I hate to break it to clint, but one of the best spy tricks is to have two organizations, apparently hate the guts of each other, when in fact they are working together very closely and sharing intelligence. This way, if one organization criticizes the other organization, they raise their credibility without expending much energy. However, when one organization is in a bind, and there is no other help, then some nice complimentary things said by the OTHER organization is a BOON that will save the first organization where nothing else will.

It’s the backup lifeline plan. A very simple 2 step program that requires some time to set up, but can be run more or less with zero maintenance. Chomsky knows the basics of propaganda. So it would be wise for him to criticize a newspaper, and then have that newspaper say something positive about it, and people like Clint will use it as a reason to believe fervently in Chomsky. Quite effective for a low maintenance operation, if I may say so myself.

I am not blind to the fact that the Palestinians are despicable as well and I’ll readily condemn them.

Hey Don, don’t you find it interesting that Clint finds a group of people despicable but he also feels some sympathy and pity for them? Disproportionate to what he feels for Israel, as well.

That is a very nice effect of Chomsky’s propaganda. The best lies are those that the target comes up for himself. Allow the target to make most of the assumptions. Allow the target to believe his beliefs are his own, and not created by my or Chomsky’s manipulations.

When you do that, you can get someone to despise Palestine, but that doesn’t mean you still won’t get from him what you wanted in the first place. Don’t bother trying to convince people Palestinians are perfect, just focus on what is worse.

And yes, I would hope the Palestinians would respect the human rights of the Israelis.

The despicable Palestinians (in Clint’s words) are going to respect the human rights of the pig Jews? Come on. You forget who reads these comments.

It only makes sense that Israel, as the larger, more powerful entity, will be committing more crimes and inflicting more damage (unless we want to continue pretending that Palestinians are just down right evil people who want to kill and Israelis are just normal humans who want to live in peace, blah blah blah).

It is too bad nobody challenged me when I made the original comment, answering Don’s questions to clint, in which I described the above in more or less detail. I had already stated the proposition that the answer to Don’s question is utilitarianism. The belief that Israel can and does kill more people than the terroists. Doesn’t it make sense that Israel, as the larger, more powerful entity, actually will be committing more crimes and inflicting more damage, eh don?

ALmost a mirror of what I said. Predicting people is getting easier and easier. I wish there would be a higher challenge. Here’s the comment where I replied to Don’s question to Clint.
http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/suffer-the-children-part-ii/#comment-7212

I’m looking at a Horowitz article right now called “The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky” where he calls him “devious” “dishonest” a “treacherous intellect” an “instructor” of hate, says he “despises” the nation, claims he’s aiding Bin Laden and Hussein and Communists — all in the first two paragraphs! This guy is a joke and not a respectable or credible source. His comments, which seem to be mostly personal attacks, wouldn’t even be allowed on most blogs.

“Miller carries the story on in the same vein, leading to the standard denouement: at Camp David, Arafat “walked away” from the magnanimous Clinton-Barak offer of peace, and even afterwards refused to join Barak in accepting Clinton’s December 2000 “parameters”, thus proving conclusively that he insists on violence, a depressing truth with which the peace-loving states, the US and Israel, must somehow come to terms.

Turning to actual history, the Camp David proposals divided the West Bank into virtually separated cantons, and could not possibly be accepted by any Palestinian leader. That is evident from a look at the maps that were easily available, but not in the NYT, or apparently anywhere in the US mainstream, perhaps for that reason. After the collapse of these negotiations, Clinton recognised that Arafat’s reservations made sense, as demonstrated by the famous “parameters”, which, though vague, went much further towards a possible settlement — thus undermining the official story, but that’s only logic, therefore as unacceptable as history.”

The Palestinians used these parameters as “the basis for further efforts” at Taba. Eventually, those negotiations were called off by Barak.

Don Quixote,
I am not blind to the fact that the Palestinians are despicable as well and I’ll readily condemn them. However, I believe they are the victims in this drama and, like I said before, what difference does it make if I condemn them. I should be doing something, first and foremost, about the crimes I am responsible for.

More from the article I quoted above…

“That has been clear ever since January 1976, when Syria introduced a resolution to the UN Security Council calling for a two-state settlement. The resolution incorporated the crucial wording of UN 242 — the basic document, all agree. It accorded to Israel the rights of any state in the international system, alongside of a Palestinian state in the territories Israel had conquered in 1967. The resolution was vetoed by the US.”

