thought about what it reveals), I am aware that we are in a time that the Bible says would see Gog’s attack. I learned most of what I know from Jehovah’s Witnesses, who I no longer follow. I don’t agree with all that they do and teach. Even so, they’ve taught me much.
‘Gog’, they explain, means ‘darkness’. I don’t know how they come to their conclusion. But that conclusion tracks.
The bullies are easier to follow than the good people. The good people aren’t scary. Keep that in mind. This dark world’s paradigm is ‘riches for the strongest’. (Only recently did I learn about the origins of neoconservatism and I was struck by how closely that ideology hewed to the paradigm of ‘riches for the strongest’, a term I’ve been using for many years to describe the world I see.) The way things work in this dark world is: Everyone gets together to agree on the rules that make society work. Then the wolves among us strategically break those rules, knowing that the rest of us won’t. (This reminds me of a reference in the Bible to ‘the deep things of Satan’.) That sort of rule-breaking (perversely leading to leaders who preside over ‘law and order’ governments) puts the rule-breakers into positions of dominance. In a position of dominance, one can dictate and guarantee outcomes, including outcomes that favor the leader personally. What kind of society will such ‘leaders’ shape? Look around you for the answer.
A bit about the beginning
From pages 66 & 67 of “Gaza In Crisis,” by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé, the following:
Ethnic cleansing was perpetrated in 1948 and later altogether denied both in and by Israel. The mechanism of denial is so forceful in Israel, and among its ardent supporters in the United States, that the perspective in this essay provokes much deeper questions. The most important question is the relevance of the Zionist ideology in general to the crimes committed in 1948. Others have shown already that the massive expulsion was the inevitable outcome of a strategy dating back to the late nineteenth century.
The ideology of “transfer” emerged the moment leaders of the Zionist movement realized that the making of a Jewish state in Palestine could not be achieved as long as the indigenous people of Palestine remained on the land. The presence of a local society and culture had been known to the founding fathers of Zionism even before the first settlers set foot on the land. Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism, already predicted that his dream of a Jewish homeland in Palestine would necessitate expulsion of the indigenous population, as evidenced in one of his diary entries for June 12, 1895. Moving on from his comments on constituting a Jewish society in the land, he got down to the question of forming a state for Jews. He wrote that, having occupied the land and expropriated the private property, “We shall endeavour to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed, procuring employment for it in the transit countries, but denying it any employment in our own country.” Herzl added that both “the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” Ethnic cleansing was also on the minds of the leaders of the second aliya, a kind of a Zionist Mayflower generation.
Two means were used to alter the demographic and “ethnic” reality of Palestine, and impose the Zionist program of the local reality: the dispossession of the indigenous population from the land, and its repopulation with newcomers – i.e., expulsion and settlement.”
Settler colonialism is the worst kind of colonialism. Colonialism that doesn’t involve settlement by members of the colonizer’s country can be brutal, but it’s not hopeless. The residents of the colony can have some hope of one day reclaiming their land for themselves. Settler colonialism, however, means that the lives of the colonized are in grave danger, as the land is seen as needed for the newcomers.
What possible good could come from the UN’s green-lighting of Herzl’s plan? I’m not an expert on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but I’m trying to grasp it. I have a way to go, but I know enough to know what to think. The Zionists wanted Palestine and they used the UN to get it. They had no right to it. Others, Palestinians, lived there. I don’t know the details fully, but apparently there were some Israelis living in Palestine in 1947. And they were planning on taking the entire region for themselves. So there was conflict. You had, for example, the Haganah, who were Israelis causing trouble and operating underground. The UN agreed with the Zionists to settle the conflict, not by having dialog with the Palestinians, but by imposing an unjust ‘solution’ that involved dividing the region into Palestinian and Jewish sections, and which saw a Jewish minority of 660,000 (out of a population of 2 million) receive the larger portion of land. If the Jews didn’t have plans to expel and disappear the Palestinians and steal their land (or the best of it), perhaps all could have lived with that degree of injustice.
“Imposing the will of one side through the agencies of the UN could not have been a recipe for peace, but rather for war.” – Ilan Pappé
In my reading, in which I jot down in the books I’m reading salient points etc, I don’t always know what’s salient until I’ve got a bigger picture. A few times I came across reference to the decision made by Israeli leaders to go for alliances with the US rather than seek peace with their Arab neighbors and seek to deal fairly with Palestinians. I will find those mentions eventually. The point is that, despite the bad path that Zionism’s founders set Israel on, later leaders have always had the freedom to continue on it or resist it. They’ve clearly chosen to continue on it. But that hasn’t happened in a vaccum.
The US plays it’s great game. (To get an idea where that stands, I recommend “Ukraine – Zibig’s Grand Chessboard & How The West Was Checkmated” by Natylie Baldwin and Kermit Heartsong. I have some issues with the book, but it’s very informative and a great antidote to the Western propaganda flying around right now, sucked up by the Left as well as the Right, about Ukraine.) As Chomsky notes, Israel (like Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Egypt) are stationary US aircraft carriers in the Middle East. Western journos refer to Israel as a Western outpost and democracy in the region. The outpost part is correct. The democracy part is nonsense. Israel is basically a US military base. And it’s debased the nation. And that’s what ‘leaders’ so often do – for their own personal gain and out of their dark desires – to their people. (That point was brought home to me very clearly after reading “Defending White Democracy” by Jason Morgan Ward.) They don’t hesitate to ruin millions of minds and hearts in their pursuit of glory, riches and power. It’s up to people to care enough to know enough – to not go along with those who claim to care for them and to know the solutions to their problems when in fact they will become, if allowed to, their spiritual, and perhaps more, downfall.
