By CAROLINE GLICK, JPOST
In the world of international diplomacy few issues receive more wall-to-wall support than the notion that it is essential to establish a Palestinian state. Leaders worldwide are so busy speaking of how essential it is for a State of Palestine to be founded that none of them seems to have noticed that it already exists.
This state was officially founded in the summer of 2005, when Israel removed its military forces and civilian population from the Gaza Strip and so established the first wholly independent Palestinian state in history. Israel’s destruction of four Israeli communities in Northern Samaria and curtailment of its military operations in the area set the conditions for statehood in that area as well.
And so it is that as statesmen and activists worldwide loudly proclaim their commitment to establishing the sovereign State of Palestine, they miss the fact that Palestine exists. And it is a nightmare.
In the State of Palestine 88 percent of the public feels insecure. Perhaps the other 12 percent are members of the multitude of regular and irregular militias. For in the State of Palestine the ratio of police/militiamen/men-under-arms to civilians is higher than in any other country on earth.
In the State of Palestine, two-year-olds are killed and no one cares. Children are woken up in the middle of the night and murdered in front of their parents. Worshipers in mosques are gunned down by terrorists who attend competing mosques. And no one cares. No international human rights groups publish reports calling for an end to the slaughter. No UN body condemns anyone or sends a fact-finding mission to investigate the murders.
In the State of Palestine, women are stripped naked and forced to march in the streets to humiliate their husbands. Ambulances are stopped on the way to hospitals and wounded are shot in cold blood. Terrorists enter operating rooms in hospitals and unplug patients from life-support machines.
In the State of Palestine, people are kidnapped from their homes in broad daylight and in front of the television cameras. This is the case because the kidnappers themselves are cameramen. Indeed, their commanders often run television stations. And because terror commanders run television stations in the State of Palestine, it should not be surprising that they bomb the competition’s television stations.
SO IT WAS that last week, terrorists from this group or that group bombed Al Arabiya television station in Gaza. And so it is that Hamas attacks Fatah radio announcers and closes down their radio station claiming that they use their microphones to incite murder. Because indeed, they are inciting murder. What would one expect for terrorists to do when placed in charge of a radio station?
And so it is that in the State of Palestine, journalists – whether members of terror groups or not – are part of the 88 percent of their public who are afraid. Sunday they protested outside the offices of one terror faction or another that controls the Palestinian Authority. CONTINUE
Randy, this debate now comes down to the short strokes, which to my mind comes down to several issues:
1. We are not really saying the same things about self interest vs. collective interest. You draw a distinction between the two as if one morphs into the other. I do not.
I see nations recognizing that they can better further their self interest, by working in concert with other nations that share a specific common interest. It is the power of numbers of the union or collective pursuing a particular common interest or goal that increases the likelihood of each individual state member of that collective to achieve their self interest.
2. Regarding political and economic unions that you mention, I already noted that globalization has in the main been driven in the main by economic considerations. Such economic unions however do in limited fashion necessarily have to adjust their politics in support of the economic rational for that union. Such economic unions are primarily not political unions, though they may bring their politics into conformity with one another to better advance their primary raison d’etre.
There are of course instances of purely political unions which typically are in the nature of strategic alliances based on military or security considerations. These alliances do not need to have economic features, but doubtless some alliance parties may seize such strategic political/military alliance as an opportunity to further economic interests.
3. You claim that I refuse to identify the enemy that you identify as this powerful group of elitist powerbrokers. You also have taken issue with my saying that the more practically targeted enemy is Islamic radicalism and other Muslim forces that weigh against the West. This is really just one issue.
First it is necessary to identify whom this powerful elite is an enemy of. From the context of the comments, I have assumed you mean they are enemies of Israel.
I want to make clear that I am not refusing to acknowledge that there are some powerful political and economic voices that seek to influence political choices amongst Western leaders and indeed influence those Western leaders to align more with the Muslim Middle East then with Israel.
Of course there are such persons and they have had some measure of success on some issues, modedst success with others and have failed completely in other respects.
4. I think the fundamental difference we have is that you are confusing cause and effect.
The root cause of Israel’s difficulties with the West, apart from anti-Semitism is the strength of the Arab oil producing states that derives from Western dependence on Arab oil and the Muslim world using that strength to great advantage against the West including using the West’s fear of hardship should the world oil economy be destabilized. Though it seems Israel bears the brunt of this Arab strength that manipulates the West, the West suffers greatly and actually has lost much because of it.
The effect of that Arab/Muslim strength wielded against the West has produced the effect that the West has sought to protect its own interests by seeking to keep the Arab oil producing nations and the Muslim world behind them happy. That has resulted in Western policies of appeasement including some nations in varying degrees trying to sell Israel down the river. A number of these powerful elitists have contributed to pushing the West towards appeasement and to compromising Israel to please the Muslim world.
