Selective Blindness

From the desk of George Handlery on Sat, 2008-03-22 11:32

The bits in the mosaic of our time get overlooked as we focus on the big chunks. This column presents some of the details that might deserve attention.

1. Used to quick results, Americans are impatient. Therefore, they wind up as sprinters in marathon runs. Additionally, the Yanks see themselves as being appreciated for services rendered and attribute a high value to “being liked.” The result is that credible threats, are ignored. Therefore, the average American underestimates the hostility directed at his system, his government and his person.

A hard to keep promise follows. Some candidates promise to restore America’s status from “disliked” to “liked” in the world – and especially in Europe. The problem with the project is that “they” say “Bush” when the “USA” is meant.

2. Obama’s Trinity Church declares its rejection of “middleclassness.” In its “10 Point Vision,” the #10 “economic parity” and a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa” (#4) stand out. One hopes that if elected, Obama discovers that economically successful democratic societies are characterized by their broadening middle classes. The bit about parity shows that the congregation might have imbibed too much Socialism. Therefore, equality is confused with justice and these two with general welfare. If these goals are achieved then the commitment to Africa will lack the means it needs.

3. To save his campaign, Barack Obama‘s delivered an address (18 March) about race. It might pacify those who only hear the candidate but missed his minister’s sermons. Obama should not have dealt with racism in general but also with black racism. Or is it racism to say that blacks can also be racist? PR that – like PC-talk in general – is designed to handle problems by making them unmentionable. This might not suffice in this case.

4. Obama claims not to have heard Wright utter those “embarrassing things.” The explanation must be that he slept through the reverend’s performances. Given the background noise of the incriminating tapes this is quite an accomplishment. This has a positive side. Ignoring the “voice of clericalism” mobilizes the secularists.

5. The EU was meant to provide stability by guaranteeing the security of its members. The kind of security was meant that small states can not provide. This purpose implies often ignored limits on the power of the association’s central organs. After all, the protection of unique systems expressing the values of their people was the pact’s purpose. This translates not into centralism but into a covenant designed to preserve Europe’s historically created diversity.

6. The Swiss system has an interesting oddity. It institutionalizes a popular right. The citizens can determine directly what elsewhere legislatures, staffed by the political class, decide. Some referendums are obligatory, others, being optional, must be initiated from below. Right now signatures are collected to extend direct democracy. Currently a referendum is obligatory only if an international organization is joined. The new popular vote stipulates that the referendum shall become mandatory in additional instances. The people are to be consulted if an agreement transfers to a non-national organ law making, the law’s interpretation, or when the automatic application of foreign ordinances is stipulated. You might wonder, in how many countries would this win endorsement.

7. German schools are advised to introduce classes in “Islam.” Because “anyone that wants integration has to provide Islam instruction.” Given the all-too-close relationship between church and state here, furthermore, considering the pressures behind the measure, detached and factual instruction is unlikely. So the question arises, who is integrating whom and into what?

8. Much is done at a great sacrifice born by the public, to facilitate the integration of the new type of migrants. Kowtowing to PC-thinking, the main obstacle is officially ignored. Some migrant groups do not want to be integrated into their host society. This is ignored by a “damn the facts” ideology.

9. The changes inherent in the flow of time can bring challenges that some feel they cannot cope with. Most likely the change interpreted as a threat scares because its causes and implications are not understood. Some national cultures are more crisis-resistant than others. Once the reaction amounts to the panic of the confused, the state is asked to intervene. This happens regardless of the role the state might play aggravating the problem. This is now happening in Germany. The rise of the cosmetically reconstructed Communists, labeled the Party of the Left, is the upshot.

10. If you have been on the wrong end of a massacre then Tibet creates concerns that are not universally shared. Even without an axe to grind, a statement by the Vice President of the Olympic Committee might sound shocking. He revealed that human rights – desirable as they might be – are not his business. The Olympics should not be politicized by dragging Lhassa into the antiseptic picture of the Peking games.

11. Today everybody is boldly against the 1936 Berlin games. How many decades must pass before the same standard is applied to the coming event in Peking? By then this will be a moot question as there will be, thanks to a local version of the Endlösung, no Tibetan left. Which might be quite convenient. Meanwhile it remains safer to protest (16 March) in San Francisco “Bush’s war” than to demand self-determination for Tibetans who are hicks and live without Gucci bags.

12. The Dalai Lama‘s handling of the Tibet crisis is remarkable. Many governments would be thankful to have such a morally consequent and strategically astute, reasonable opponent to negotiate with. It speaks badly for the internal and external policies of China’s rulers that they are unaware (or uninterested?) in their good fortune. (Luckily, South Africa had Mandela and he was, ultimately, used by de Klerk “to do business with” – to the advantage of all parties involved.)