Chomsky notes that poll after poll by established, reputable US polling companies showed that the people of the Middle East regard the US and Israel as the biggest threat and obstacle to peace in the region. It would be funny if the consequences weren’t deadly, the way the Western press would take such information and report it thusly; They’d say that most of the people in the region regard Iran as the biggest threat to peace. What the compliant (corporate owned) media wasn’t reporting, however, is that that referred only to what the traitorous leaders in the region ‘thought’. The Arab main street, however, something like 90% of it, had the opposite view of their traitorous leaders. Is anyone surprised?
This is why democracy cannot be allowed by the US, the West (which the US dominates), and those who want uncle Sam’s approval. If democracy broke out in the Middle East, uncle Sam would be kicked out. And he couldn’t have any hope of winning in his great game – of global domination, which requires him to be vigilant to break up any formation, like a Eurasia that includes Russia – that might become powerful enough to simply go it’s own way rather than follow the Washington Consensus (neoliberal capitalism) – if he lost control of the Middle East. (The US has encircled Russia and China and constantly tests those countries.) This is why the 2006 electoral win of Hamas, which the US Congressional Research Service deemed “free and fair” could not be allowed to stand. That verdict was followed by the arming and egging on of the murderous, traitorous Fatah, which the US/Israel hoped would wipe out Hamas and any hope of democracy rearing it’s ugly head in that bleak corner of the globe. The courageous and vigilant Hamas (and Qassam Brigades) put the kibosh on that plan when they acted swiftly and decisively to defeat Fatah.
Which is why Israel is so vicious with the Palestinians. They have been humiliated by Hamas and Hezbollah (in Lebanon in 2006) and, since Hamas and it’s Qassam Brigades have decided to take the principled position of fighting the Israeli military only, rather than do terrorist bus bombings in Israel and such things, that has only made the unprincipled and cowardly IDF more enraged and vicious. The Dahiyah Doctrine should be called the Coward’s Doctrine. For every Israeli soldier killed, multiples of Palestinians will be killed. And Israel regards ‘all’ Palestinians – men, women, children – as combatants, conveniently. And there is NO parity. Israel is armed to the teeth – with drones, US supplied jet fighters, every kind of munition, tanks, satellite assistance (including US). The Qassam Brigades have none of those things. There never was parity. That was just a fiction that Israel and it’s Western allies pushed. With parity, and a ‘war’, you get the idea that you have two armies and moral equivalency exists. Whereas, Israel is actually responsible for Palestinian lives! That’s because Israel OCCUPIES Gaza and, through Fatah, the West Bank. That makes it’s actions war crimes, in no uncertain terms.
What is my solution? I am not God. His solution, however, will soon be evident.
In the meantime, It’s up to us to care. Caring is knowing. Then you choose, which isn’t necessarily easy. The wild beast compels all to get it’s slave’s mark. Compulsion take the form of enticements and threats. Whatever will work is used. Those with principles will succumb, no doubt without the need to resort to much in the way of threats. Those with principles will not be allowed to ‘freely’ choose. But they will be allowed to choose. They may pay a price for choosing human rights and justice and God over darkness, but that’s how it goes. In the end, Only God can take life. People like Benjamin Netanyahu may think they’ve won in the godless game of ‘riches for the strongest’ that they eagerly play, but from my standpoint, they’ve lost, because I know that God strikes such ones from his book of life. When you are so stricken, because you have chosen to be, you eventually die, completely, body and soul.
A last quote from Ilan Pappé:
“Anyone who has been in Israel long enough, as I have, knows that the worst corruption of young Israelis is the indoctrination they receive that totally dehumanizes the Palestinians. When an Israeli soldier sees a Palestinian baby he does not see an infant – he sees the enemy. This is why all the military documents, whether those ordering the occupation of villages in 1948, those instructing the air force in 2009 to resort to the Dahiyah Doctrine (the strategy that was meant to defeat Hezbollah in the 2006 assault on Lebanon with the carpet bombing of the eponymous southern suburb of Beirut, which is the Shiite’s stronghold), or when bombarding Gaza, depict the civilian areas as military bases. In Israel, since 1948, ethnic cleansing is not just a policy – it is a way of life, and its constant practice criminalizes the state, not just its policies.” -page 31 of “On Palestine” by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé
I hope that Mitchell Anderson, in comparing Justin Trudeau to JFK, via the reference to the Camelot mythology, doesn’t mean that he buys into the Camelot mythology. JFK and his brother were supreme terrorists. Copying out the numerous references to JFK’s recklessness and terrorist operations that I’ve come across in my reading (including lots of Chomsky) is one of the projects I have to embark upon soon. Then I will upload the info to the cloud, which will allow me to pass a link to others when the subject comes up. And it comes up often. The destructive Camelot mythology that posits that JFK was a shining knight in white armor who was killed because he was a good guy is embraced by a fake Left. It’s next to impossible to counter it simply because it’s so pervasive. Noam Chomsky, who wrote “Rethinking Camelot,” is a giant on the Left, but even that doesn’t seem to slow down the spread of this myth. What is the harm? Lies are always harmful. This one is meant to fool people into the thinking that the system – state capitalism and the electoral system it depends on for legitimacy – works. The idea is that, “Sure, you’ve had bad presidents who have made very bad decisions, but then there’s JFK! So, Maybe it’s not the system. Maybe we just have to operate it properly.”