Even though you have noted as I did that the powerful elitists have worked out in the open as well as behind the scenes, they, like the Western nations, sickeningly squeamish of war are really the effect.
To make a case to garner support from Western nations to go after these influence peddlers as enemies, is in fact to an extent asking Western nations to declare some of their leaders or advisors enemies of the state. Further, even if you have sufficient evidence to make a strong case before the public that these elite powerbrokers are enemies, it is a complex case to make. From all your talk about these elitists comprising a conspiracy, that only adds to the risk that such case would be dismissed as being the stuff of conspiracy theorists.
Western leaders have been trying to convince their citizens that there are only a few bad Muslims and the rest are good in an effort to avoid saying or doing anything that might give their Western citizens reason to say or do anything that could anger the Muslim world.
In spite of those efforts, with each passing day of Muslim inhumane and brutal terrorism and the lessening credibility of Muslim apologists for terrorism speaking out, increasing numbers of Westerners are opening their eyes to realities.
I only suggested as practical matter, it is far easier to convince Westerners that their real enemies are those in the Muslim world who breed Western fears to leverage Western appeasement that only enables and empowers the Muslim world and weakens and harms the West.
Destroy the cause and the effect will fall.
Bill,
I can appreciate the pragmatism of you thinking and do not disagree with many of your observations. The main difference in our views is in part due to additional observations that I embrace which either you are unaware of or do not adhere to.
I would like to address some of what you wrote, I will block-quote your comments:
But that is what I am saying – self interest are being absorbed into the collective so that they become one of the same. Self interest still exist but there is a consolidation of power to bring them about.
In economics huge mergers take place which destroy or absorb many smaller businesses. Global politics works the same way. What is happening (and I’m getting ready to coin a new term here) is we now have “corporate politics.†What I am saying is that for nations to further their interest they are merging their politics and creating somewhat of a international monopoly of power in an attempt to put weaker nations out of business or absorb them. There does not have to be a single central government for this to happen if the nations which consolidate collectively become large enough to act as a single force.
If they then decide Israel is committing acts of aggression in the West Bank they can resolve to take action in a way like NATO was used against the Serbs. It is not like there is no precedent for this.
Right, but does this not hold true to political unions as well as economical unions?
And therein lies the difference in our perspectives. I identify an enemy that you do not. I know who they are. I know what they are doing. Lastly, I judge them not by what they do in secret but by what they do openly.
You see the enemy as the Arab oil producing nations, I do also, but may I ask, what power would they have without a capitulator to manipulate? Therefore, the former is no less a threat than the latter.
And, this last comment of yours is where we differ the most:
Whatever they do in secret we cannot see but to be of any effect it must be manifest openly. Therefore what is done publicly we can see, affirm, and judge. They must seek to implement their policies and that they cannot do in secret. Therefore their goals and agenda are commonly known and displayed in places such as the UN, CFR meetings, and every day in the NYT, Washington Times, BBC, AP, Reuters, etc.
There is no lack of evidence for it is on open display before the world, the only lack is of eyes that are willing to behold it.
Today’s example of “corporate politics:â€
https://www.israpundit.org/2006/?p=3898#comments
Randy, our disagreements are not found in the generalities of globalization, but in the particular.
1. Globalization has been the trend primarily in the economic sphere, especially in latter part of the 20th century. Regional economic unions amongst nations have seen economic associations in Africa, South and North America and Europe. Such integrations or unions are primarily economic based, though the politics of individual nation states are changed to an extent. In the case of the European Union, political integration appears to be more part of that union than the other more economic based unions in the world.
2. Self interest has not given way to collective interest. Rather nations have come to see that some aspects of national self interest, primarily economical can be better achieved by being part of a collective of nations, which focus less on competing amongst themselves and instead combining their regional economic strength to compete with other nations or regional collectives.
3. Though each nation state that has joined an economic regional union has given up some of their individuality and freedom of action to advance their own self interests through the collective or regional union, it is abundantly clear that they only gave up just enough to become part of collective and derive the benefit from such association. Each member state of a regional union has in the main retained their own national character, culture, pride, individuality, sovereignty and dreams.
4 Though some speak of a new world order as ultimately being realized in a world government of all nations (which I think so far is just pie in the sky), most speak about the lessening importance of nation states and the increasing importance of economic unions of nation states that, it is believed become much stronger and effective to compete in the world marketplace when they combine their economies, energies and resources. The expectation is that each member nation of such regional union will fare better being part of the union then going it alone.
Those expectations have been met in a number of ways, though I suspect it partly would be akin to a self fulfilling prophecy. By so many nations joining regional economic unions or collectives as you prefer, to compete economically on the world stage, any nation that sought to make it on their own would find the dynamics of competition stacked against them.
4. The divide between our respective views seems to be with respect to the negative attitudes and policies of many Western nations as regards Israel, which you attribute to a conspiracy of powerful global elitists and I explain it differently.