13. A related matter is that the „68-ers“ are (again) celebrating themselves. Pride is taken in the fact that they had revolted against the Nazi past of their parents. They did so by supporting another – to them congenial – totalitarian world system. It is the one that, in the same year demonstrated the virtue of panzer-communism by crushing the Prague Spring. The antecedent was Budapest in 1956 and both moves are a warm-up for the Tiananmen square massacre in ’89. In all of these cases a genuine revolts against a dictatorship demanded the contrary of what the 68-ers wanted from a democracy. The irony is lost amidst the popping champagne corks.

14. It is reported that, responding to a Serbian attack, international forces have retreated in Northern Kosovo (18 March). Subsequently a counter-action recaptured the court-hose seized by a mob. This led to the arrest of the Serbs that occupied the building. Serbia called the action “uncivilized” and demanded the release of the captives. Representing the problems of extremist nationalism, right and wrong’s criteria hinges on the nationality of the perpetrators. Ethnicity often serves as a before-the-fact excuse of whatever a group might be up to. A grenade of the “demonstrators” killed a Ukrainian policeman. Kiev considers withdrawing her peace-keepers. If others follow suit, the Serbs will be left unprotected from the Albanian majority.

15. Lest we forget: regardless of Mr. Spitzer, not everybody who appears on the stage as a “Mr. Clean” is a hypocrite.

16. Some of its values and procedures made the West successful. It is losing ground today because it prefers to forget the connection. Also, these values imply obligations and demand some of Churchill’s “blood and sweat.” A relativism that accepts values that correlate with poverty has become a vote getter at a time when we insist that even the doors to our gym shall open automatically.

17. We often hear the phrase that “the Palestinian people suffers.” Retroactively there is also talk about the WW2 suffering of the German people, the Japanese, etc. It gets selectively forgotten that – alas – communities bear some responsibility for the governors they submit to. Would Berkeley-style softness moderate Hamas? Do its rockets avoid, by design, to hit those who might also be “suffering innocent civilians”?

18. Revealingly, some human rights advocates do not resent that Hamas rockets Israeli agglomerations. After all, the damage is limited. True. However, is this so on account of not wanting to hurt civilians or because of the primitive hardware? Presumably Israel’s retaliation is classed as immoral because her technology allows for sensitive hits. What will the moralists say once Hamas’ technology improves? (the Human Rights Council condemns Israel, 6 March)

@marcfrans

Submitted by Vincep1974 on Sat, 2008-03-29 11:09.

1) The logical implication appears to be that you think they (the 'Arabs' in the West Bank and Gaza) should either (a) revert to what they were before, i.e. Jordanians and/or Egyptians, or (b) they should become Israeli citizens. However, as you well know, the latter would be cultural and political suicide for Israel. So one must asssume that you want them to revert to being Jordanians and/or Egyptians.

Based on my last message, they should be expelled. The way they have been raising their youth ever since they were given autonomy in the 1990s should be enough for them to have forfeited their claim. I don’t know why so many people in the West want to pretend that the Palestinians can raise their children from birth to WANT to kill Jews.. to WANT to die for Allah and yet still want peace. Where has it even been shown that the leaders have pleaded with the people in Arabic that real peace should be the goal. I've never seen any evidence of that.

The charade needs to end and a price has to be paid..

3) I hope you realise that Israel is not - or no longer - opposed to a Palestinian state as such, i.e. it has opted for a '2-state solution' in principle. But, for understandable reasons (mainly its own survival) it wants to influence the conditions under which such a Palestinian 'state' comes into being, and it will not relinquish its (military) control over the West Bank without proper 'guarantees'. Such caution can best be explained by repeated historical Israeli experiences and by empirical observations of 'conditions' in neighboring countries.

Yes I know Israel wants nothing more than a peaceful co-existance. However their wishful thinking and the idiots in the US State Department refuse to see the writing on the wall. So instead of facing reality and putting an end to this nonsense, HAMAS, Hezbelloh, and Iran are more powerful than ever and most importantly , these groups believe they're going to win.

I have zero sympathy for the Palestinians.. they abused that years ago

Conquering

Submitted by Vincep1974 on Sat, 2008-03-29 04:53.

If this blog had a RSS feed for comments I'd be more punctual in responding , however , between work and my personal life I lose track of this site sometimes.

The way I see it is this: The "Palestinians" (which i believe is a false nationality) have made it clear, their goal is the annihilation of Israel.

If someone wants to seriously suggest that the "Palestinians" really want to live in Peace, then please cite me where in Arabic they express this desire.

