America slowly confronts the truth

Fisk on the "Israel" question

IMO, Fisk is too optimistic. The basic idea to consider I/P as a tragedy, a conflict between multiple characters - is still out or consideration. In fact, the very notion of a tragedy in classical sense is effectively banned in the US/UK media.

Instead, it is still all about "democracy", "homicidal bombers", "grievances", etc. In fact, Fisk himself talks about "America's injustices towards the Arabs". The problem is, "injustice" is not a tragic notion. Are we supposed to throw rotten eggs at the scene when Desdemona is smeared and killed? I don't think so.

The conclusion is, all we see can be easily explained by managed opposition. In tragic terms, Otello-Iago relationship is still beyond any reasonable discussion and forget about Antonio-Shylock.

Robert Fisk. America slowly confronts the truth

Watching the pathetic, old, lie-on-its-back frightened labrador of the American media changing overnight into a vicious rottweiler is one of the enduring pleasures of society in the United States. I have been experiencing this phenomenon over the past two weeks, as both victim and beneficiary.

George Clooney's production of Good Night, and Good Luck, a devastating black-and-white account of Second World War correspondent Ed Murrow's heroic battle with Senator McCarthy in the 1950s - its theme is the management and crushing of all dissent - has already paid for its production costs twice over.

Yet still they avoid the "Israel" question.

Americans are ready to discuss the United States' relationship with Israel. And America's injustices towards the Arabs. As usual, ordinary Americans are way out in front of their largely tamed press and television reporters. Now we have to wait and see if the media boys and girls will catch up with their own people.

move along folks...this is the usual israel is at fault for all the worlds ills:

The Arab al-Qa'ida operative who persuades the young Pakistani to attack an oil tanker makes no reference to Israel - as every one of bin Laden's acolytes assuredly would. It was instructive that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did not mention Israel once.

hmmm, guess they felt that israel was not at fault for all the attacks on the US...and Mr. Frisk disagrees....

You ought to read this part of the article:
<snip>
George Clooney's production of Good Night, and Good Luck, a devastating black-and-white account of Second World War correspondent Ed Murrow's heroic battle with Senator McCarthy in the 1950s - its theme is the management and crushing of all dissent - has already paid for its production costs twice over. Murrow is played by an actor but McCarthy appears only in real archive footage. Incredibly, a test audience in New York complained that the man "playing" McCarthy was "overacting". Will we say this about Messrs Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld in years to come? I suspect so.<unsnip>

There ARE unreasonable and bigoted comments that people make about Israel, but it is important to distinguish between those sorts of comments and the comments of others who have valid criticisms and who simply want to BE ABLE to talk about the issue. McCarthy would seize on comments out of context; and made slurs against those whose beliefs didn't comport with his understanding of the world. I think that the reaction of many to ANY criticisms of Israel, no matter how valid, also amounts to the crushing of all dissent. It needs to stop.

The truest part of Fisk's article is which I guess had to be omitted because of Section 107 "Fair use".

What is interesting is that Fisk says "It was instructive that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did not mention Israel once." yet ignores the fact that "Roger and Me" was about the personalities and prelude to the problem of "Peak Oil", and that "Fahrenheit 911" bit around the edges of "Peak Oil" in a manner reminiscent of Craig Unger ("House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties")

But when you get past the political geology books the only writer who really calls it right is James Howard Kunstler, "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century" - who says that we are running out of oil, and we are not doing crap. - BTW, I am not as apocalyptic as Jim, and disagree with his chapter 6, and his characterization of techies as "cornucopialists." But there is a lot more in Kunstler's book and web site and the real root cause, core issue in the ME then we SUV driving, transit-fighting, city abandoning, exurbanites want to admit (not us DUers - but "them").

There are two discussion groups on DU where we actually discuss the real, root, core causes of our ME problems--
1. , and

2.

Much better, more mature, more reasoned discussion of the real, core, base issues of the ME - without the flame wars.

To begin with, the nature of Israeli-Muslim conflict is ideological. IMO, what we have is a clash between Zionist and Islamist revolutions.

As for resources, sure, they are involved. However, "ME oil" is a symbol of wealth, an equivalent of gold and jewels of older times. Same with "land" and religious sites, these are mostly symbolic entities.

So, no progress in energy production, distribution and consumption can resolve the ME crisis. It is like trying to locate Holy Grail using modern satellite intelligence.

IMO, Kunster's observation on the viciousness of mega-schools is right. However, this is nothing like real political economical analysis! This is what Krugman does.

Jim Kunstler. Strategies for Survival

that is now killing thousands of jobs in the I-75 "Auto corridor" and Michigan. That was our energy non-policy -- and if you actually read PNAC's you will see that our ME Policy is gas guzzler centric and gas guzzler driven (or is it oil-centric and oil-driven)? Read the link.