A conspiracy is a word usually associated with a nefarious or evil purpose. It takes two or more persons who share the same goals, who believe that their individual interests will be served if those goals are achieved, who believe they can be better achieved if they act in concert and not alone and who can put aside all other things that divide them and agree on a common agenda to achieve those goals.
In the U.S., both Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats/Liberals have the same broad goals for America’s best interests. Where they cannot agree, is on an agenda to reach those goals, so each offers a different path. That same lack of agreement on a common agenda to reach shared goals and interests is also evident as regards the West’s attitudes and policies vis a vis Israel.
The collective EU generally is negative towards Israel and see their well being largely dependent on Arab oil. In spite of each member state’s susceptibility to Arab pressures to stand against Israel, you find on an individual state basis, varying degrees of anti-Israel positions. France is an anti-Israel and some would say anti-Semitic nation ever since De Gaul after 1967 cast France’s lot wholly in with the Arabs against Israel. Other nations, though they may vote against Israel at the U.N., still advocate for Israel to live, more than for Israel to die. Of course those European nations that do advocate for Israel to live, are making it very difficult for Israel to do that.
America’s policies vis a vis Israel are in a number of respects conflicted. America is a staunch supporter of Israel in word and deed, but other American words, deeds and policies have been condemned as undermining America’s self avowed support for Israel and in the process undermining Israel.
What one gets from this is that what Western nations do have in common is their need and greed for Arab oil, their fears at the consequences of what will happen to them if that oil supply is compromised or cut off by reactionary angry Arab oil producers and a common will to keep Arabs and the Muslim world from reaching that critical anger point where Western interests will be compromised.
Many of the powerbroker elites you allege are conspiring against Israel are leaders in these various Arab oil dependent nations. In spite of the individual writings and public statements of many, there appears to be no clear uniform anti-Israel agenda of America, European and other states. That is not to say that positions taken by many such states are hurting Israel and that it appears on a number of issues, such for example the litany of anti-Israel U.N. politicized pro-Palestinian initiated resolutions, they vote with the OIC against Israel. These resolutions however do not have the force of law, but voting for such resolutions would at the very least make the Muslim world very happy.
Randy, there is much we can agree on about globalization, however globalization did not come about because of Israel and Israel has not been what has sustained globalization. Israel has like other nations been impacted in some ways by globalization including having to face attitudes and policies shaped by regional interests and in particular those regional attitudes and policies that have been shaped by the power of Arab oil.
Finally there is another reason I prefer my view to yours.
If one is to fight an enemy, one must be able to identify that enemy. It is difficult to know just who the real enemies of Israel are if they are elitist conspirators, some known, some suspected and some not known at all, who conduct much of their business in secret behind the scenes. If they indeed are conspirators against Israel as you allege, because so much of what they do is behind the scenes, one does not know precisely what they are conspiring to do against Israel and how they plan on doing it.
My view more specifically identifies the enemy of Israel as being Arab oil producing nations, Israel’s hostile hate filled neighbors and radical Islam. To the extent the West is being assaulted and assailed by radical Islam the West has a common enemy with Israel.
The Arab oil producers have used their oil strength to extract concessions from the West to favor the Muslim world, including Western stances against Israel. Many of these concessions are clearly not just submissive acts of appeasement, but humiliating submissive acts of appeasement.
In this regard, the Arab oil producers are enemies of the West as they continue to take advantage of the West’s fears of being cut off from their precious oil and get the West to cut off pieces of its own culture, power and pride and thereby empower the Muslim world.
Without proof positive, to try to gain support to fight against an alleged group of powerful elite conspirators who allegedly plot, much in secret and behind the scenes, their dastardly evil agenda to bring about Israel’s destruction, I think such efforts would be tossed aside as coming from frantic people caught up in delusional conspiracy theories.
It is I think far easier to try to open Western eyes to see that their enemy is really Israel’s Muslim enemies, be they radical Islam or hostile hate filled Arab and Muslim neighbors, that their enemy is there standing right there in front of them and clearly identifiable, and that enemy in all its guises, needs to be put down if the West is to regain so much of what it has lost including its pride.
Bill,
No doubt you are correct about what you term as “Muslim conspirator nations” and I agree with all of that. Where we disagree is on the extent of convergence of western powers with other nations into formation of an international system of controls.
You have used the word “interest” liberally in your most recent comments to explain what drives nations foreign policies. While, you are correct to point out that nations work towards what they perceive to be their best interest, what I am emphasizing is that as globalization takes place self-interest is giving way to collective-interest.
This “collective interest†is at the heart of the “conspiracy†to establish a global enforcement mechanism for international consensus. So then, what we have been loosely terming as an international conspiracy is actually the waning power of the nation-state giving way to the collective power of international consensus and collective interest.
Much of the anti-Americanism around the world today is a direct result of US resistance to certain aspects of global control. The US is seen as the world bully in many societies and to make nice a number of US power brokers are willing to surrender some power and sovereignty; they are also willing to capitulate to hostile and even rogue countries to try and make this all mesh.
