I have seen this clip numerous times and I
have always wanted to reflect out loud about it so I am
taking this opportunity now.
Every couple of years or so, usually after
some sort of disaster resulting from reckless policies, it
is common for politicians, governments and
academic/intellectual frauds of the state to make a claim
that: "We are changing direction." It is clearly being done
here by this woman. She is an intellectual fraud coming to
the defense of a morally decadent government/military. There
are always people like this, it is the historical norm. They
help sweep inconvenient history under the rug in order to
make it irrelevant, thus, effectively starting from a clean
slate without any sense of responsibility or liability for
past crimes committed or for giving free reign to atrocities
as leaders stood on the sideline -- collaborating by not
lifting a finger.
When someone makes a claim, you look at the
historical facts to substantiate or disprove it. That is the
function of sane and moral human beings. When someone calls
you an idiot or claims that you are ignorant, you cannot
respond to that. You show your proofs and then you proceed
to analyze them. That is the process of rationality.
Despite the historical record, this woman
claims that there is a need to stop militarily resisting
Israel. It makes you wonder: on what grounds does she base
such an argument on? Clearly, Finkelstein is calling her out
as completely delusional and he briefly touches on some of
his reasons. Nevertheless, I would like to take some time to
further expand on his points which he, along with other
academics like Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and even former
Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami, have already
exhaustively researched coming to the same conclusions on
all the crucial points with minor differences.
There is no controversy that it was Israel
that began the hostilities once again in 2006 (see my
article
here). The
atrocities committed by Israel in Lebanon have also been
well documented. For example, the claim that Hezbollah was
using human shields during the 2006 conflict – thus,
explaining the disproportionately high numbers of civilian
Lebanese casualties (a large chunk of it being children) –
has been completely and utterly destroyed by Human Rights
Watch. No one believes Israel’s justification aside from
those with an insane and irrational sense of loyalty that
will defend Israel at any cost even when the facts do not
line up with their arguments. They remain unapologetic, the
same with their biggest ally the United States, and they
will not even recognize basic facts. When there is no moral
outrage coming from the one committing the aggression, most
likely it will be repeated. They will express moral outrage
at the crimes of others but become preoccupied with
self-adulation when it comes to owning up for their own
crimes. Since the creation of Israel, it has been refusing
to end the conflict (see my article
here).
There are a couple of historical truisms that
everyone should agree on. Two of which are:
i.
A powerful and aggressive military state will
not proceed to the negotiating table unless to make you a
client state, effectively placing you under their control
one way or another. And …
ii.
It will not cease its aggressive expansion
unless it comes face to face with a major military defeat as
Norman Finkelstein in this interview has stated.
While someone can make an argument to the
contrary against these, it would be extremely difficult to
find an adequate example proving otherwise. Hypothetically,
even if a case is made somehow for that argument, it is
clearly the exception and not the norm.
In 2006, Lebanon was once again attacked by
Israel as the Lebanese army, which has no qualms attacking
unarmed Palestinian refugees in order to show its
‘impressive’ strength (see my article
here), stood by and did
nothing. This woman is giving the excuse that there is a
need for a new direction away from militarily resisting
Israel. As to the historical basis of her argument, as to
why she would assume Israel would stop its aggressive
expansion with a consistent disregard for the lives of Arab
civilians (yes, substantiated by every credible human rights
organization), it is beyond the realm of a rational human
being it seems to understand.
Once again, it is common practice for
intellectual frauds of the state to sweep inconvenient facts
under the rug. As to what her personal reasons are for doing
so, the possibilities are endless. She might be truly
convinced of her delusions or just following her present
line of thinking for professional gains. It is not uncommon
for those who are intrigued by power and fame to just fall
in line with the convenient stance. It would make her life a
lot easier there is no question about it. If one is to look
at the academic life of Norman Finkelstein – particularly,
his denial of tenure at DePaul University despite glowing
recommendations from top and highly respected fellow
academics, the strength of his own academic works and so
forth – you can understand why people would be afraid to be
‘inconvenienced’ by standing up for the truth. Of course,
when I say the “truth”, it is not some vague loaded term
which could mean anything. I am talking about basic
historical facts. If you stand up for the truth you will
suffer a financial defeat and you would become a target of
the vindictive protectors of the state apparatus.
Finkelstein has sacrificed a lot in order to provide the
intellectual basis for the activism that surrounds this
issue. These sacrifices are nothing to him as he views
informing others as far more important. If you were to read
his academic works this will completely come across.
The United States is notorious for housing
the most fraudulent intellectuals of modern history. It is
not uncommon for someone to make a claim that a new
direction is being followed in official policy. Lies are
parroted over and over by politicians and the gang of frauds
that is the intellectual community provides the academic (if
it can be called that) basis by intentionally misconstruing
or selectively reading the factual records. It seems like
after every disaster there is a claim that a new direction
is being followed. Barack Obama is doing that today and it
is difficult to not be suspicious.
Ever since World War II, the U.S. has been
propping up brutal dictators left and right throughout the
world (ie. Somoza in Guatemala, Suharto in East Timor,
Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Saddam in Iraq, etc.)
presiding over the most brutal massacres the world has ever
come to witness. In Guatemala alone, if you read some of the
accounts of massacres there, only a robot would not shed a
tear or be consumed by anger. Women getting their breasts
cut off after getting raped in a church to religious music
by U.S. trained militias was commonplace.
Of course, every single time the facts will
usually become far too difficult to ignore despite the best
efforts of the gang of frauds. Or, the earlier stance would
become an inconvenience for one reason or another. Thus,
when General Suharto became far too embarrassing for the
Clinton Administration, primarily because of the hundreds of
thousands of innocent civilians he massacred, there was an
official proclamation that he will no longer be tolerated.
The same went for Saddam Hussein of course. Bush claimed
that he would no longer be tolerated as well and that is why
Iraq was attacked. All of that said, it is important to
point out that there is a difference between “tolerating”
something from “actively supporting” something. They
provided political, economic, strategic and military support
wholeheartedly to these “monsters” at the peak of their
atrocities.
You will hear it all the time, said with a
straight face: “Oh, there is a new direction!” Apparently
that direction is heading the same exact way as the ones
that preceded it. Apparently, change means the same.
For those who
wants to learn more about all this, please do your best to
attend this event. Also, I urge you to read Finkelstein's
book "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict".
Click for bigger poster.
In the spirit of resistance,
Critical Mood