Therefore , I believe, Israel has no choice but to defend itself from this festering threat and defeat their enemy. This will entail causing the "Palestinians" to lose all hope for a state of their own.

Is this unpleasant? Duh. Whose fault is it? The "Palestnians".

For The Umpteenth Time

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-03-29 01:20.

OK,kappert,if you choose to act like the resident idiot I'll treat you like the resident idiot.God knows,you've given me enough practice at it over the past few months.

Q 1 Do you believe that Washington should enter into "unconditional talks" with the Iranian regime,yes or no?

Q2 If your answer is in the affirmative, read the Taheri article again, www.benadorassociates.com/article/21188 ,then answer the following supplementary questions.

i (In your opinion) What should be the MAIN topic for discussion at those talks?

ii ( In your opinion) What concessions and/or assurances should Washington give to Tehran and Tehran give to Washington?

Got it?

re: Excuses # 2 (a.k.a. KSB )

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-03-28 13:04.

See: 'Shame on You,Switzerland'. (As if you didn't know this already).

See: Kappert's 'Ossuary' # 2. (Ditto).

???

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-03-28 15:24.

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-03-23 15:26.
Allow me to offer you some assistance with that task.
1 WHAT should be the MAIN topic of conversation?
2 WHO should give WHICH concessions to WHOM and WHY? etc.,

I already responded on Taheri, so what are you asking for?

re:Excuses

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-03-28 12:51.

So,finally,you're back.Answers,please.

Kerfuffle

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-03-28 11:15.

I find it interesting to note that kappert hasn't posted again since he started this kerfuffle.Is he worried that -when he does - I might press him for an answer to MY question? Hey,Kappert,would I do that to you? You're damned right I would...

excuses

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-03-28 12:47.

So, finally, the comment in cause begins to excuse itself. That remains me of Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt.

RE: The Palestinian "people" need to be destroyed.

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Fri, 2008-03-28 07:05.

Jules Winnfield (Pulp Fiction): "English, m*therf*cker! Do you speak it?"

Apparently, some commentators on the Brussels Journal have difficulty with even the simplest English, and in the future may do well to preclude themselves from this section of the blog.

Dictionary definitions for the term "people":

1. Persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general

2. Persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group

3. Human beings

4. The persons of any particular group, company, or number

Vincep1974 explicitly called for the destruction of the Palestinian people - not the Palestinian nation, state apparatus, culture, etc. For reasons noted in my prior comment, this is a declaration in favor of their genocide, irrespective of whether or not one considers the Palestinians a viable nation, state, tribe or rock band. He was explicit and clear as Mein Kampf.

Certainly, Vincep1974 can attempt to retract or revise his statement. However, as it stands, it is genocidal. Moreover, it is equally obvious that his or her apologists are defending or re-interpreting his statement for ideological and/or political motives, including support for Israel. Considering that Israelis find genocide evil and that prominent rabbis have voiced opposition to Israeli hardliners' calls for collective punishment for the recent seminary shooting, I find support for Vincep1974 to be ludicrous and shameful.

Sadly # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-03-27 16:04.

@ Vincep1974

1) Unless you clarify further your original statement, you are bound to get more misinterpretations (such as the Kapitein's) of your original intention. After your first - still unsatisfactory - clarification, I interpret your call for "destruction" as a statement of opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state. By destruction of the Palestinian "people" (your original quotation marks) you seem to mean to express opposition to their existence as a 'separate' people, i.e. as distinct from other Arab nations. The logical implication appears to be that you think they (the 'Arabs' in the West Bank and Gaza) should either (a) revert to what they were before, i.e. Jordanians and/or Egyptians, or (b) they should become Israeli citizens. However, as you well know, the latter would be cultural and political suicide for Israel. So one must asssume that you want them to revert to being Jordanians and/or Egyptians.

2) The kapitein is obviously wrong on several counts.

- First, your advocacy was NOT "in clearer and plainer terms than even our friend in Teheran". The latter has repeatedly called for the destruction of the "state" of Israel, and not explicitly for genocidal destruction of all jews. That seems pretty similar to your opposition to a Palestinian state.

- Second, it is nonsense for KA to claim that a Palestinian nation exists under international law. Like many others, mainly European lefties, the Kapitein confuses his political wishes with 'law'.

RE: "Call for their Conquered"

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2008-03-27 06:11.

Vincep1974: I'm not calling for genocide.

Yet you explicitly stated that Palestinians as a people "need to be destroyed".

Would this not entail their physical destruction i.e. genocide/ethnic cleansing?