The World Court for example which a few days ago took the step to open for its first trail has been vehemently opposed by the US, but 104 nations have signed on to it and support for it is growing. To form global consensus leftist politicians support the idea of the International Criminal Court (ICC), therefore there is the possibility that the US will recognize the court in the not to distant future.
Bill, in light of what you wrote about the Muslim conspiracy I do not see it far fetched that as nations develop their collective interest Israel will be ostracized even further.
Consider for a moment one particular aspect common among internationalists: They see Israel as an obstacle.
Globalization of economics and resources has brought us to a point that elitists are trying to figure out how to consolidate the world’s people and resources for management. The Arabs are a bigger problem than Israel for convergence into the international community, but the world needs the oil and also hopes that the answer to controlling the Islamic populations can be found by coming to agreement with these Muslim countries. Ultimately the sacrifice of Israel will been seen as the most expedient and simple solution.
One more thing Bill, You believe the Islamic radicals when they say they want to eliminate Israel, Why don’t you believe the elitists who say openly that we need global government and it is coming?
Here are a few examples – I could do this all day – do their words mean nothing???
Randy, one further point.
Though Western attitudes and policies are similarly shaped by their self interest as regards the world oil economy and the Middle East, there are some distinct differences that are readily apparent when for example comparing America and France as regards their attitudes and policies towards Israel.
It is only the natural outcome of interests in common that have led Westerners to have similar agendas, but that agenda is to ensure their relationships with the Muslim world and in particular the Middle Eastern Arab oil producing nations remain good so as to avoid any prejudicial backlash.
While I do not see a real conspiracy amongst Westerners as regards their position vis a vis Israel, there is most definitely a conspiracy at work. That conspiracy is comprised of many Muslim nations around the world, especially Israel’s Arab/Muslim neighbors in the Middle East and particularly the Arab oil producing nations that lead that conspiracy.
Arab oil producing nations obviously work in concert for their mutual economic benefit, but that is not part of the conspiracy.
These Muslim conspirator nations are keenly aware of the West’s dependence on their oil and fear that their oil life line could be impaired or cut if these Muslim conspirators do not get their way.
These Muslim conspirators take full advantage of the West’s fears to make certain political demands upon the West to gain as much support as they can for the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian agenda to weaken Israel and ultimately bring about its destruction.
This conspiracy that transcends national borders has also worked to soften Western resistance to Muslim demands for Western nations to grant Western Muslims special privileges and rights for instance.
Randy, there is no exactitude or clarity in your comment that a conspiracy (even in the loosest sense of the word) of political, business, and media globalists working to the same end or as some say, a New World Order is exactly the way it is.
You speak of parties to this global political structure being in conflict and that in time, some parties will fall and others will take control and the winners will stamp such global structure with its seemingly distinct personality.
There are of course efforts by the major and strongest developed nations to find better ways to work and live together for mutual benefit including finding common ground to stand together to avoid hostile conflict and to better the lot of the less fortunate nations and citizens of the world.
There is little doubt that there is as much, if not more going on behind the scenes as we see happening out in the open as regards various international economic, health, and even political conferences.
You say that this powerful coterie of globalists:
You point to shared views of political opposites as regards Carter and Baker and assume from that, without gong any further that Carter and Baker share the same world vision, America’s role in it and what policies America must have in order to contribute with other powerful globalists to achieve that common world vision. As regards Carter and Baker, they may share common perceptions as regards Israel or what America’s best interests may be in the Middle East, but I highly doubt they share a common vision of much else, let alone of a new world and how best to achieve that.
You then rightly point to a power struggle between powerful and influential globalists. Again we see these conflicts and power struggles being played out on the world public stage and as I noted earlier, doubtless as much, if not more conflict and efforts to find some level of comfort between competing and conflicting national and world regional interests are going on behind the scenes.
The evidence is against believing that the powerful nations, global business leaders and global powerbrokers are conspiring in any sense of the word to bring about a new world order, unless it is trying to find some kind of idealistic world utopia where everyone is healthy and happy and all causes and sources of human misery will be a thing of the past.
The evidence is there however that political, business and media globalists do share some interests in common. That commonality is no more evident then in matters pertaining to the global economy and specifically to the world oil based economy.
As I earlier contended, one must first look to self interest to find answers to the question why.
It is in the interests of every developed industrial nation to assure domestic political, economic and social stability by assuring there is a reliable supply of affordable oil to allow business to run and for citizens to operate their cars and heat their homes in winter.
Nowhere does that confluence of common interest find expression more than in the shaping of Western attitudes and policies vis a vis the Middle East.