One does well to avoid the "Israel question" when discussing other issues. It's like not bringing up gay marriage or abortion (in this country) when you want to talk about the tax system. The real problem is that your foes will bring it up for you, if you don't. The "Israel question" will take care of itself when the broader situation is addressed.

Nevertheless, there is an idea here that is true and relevant, the current debacle in Iraq is waking the public up and drawing their attention to the situation, and aside from the military defeat, financial burden, and diplomatic self-disembowelment resulting from the Bushite policies, that renewed public attention will have political consequences for all of the factions party to the fiasco. The US is not going to be able or willing to support Israel in the manner to which it has been accustomed in the past, and the US' hegemonic control of the Middle East is badly damaged if not destroyed, and this will have profound consequences for Israel, consequences that one may already see in motion. One can see it in the assertiveness of Iran and it's allied powers, in the way the ineffectual bleating from US diplomatic officers is ignored without comment, in the "political earthquake" going on now in Israel.

The Chapter XI of Delphi (primary parts vendor to GM).

Last week's layoff announcement from General Motors.

This week's layoff announcement from Ford.

The long waiting lists for Toyota and Honda hybrids - combined with the ever deeper discounts and rebates from the domestics.

The (partially) gasoline price-drive and gasoline supply certainty-driven flight from full size, American family cars - and the concomitant suffering among America's auto workers (including the even larger but even more quickly sinking) vendor community).

We will never ever again control our own fossil fuel destiny. And it is not Israel's fault - Katrina and Rita were wake up calls -- the war in Iraq is a wake up call -- the collapse of the American Gas Guzzler industry is a wake up call ---- wake up and read James Howard Kunstler, "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century" --

Better yet, wean yourself of the simplistic solution of the I/P forum -- and click on over to--

*

*

The resources are here on DU.

I would start with the Democrat controlled Congress under Jimmy Carter, which refused to do anything about the problem, way back then, when Jimmy and the American public were both up for the change.

<One does well to avoid the "Israel question" when discussing other issues.>

US foreign policy, especially in the ME, is controlled by neocons. No, it is not just tiny PNAC, but wide global movement which certainly includes Israeli factions.

<It's like not bringing up gay marriage or abortion (in this country) when you want to talk about the tax system.>

"Abortion", "Capital punishment", "Gay Rights" and "Guns" are ideological entities which are designed to deflect public attention from anything esle - starting from social issues.

People do get quite worked up about them, and anything that gets you pissed or scared makes a great deflective issue. You will find some who will argue that US policy support of Israel is for the purpose of deflecting Muslim nationalism and attention from the real concern, which is oil. Of course the Israelis don't think of themselves as a deflection, but that does not mean that "thinkers" in the State Department might not.

That is not to say that that is ALL that they are, nor do I mean to assert that they do not deserve discussion in their own right; but if that is not what you want to talk about, then you do well not to bring them up. A substantial part of your audience will never get past what you say on those subjects to any wider issues you were hoping to address. It is very difficult to pursue reasoned debate when in the grip of strong feelings, which is why our "leaders" are so anxious to keep us scared and angry, and therefore stupid and obedient. And for the same reason, if you hope to have a reasoned discussion of the wider issues, you do well not to bring up things that anger or upset your audience, the hot-button issues, except in the most circumspect way. Stick to your subject, in other words, no matter how great the temptation.

I see many excellent articles that lose effectiveness (IMHO) because of a casual paragraph or two lambasting one side of the other in one of these debates, thereby losing a substantial portion of their prospective audience.

While PNAC, NEOCONs, or the US support for Israel are real, they are none of them the driving forces in the historical events now occurring, nor are the NEOCONs particularly interesting as human specimens, and their policies are typical of authoritarian half-wits of all stripes and in all times and places.

<People do get quite worked up about them, and anything that gets you pissed or scared makes a great deflective issue. You will find some who will argue that US policy support of Israel is for the purpose of deflecting Muslim nationalism and attention from the real concern, which is oil. Of course the Israelis don't think of themselves as a deflection, but that does not mean that "thinkers" in the State Department might not.>

What I am taking about is actually discussion framing, please, check Lakoff here.

<While PNAC, NEOCONs, or the US support for Israel are real, they are none of them the driving forces in the historical events now occurring, nor are the NEOCONs particularly interesting as human specimens, and their policies are typical of authoritarian half-wits of all stripes and in all times and places.>

What we have now is war in Iraq which consumes hundreds of biillions and drives energy prices up. But for any war, there is always some ideology that drives it. Now the question is, what is the exact name of this ideology? You've got it - neoconservatism.

What a pleasure to meet you. :hi:

Black dude: I've come to repair your washing machine... I've come to repair your washing machine... I've come to repair your washing machine...
White dude: But I have no washing machine... But I have no washing machine... But I have no washing machine...

dudes