Vincep1974: I'm calling for Israel to conquer Gaza and the West Bank. The "Palestinian" People have crossed all the normal limits of human tolerance and have forfeited their aspirations for nationhood. They need to be disabused of the notion that they deserve anything more than a square inch.

Were Israel to conquer Gaza and the West Bank in the strict military sense - according to the relevant international conventions and protocols on warfare - the Palestinian nation would continue to exist. Given that Israel and the Palestinian territories effectively constitute a multinational state (at least for the purposes of this discussion), the options to destroy the Palestinian nation are few: (1) "Israelification" or cultural imperialism e.g. cultural and/or religious; (2) using demographic superiority to absorb them genetically i.e. outbreeding them; (3) genocide/ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, the first two axes of advance are impossible. I assume that you are aware of this. Therefore you ARE advocating genocide, albeit in clearer and plainer terms than even our friend in Teheran.

@marcfrans

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-03-27 00:25.

Being the non-confrontational type that I am,maybe I was a tad too lenient with Vincep.Perhaps "totally inappropriate" might best have suited the bill.However,and to be fair to him,at least he finally plucked up the courage to post a response,unlike a certain other individual I could mention.

Sadly

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2008-03-26 23:53.

@ Atlanticist

Labelling Vincep's call (for destruction of the palestinian people) as "unfortunate", is too weak. It deserves at least to be called "unreasonable", and one could think of more appropriate designations that are much worse.

But, viewed from a selfish perspective, i.e. in terms of maintaining our individual freedom and the democratic nature of our societies, we have much more to fear from the frequent calls for censureship and from the widespread ignorance about the realities of the Middle East (both displayed in abundance by Kappert).

@ Vincep1974

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-03-26 19:04.

In which case you chose an unfortunate turn of phrase to express yourself.Furthermore,it's a pity you didn't respond to kappert's post sooner.All that having been said,kappert is the last one able to complain about that.As you are aware,I'm still waiting to hear from him about a different matter.

Call for their Conquered

Submitted by Vincep1974 on Wed, 2008-03-26 16:49.

I'm not calling for genocide.

I'm calling for Israel to conquer Gaza and the West Bank. The "Palestinian" People have crossed all the normal limits of human tolerance and have forfeited their aspirations for nationhood. They need to be disabused of the notion that they deserve anything more than a square inch.

@ KA

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-03-24 22:52.

Thank you for your comment.Allow me to respond to it with the courtesy and candidness I believe it deserves.

1 Do I upport human rights? Yes.

2 Do I consider Vincep's comment to be "a call for genocide,pure and simple"?

Without question..

3 Do I condemn the statement made by Vincep ? Without reservation.

4 Would I ever call for the genocide of ANY people? NEVER.

RE: Vincep1974's Comment: "Palestinians"

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2008-03-24 16:12.

Vincep1974: The Palestinian "people" need to be destroyed.

This is a call for genocide, plain and simple.

@Atlanticist911:

I usually don't wade into your running battles with kappert, but I have to say that if you actually support human rights, then you must condemn the statement without relativistic reference to Ahmadinejad or anyone else.

RE: "Selective Blindness"

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2008-03-24 16:08.

Handlery: ...some human rights advocates do not resent that Hamas rockets Israeli agglomerations. After all, the damage is limited. True. However, is this so on account of not wanting to hurt civilians or because of the primitive hardware? Presumably Israel’s retaliation is classed as immoral because her technology allows for sensitive hits. What will the moralists say once Hamas’ technology improves?

Very incisive. Were Hamas equipped along Hezbollah's lines, especially with its Katyusha rockets, the Israeli death toll would be much higher.

@kappert

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-03-24 13:18.

Well,now YOU know what it's like being at the receiving end of a typical kappert response.

btw: For the record,what is your non evasive answer to my question to you about that Ahmedinejad statement re Israel?

@kappert

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-03-24 12:22.

Which sentence are you referring to,Vincep's or Ahmedinejad's? More to the point, how do YOU interpret BOTH sentences and WHY?

@Atlanticist911

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-03-24 13:07.

You are evasive. I refer to the sentence published on this BJ page.

"The Palestinian "people" need to be destroyed." by Vincep1974.

If kappert would only see Vincep's comment as some sort of non-Persian Ahmedinejad-ism, I'm sure he'd be able to find it in his heart to read more than one meaning into it.

meanings

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-03-22 15:11.

"The Palestinian "people" need to be destroyed."

How many meanings are you giving to this sentence???

Palestinians

Submitted by Vincep1974 on Sat, 2008-03-22 12:35.

The Palestinian "people" need to be destroyed.

@Vincep1974

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-03-22 13:03.

The Editor of BJ should react on this incitement of mass murder.