There you go, that is exactly how it is. This is what some of us have been saying; There are many organizations and people of great power and influence who work to the same end because they have a shared mind-set of how the world should be. Some of them don’t even like each other and are on different ends of the political spectrum. For example, you have liberals like Carter and conservatives like James Baker who are both CFR and both in favor of internationalization. Bush’s father was big on the idea of the New World Order and this is well documented. The friction you see between right and left in the higher echelons of power at the international level is merely a power struggle between globalist who are competing for their vision of how this global society should look and how it should be run.
The basic foundation of a global political structure already exists but it is in the process of development and there contention and strife among the parties vying for power.This will all become much clearer in the coming years as some parties in contention for power fall and the system of global controls begins to establish its personality.
Obviously conspirators will seek to further their objectives or agenda if you will, by actively drawing like minded people to join their ranks.
I have difficulty with the notion that there is a conspiracy amongst Western politicians, influential business leaders and various media organizations, except perhaps in a very loose sense of that word.
As I have noted before, I look first to what self interests are being pursued and by whom. In such cases one finds that the party seeking to advance their self interest will try to do so at least cost to themselves and if they can, get some weaker party to bear the brunt of that expense of realizing their self interest.
There obviously can be independent and even adversarial parties, within one level or many levels of society that may combine as allies in the pursuit of their respective self interests because the way to fulfill each of their interests lies along the same path. In speaking of conspiracy, I presume you meant something along these lines.
The majority of Canadians generally speaking are aligned along a political and socially conscious spectrum from liberal to left wing. Are they part of a conspiracy or the product of too many Liberal governments that have shaped their thinking by various small liberal, socialist and multicultural policies?
The same question can be asked about Europeans who seem to reflect the same majority social and political leanings as Canadians.
And what about the surge in socially conscious, liberal and leftist thinking, including angry strident advocacy in America since America’s psyche was so battered and bruised by their Viet Nam experience and now that it is being battered and bruised again over Iraq?
I could go on, but I am saying things cannot be so simply stated as you have sought to do by offering me an answer that logically follows, but follows from a questionable and uncertain assumption.
Assume for a moment that there is a conspiracy or movement, whould it not be served by hiring liberal journalists and editors. Ergo if there are 90% liberal journalists, ( studies have shown this) then is that not evidence of an agenda.
Don’t forget to read this
Bilderberg
Its not so secret.
Ted,
I do not know that I asked a question and if I did, just which question you are responding to, so I can’t say whether you have answered my question.
Without knowing whether 90% of journalists are liberal in their view, it sure does seem that a good majority are. Logic says it is certainly no accident. I frankly do not know why that is so, but I have some pretty fair guesses which probably accord with your thinking.
What I have continued to harp away at however in one way or another is to not only dig deep for answers, but then do something with the answers one finds to better challenge any specific objectionable majority liberal view and turn the public to your side. As we well know, this is anything but easy to do.
I put another question to you Ted.
Are you, me, Randy, Nathan and many others really the ones out of touch with reality and are just too arrogant and enamoured with our own perceptions to see that the liberals have the firmer grasp on reality and that is why they form the majority view? Perish that thought.
I hope it never comes down to the proverbial example of one sane person being trapped forever in a madhouse of the insane who see things pretty much the same way. In such case, just who is the insane one? I hate to say everything is relative, but the answer to that question demands a relativistic perspective.
Is it by accident or design that 90% of all journalists are liberals?
Bill, does this answer your question.
Randy, my point is that Israelis are necessarily very much aware of the demands and pressures put upon them by the international community. Israel has always been forced to stickhandle through all of that. Sometimes and many would say far too often Israel concedes to some of those pressures. They may have done so because that was the reality Israel had to contend with and could not avoid. In other situations, opportunities arise or circumstances come to the fore that enable Israel to only partially concede to pressures or avoid the pressure altogether. In yet other circumstances Israeli decisions and policies seem to be more the product of inept leaders.
It is not fair however to say that just because Israeli policies and perceptions are shaped or bent to recognize or conform to certain realities as regards international will and pressures means that Israelis look to the international community for their answers as to how best to advance Israel’s own self interests.
Bill,
Many Israelis are aware, but as evidence that many do desire to conform to international consensus I offer Olmert and all the leftist MKs who are always seeking capitulation to the international community. These people would have no power if there was not a level of public support.
I do believe that things are beginning to shift in the right direction but we aren’t there yet.
Randy, I wholeheartedly agree that
Nice phrasing.
I would only add that if we were all cookie cutter questers, we would never see beyond our noses.
Nathan,
I thought that what I said in post #6 was rather a conventional, mundane and non-controversial observation. From your very colorful and graphic analogy, which I enjoyed reading by the way and Randy’s comment, I must have thought wrong.
Part of my answer to your post is in my post #9 to Randy. I guess you are one of the people whose patience I am wearing thin.
To respond specifically to a few of your points.
I do not quite get what you mean when you say the media is not free. Are you suggesting they are trapped by their biases or that the writers and opinion makers voice the views of the mega media corporations that sign their paychecks? The media, like individuals have their biases, some more and some less. Please define exactly what you mean by this point.