“Meanwhile the NYT refused — the word is accurate — to publish the fact that through the 1980s, Arafat was calling for negotiations which Israel rejected. The Israeli mainstream press would run headlines about Arafat’s call for direct negotiations with Israel, rejected by Shimon Peres on the basis of his doctrine that Arafat’s PLO “cannot be a partner to negotiations”

“This is only a small fragment of a diplomatic record that is so consistent, and so dramatically clear, that it is impossible to miss — unless one keeps rigidly to the history shaped by those who own it.”

It is undeniable that the Palestinians have sworn to destroy Israel utterly. Oddly, you don’t even mention or acknowledge this. If a man comes to my door with a gun and says he is here to kick me out of my house do I invite him in, sit him at my table, serve him coffee and suggest we talk about it? Heck no, I go get my own gun.

I admit I an unfamiliar with your “history.” Please provide links and evidence of your statement that US/Israel have blocked negotiations. How does your view square with Israel unilaterally giving Gaza to the Palestinians and withdrawing from Lebanon? How does your two-state solution come to terms with the fact that the Arabs already have many states and the vast majority of the territory, while Israel has barely a little sliver of a country?

I respect that you have answered my questions calmly and without name-calling but it is hard to take seriously someone who says the UN is holding Israel’s enemies to anything like the standard that it is holding Israel. You must know that the UN’s condemnation of Israel is disproportionate and its condemnation of its enemies mild at best.

I’m enjoying our exchanges and hope they continue, but I’m at a loss to understand your view. The Palestinians and their allies have made no secret of their desire to destory Israel utterly. They have displayed for the world to see their abuse of prisoners and taken pride in beheadings and torture. They target civilians as their main mode of operation. In short, they do far worse than anything you could possibly accuse Israel of, and brag about it. Yet your entire focus is on condemning Israel and ignoring the acts of their enemies. It’s as if a driver is shooting a gun at other drivers and you want to go after the other drivers for speeding while ignoring the guy with the gun. Israel may, or may not, be doing everything we would want a perfectly civilized nation to do, but its actions so pale in comparison to the actions of its enemies that the focus should be on the enemies, not on Israel.

And, by the way, there is no question that the Palestinians raise their children to kill themselves and civilians as human bombs and there is no question that Israel would quite happily allow their neighbors to live in peace if their neighbors gave up the idea of trying to destroy Israel. That’s not pretend; that’s the truth, and if the Palestinians don’t believe it they should put it to the test by acknowledging Israel’s right to exist and promising not to either rocket attack or bomb Israel again. They don’t have to disarm or give up anything on the ground. They just have to quit attacking Israel and Israel’s right to exist. If Israel does not respond in kind and immediately seek a two-state solution (or, more properly, a one Israeli state-yet one more Arab state solution) I will join in your view of the Israelis. But I’m quite confident that would not happen.

And yes, I would hope the Palestinians would respect the human rights of the Israelis.

The part about the two-state settlement is nonsense. The US/Israel have repeatedly blocked negotiations on this and insisted on agreements where Palestinians would be further put in “cantons” and denied basic resources and rights to the people. Know your history.

I forgot to comment on your alleged Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights. I do not know what specific violations you are referring to, so I cannot comment intelligently on your claim, but I do know that whatever the Israelis are doing pales in comparison to the beheadings, torture, and abuse that their enemies brag about inflicting on their captives. You made the point previously that we should hold ourselves and our allies to a very high standard, and I agree with that. But why shouldn’t we (and, most especially, why shouldn’t the supposedly neutral international community reflected in Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, the UN, etc.) hold our enemies to an equally high standard?

re: “Some Palestinians are, yes. As are some Israelis - they just have bigger guns. I notice you don’t deny that Israel is violating their human rights.

That is the official policy of Palestinian leadership, and has been all along. All maps of “Palestine” which have been created by Palestinian officialdom are completely without Israel. Although some Israelis may have an agenda to destroy the Palestinians, that is NOT the official policy of Israel.

Your second paragraph is so full of propaganda that it would be useless to fisk it item by item.

The bottom line is that Palestinian leadership has an official policy of destroying Israel and always has, and Israeli leadership has an official policy of peaceful coexistance and always has.