I do not get your point that the whole point is that the media’s reality is different. I presume you mean different from the reality of you, me and many others who frequent and contribute to this blog. I do not necessarily agree. Again it depends on what you mean by that.
The media giants or for that matter some Western governments may know reality as well as you and I, but they do not like where that reality is taking them. On certain matters they may have an objective to create a reality in keeping with the way they want things to be to better serve their own interests. In order to achieve that, convincing the public to not see what is before them, but what they need the public to see in order to gain support moving to a changed new reality, is not a shocking idea. It has been done before with varying success over varying periods of time.
So what? What I am pointing out to you Nathan is that you have stated your position in the form of generalities. Unless you tether that generality to some specific matter, it is difficult to understand what you are getting at.
As for your quoting Randy’s views, I have written frequently about my puzzlement as to why the Israeli public was not fed up with Olmert, Peretz and Livni long ago to demand their heads. Sometimes I think I might be close to the answer and sometimes not. Randy generally expresses the same sentiments and frustrations.
I do not however agree with Randy’s views holus bolus that you extracted for my attention. I therefore do not agree with your concurrence with Randy as regards the following:
Israeli politicians and citizens are keenly aware of the pressures that America and the international community push upon them, but that is hardly reason to conclude as Randy and you have with such certainty that they look to the international community for answers and approval. I am frankly surprised Randy would have said such a thing and that you would have agreed with him. We will just have to agree to disagree, but c’est la vie!
Bill, your comments are helpful, even if I do not always agree on every point. They are always meticulous and throughly thought through so I would never criticize your methods. It is how you are wired and it works for good being that it slows the rest of us down and causes us to think and support what we say.
Even when it doesn’t change our view it makes us look deeper and helps us to better understand ourselves what we believe to be the case. If you have the body and the perpetrator, and then you are also able to understand the motive you can really make your case solid. Your challenges are fair and constructive being that we are all on a quest to see through the thick fog in our world today.
Randy, you are right that I am not content to just know what. I want to know why.
Your example of a person found with a knife in their back is pretty solid evidence of foul play is right, but it does not explain the whys which include motives.
I have difficulty with explanations, especially of complex matters that rely too much on labels, such as left or right wing, elitists, ruling elites and influential people suspected of being behind the scenes global powerbrokers. For example the wall of secrecy around Bilderburg Group is as reknowned as the mystique, suspicions, gossip and and conspiracy theories swirling around that wall of silence.
I am not saying such people or groups have no influence on the course of current events and history. I think however that it takes more than just a label to explain current events. Sometimes what we find is that the simple label explanation did explain everything, but that is not always the case. That is why I try to dig deeper.
I assume first and foremost that the vast majority of people are motivated to do what they do out of their perceptions of their own self interest. I also assume that there will be a certain rationale including a certain logic behind what people do in order to advance their perception of their self interest. That logic and reason may not be entirely reality based for example when people act to a greater or lesser extent on what they want to believe rather than what is. Sometimes that rationale springs from a mind insanely driven.
For me grasping the what is just the first small step in what can often be a very long and difficult journey to understand the why, but for me it is usually rewarding process. It seems however that my process can become quite tedious and wear on the patience of others as I try to get them to join me in my quest for the answers to why.
Bill,
If the mainstream media were truly free we would expect to a massively diverse set of differing opinions and viewpoints on news and current affairs. We would also expect to see the various media corporations virulently attacking,ridiculing and debunking each other whilst expressing these vastly differing viewpoints.
But we do not see any of that! Bill, you mentioned “logic” and “reason” is is “abandoned” in their viewpoints regarding Islamist terrorist groups and the Palestinian Arabs. Of course to us – the mere humble “masses” – their views are illogical, suicidal and bear little semblance to reality.
But their reality is different, Bill. That is the whole point!
Let’s assume for the moment a hypothetical scenario: let’s say the White House was being repainted. Let’s assume for the moment the President secretly wants the color to be bright pink – a rather silly choice for the Presidential offices – but that the media has been blaring for the last few months that the President has chosen a rather dull, off-white color.
The media announce that the Presiden’t decision is final and that the paint job will be completed in just over 2 weeks.
One morning, a little over 2 weeks later, you switch on the TV and the first station you switch on is MSNBC. They report that the color the President has chosen is “off white” and “very appropriate for the White House” and that the paint job is now complete. Matt Lauer says: “Let’s cross over live to the White house now”.
You can see with your own eyes that the color is bright pink. You blink several times and close and re-open your eyes several times, but still, right there in front of you is the color, bright pink!
You switch to CBS and they say that the color of the paint is “beige white”. You switch to ABC and they say that the “White House looks really nice after its creamy white paint job”.
You begin to think your TV set is faulty or that you are suddenly going color blind. So you go to your next door neighbor’s house and you ask him to switch on the TV and there right in front of your own eyes, this time on CNN, you see that the color of the White House is still bright pink.
The reporter says: “the President’s decorator is being widely criticized today by the newly formed Painters & Decorators Guild of America for choosing such a bland, boringly coventional matt-white color for the White House”.
You know that your next door neighbor just purchased a brand new US$5,000 Plasma TV, so its obvious that your TV isn’t faulty.
You pick up a copy of the Washington Post and they say right there on the front page under the headline “President’s decorator embroiled in White House paint job controversy” that the color is a really “dull satin white” and that it “simply doesn’t do justice to the White House’s exterior”.
You pick up a copy of the New York Times and they call the new color scheme for the White House “a bland off-white color”.
What is going on, you wonder? Am I suddenly going color blind? You go to the nearest opthalmologist and ask to have an eye examination. The opthalmologist say your eyes are perfectly normal apart from minor long sightedness.You keep silent about what you saw with your own eayes earlier that morning fearing that the eye doctor may think you are a “conspiracy nut”.
You decide to take a trip to the White House to see for yourself. Tou stand in utter amazement at Pennsylvania Avenue and there in all its (former) glory, stands the White House: bright pink in color!
You are utterly amazed and stunned at how much brighter it is in “real life” than the way you saw it on TV at your neighbour’s house earlier that morning!
Some people walk right by you on Pennsylvania Avenue. You see one young gentleman dressed in an expensive-looking pin-stripe designer-label suit. He appears to be in his mid-30’s. He looks physically fit and doesn’t wear glasses.
You say in a somewhat embarrassed tone of voice: “Excuse me sir,have you read the papers today or watched the news on TV?”
He replies:“Nope. I haven’t had time I was running late for work, and besides, I don’t trust the bastards to give me the facts most of the time”
You continue: “Sir, I hope this doesn’t sound silly but…er…I was just wondering. it looks as if I may be going color blind or something.What color is the White House now? Is it still white or…?”
The gentleman looks at you briefly,frowns a little, turns and looks in the direction of the White House: “Why it’s a goddamned bright fluorescent pink color of course! Anyone with half-decent eyesight can see that!!”
You nervously retort: “But, I…I guess those news people must be color blind or something, right?!”
The young man replies: “I guess so! Look, I’m in a rush so if you don’t mind I have to go. Good day to you, sir”. He quickly walks off, while giving you a funny look, as if you were an absolute moron.
You stand there in utter bewilderment and amazement and think to yourself: Why are they all lying? Who is behind all this? Is this a conspiracy? You hope you are just having a nightmare. You know, like the stuff from the 1960’s show, “The Twilight Zone”.
Bill, let me leave you with a quote by one of our most well known contributors here on Israpundit.
Hopefully it will explain – at least partially -most of your questions on the illogical, suicidal behavior of Israeli politicians.
https://www.israpundit.org/2006/?p=3655
Bill,
If you find a body with a knife stuck in the back you can pretty well determine foul play even if you have no motive. If you can understand the motive it may lead you to the perpetrator, however, sometimes you know the perpetrator and must determine the motive.
Such is the case with the MSM and the world elitists power brokers. We know what they are doing because they do it right before us. There is no doubt that they skew information but if we want to understand why it is up to us to find out.
For example, in the case of Serbia I know what they did just as if I had found that body with the knife in it, but I do not fully understand why Serbia was more in conflict with their agenda than the KLA so that they would side with the Albanian Muslims and KLA. Was it oil, Arab appeasement, or Russia? I can presume but I really can’t pin the motive down with great detail and absolute certainty – but that does not take away from what can be confirmed as having happened.
Thus, for persons who are logical and rational it may be difficult trying to explain why reason and logic are abandoned by the majority of the Western MSM and by Western leaders including the GOI. It is sometimes difficult for the logical to understand the irrational.
Bill, one thing I have noticed in your comments is that it is not enough for you to know what happened but you seem to have a need to understand the motives. I can’t criticize that, there is nothing wrong with it and it is probably a good thing. I try to understand motives also but when there is a body along with a perpetrator the motive matters less to me than these.
I would only offer the following motives. The elitists including those in the MSM are selfish people who care only about the world in as much as it effects their lives. This would explain why they would rather have 26 million people remain under a murderous dictator like Saddam rather than have him removed. They believe that the adverse effects of overthrowing him may somehow touch them in their comfort zone and so would rather have him contained as long as adversity doesn’t enter their realm. They know the executions will continue, but it is a sacrifice they can live with.
Their motive is to live in and control their own insulated world and if they must sacrifice others on the outside, or appease others on the outside to keep them from entering in then so be it.
Maybe they crave an authoritarian global society for this reason, it makes them feel secure in their place even if others suffer the loss of freedom, liberty and power.
This take and focus on the brutality of Palestinian society or state as Caroline Glick puts it has been variously expressed in pro-Israel and conservative web blogs.
The savagery of Palestinian society however has also been dealt with by most other Western main stream media of all political leanings.
What divides the minority conservative media as typified by writers such as Glick and the liberal or leftwing media which comprises a substantial majority view, when it comes to reporting on Palestinians is a matter of focus, emphasis, context and allusions to causation.
While the majority MSM will report, usually in a perfunctory way, ignoring or glossing over details on some specific brutal event in Palestinian society, it is done without linkage to other aspects of Palestinian dysfunction that finds expression in violence and inhumane savagery. There is usually no effort made to characterize Palestinian society as a whole by virtue of whatever violent or ugliness is reported on.
In so many of the majority MSM reports on some aspect of Palestinian violent chaos and misery, there appears so often, woven into the report or as a concluding comment, what should be a jarring non-sequitor about Palestinian and world aspirations for a peaceful solution being found with an independent Palestinian state coming into existence. Such majority MSM reports will also weave in or conclude with some suggestion, express or implied that it is somehow Israel’s fault for Palestinian society to be as violent and dysfunctional as it is or alternatively not assign blame, but rather dole out wads of sympathy for the miserable existence that is the Palestinians lot with an expression of hope for the future.
The majority MSM does not see Gaza as a Palestinian state, but rather one sector of Palestinian society that must be connected with the Palestinians of the West Bank and the land it comprises in order for a Palestinian state to come into fruition. Again, it is a matter of context, focus and emphasis.
As has been repeatedly noted with contempt, the current GOI expresses that very same thinking.
Characterizing the majority MSM as being anti-Israel and anti-American or that there is a group of elite world powerbrokers, be they called the Bilderburg Group or others does not help to explain why reason and logic are abandoned by the majority of the Western MSM and by Western leaders including the GOI and for that matter past GOI’s, when it comes to seeing the Palestinians for whom they are and what they really want.
One thing that might explain this flight from reality is if one attributes to the majority MSM, Western leaders and background powerbrokers an objectively and viscerally arrived at sense, defined or not that without Arab oil at affordable prices the West will suffer far more harm than it will from Islamic radicalism. From there is is believed that in order to keep that oil affordable, Palestinians will have to get what they say they want, an independent state which of course is different from the concept of the independent state the West forsees.
Regardless of the kind of independent state is being sought by either the West or the Palestinians, the Palestinians have virtually indisputably proven they are incapable of having their own state in any circumstances and that it has also been virtually indisputably proven is that regardless of the kind of independent Palestinian state is being sought, it would would result in Israel being put on life support or being sacrificed altogether.
Such explanation that has been offered before however leaves yet another conundrum to ponder.
Why are these Olmert and past GOI’s also abandoning logic and reason to not only advocate for, but also contribute support and money to the Palestinians to achieve an independent state, which can only mean at best that Israel is at serious risk of disaster and at worst an unmitigated deadly disaster would be virtually assured?
Answering that Olmert and company are liberal left in their thinking and so are easily taken in by such twilight zone illogic and irrationality just does not wash, for it fails to explain the thinking of past Israeli administrations and why street wise Israelis cannot see the forest for the trees.
Stupidity is not merely the lack of intelligence, in its worse state it is intelligence run amuck.
Arrogance is the evidence of ignorance and forms the essence of a fool – albeit, in this case some very powerful and dangerous ones.
You’ve got their number keelie, the greatest atrocities throughout history were not perpetrated by the embicile but by the powerful elitist of the day whose plans went awry.
The elitists (self-professed) are, as they say, too clever by half. And with this cleverness comes blind arrogance.
I’m a great believer in Chaos Theory – call it the butterfly effect if you will.
Remember, it took one bullet from a young fanatic to start two world wars and the deaths of untold millions.
Not only is Carolyn describing Gaza, she is describing what the whole world will look like some day if Islam continues to spread unopposed.
We, the common people of the free world, are caught in the middle between the barbarians and the elitists. Interestingly enough, at the moment they both are more concerned with conquering us than they are concerned with each other.
Fasten your seat belt, we’re in for a bumpy ride.
Ted, you are right on target. So is Randy with his post #5 here where Randy wrote:
The mainstream media is a tool in the hands of the globalist internationalist elite as a propaganda and indoctrination tool (almost the entire mainstream media’s board members belong to Bilderberg & the CFR where they are sworn to secrecy not to divulge major Western government policy plans & decisions concerning the Middle East, Europe and Asia).
The evidence of deliberate systematic lying over so many years, as Randy noted above so clearly, is no mere “coincidence”, “screw up” or “accident”.
Compare how the opposition to the war in Iraq magnifies all negative factors and minimizes successes without let up yet the opposite is true in the war in Israel. No one talks about the reality that Glick so well documents and no one questions the policy of the US to arm the Palestinians or to create a state for them.
How could this be? There is one consistency though. In both cases the press is either anti-US or anti-Israel.
Its the agenda, stupid.