Yes, it's time once again for I Hate Jews Week!

[bloodyminded]

Funny, most of us would have thought something like like genocide was the supreme international crime.

Sure, it's an arguable point. I was going from the Nuremberg principles, which states that a war of aggression "is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

If Israel was to invade or bomb Syria in order to take territory away from them that would be a war of agression. If Israel was to invade or bomb Syria because it perceived that Syria was about to take violent action against them, or was positioning itself to do so, or was aiding and abetting - even funding - others to do so, that would be a defensive measure.

"Perceiv[ing]" that a country is about to take violent action can certainly be in the eye of the beholder; furthermore, we have to be cautious not to take the bland pronouncements of political leaders as solemn truths. We recognize this instantly and without effort in the cases of official enemies' assertions; and even in cases in which we have no horse in the race.

But the exact same thing applies to us.

Unless we choose to be servile little power-worshipping nationalists.

At any rate, you're being too vague. Are you talking about "pre-emptive" war, or "preventive" war? The first is legitimate--but the threat has to be clear and real, not speculative. When it's not clear or imminent, it becomes "preventive" war...which effectively exonerates every single act of aggression by every single country.

We often confuse the two, thanks to fine folks like George W. Bush, who said "preemptive" when it was actually "preventive" (and that's offering him way too much generosity, actually).

As for aiding and abetting, or funding others...if that makes it legitimate, then of course you support a war agaisnt the United States. And Canada. Hell, lots of countries.

Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

Are you saying that the intentional support, through arms and diplomacy, of the Indonesians to attempt the genocide of the East Timorese people--is justifiable because of the Cold War?

The term "genocide" implies that Indonesia tried to exterminate the population of east Timor. Perhaps you have some citation to back up that claim? Certainly, many died during the conflict, fro the Indonesians were pretty brutal and repressive, but genoicide implies an intent i don't think was present.

In any event, the difference between your perspective and that of the West during the cold war, is they held their noses and supported regimes which they would not normally be expected to have anything but contempt for. You would only have supported democratic movements and governments.

The difference in results, i believe, is that the West won, and you would have lost. Because in most of these cases the Leftist - ie, Communists and Marxists, were every bit as brutal and unprincpalled as the Western forces opposinng them, and your peace-loving, freedom loving, rights loving democratic entities would have simply been crushed without mercy by the pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese forces.

As for Israel being used to support apartheid regimes, i believe the perception among many in the US was that a Black government replacing the pro-West governments in Rhodesia and South Africa would have not only shifted their support to the Soviets, but would have resulted in NO improvements to the freedom or human rights standards in those countries anyway. In the case of Rhodesia, they were quite correct. Arguably, human rights were more severely curtailed after "independance" than they were prior to that. In the case of South Africa, they were wrong, but the cold war was largely ending then so the Soviets didn't have much time to meddle. Had SA ended apartheid ten years earlier things might have gone differently.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Argus

[bloodyminded]

Canada and the US supported genocide?

Yep. Also France, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands. But the US was the main supplier of the means for genocide.

Intentionally supplying the means for genocide, I mean.

Which historical event are you going to twist into supporting that suggestion?

None. I'm going to state an objective fact. Think: Indonesia's attacks on East Timor, 1975-1999.

I'd love to hear some morally-relativist acrobatics to try to deny the situation.

Western interference in other nations was, by and large, at least over the last half centuries, largely the product of attempting to make things better in the world, and the lineup of those who were the "victims" of such interference is a lineup of some pretty nasty folk.

No doubt you're last point is right (though certainly not all the victims were "nasty folk"...surely you won't go quite that far).

And since you say "by and large," and "largely," you are plainly conceding that some of these victims were produced for reasons other than "mak[ing] things better in the world."

To which horrors, exactly, are you referring?

[Argus]

Ok, but I wasn't setting Canada apart as some beacon of goodness. That's for the patriotic cowards. In fact, I expressly included Canada among the nations that act as big rogue criminals. So you're singing to the choir.

Do you have a list of natioins that you don't include among that list of "rogues"?

[DogOnPorch]

Meh...a form of apartheid still exists in South Afrika...just the other way 'round, this time.

[bloodyminded]

The term "genocide" implies that Indonesia tried to exterminate the population of east Timor. Perhaps you have some citation to back up that claim? Certainly, many died during the conflict, fro the Indonesians were pretty brutal and repressive, but genoicide implies an intent i don't think was present.

Of a population of 650 000, the Indonesians killed approximately 150 000. Most (it goes without saying) were inncoent civilians, at leats tens of thosuands of whom were deliberately starved to death. If a foreign invader systemtically wiped out more than a fifth of our population, we'd call it genocide.

In any event, the difference between your perspective and that of the West during the cold war, is they held their noses and supported regimes which they would not normally be expected to have anything but contempt for.

You can't just use the term "Cold War" as a talismanic phrase that explains (much less jsutifies) everything.

And the West didn't "hold its nose"--it backed the invasion, it backed the ongoing slaughters and misery that went on for 25 years. The massacres could not have occurred without Western aid--simply stopping the weapons would have eased the suffering and the murders immeasureably. That's it. Stop aiding the mass murders.

A lot to ask, i know...

People like to say, "The West looked away as the horrors were happening." But this is actually a self-serving falsehood. The West didn't look away. It actively helped in the mass terror.

The difference in results, i believe, is that the West won, and you would have lost. Because in most of these cases the Leftist - ie, Communists and Marxists, were every bit as brutal and unprincpalled as the Western forces opposinng them, and your peace-loving, freedom loving, rights loving democratic entities would have simply been crushed without mercy by the pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese forces.

You're getting too expansive, as if all conflicts and all actions undertaken by the West for more than half a century are exactly the same; as if East Timor equals nicaragua equals Cuba equals Haiti equals the Phillipines...

ridiculous.

In East Timor, the West knowingly aided and abetted one of the handful of worst slaughters in the second hald of the 20th century.

And the response? "Cold War."

And "lefties are bad too."

Jesus.

Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

Yep. Also France, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands. But the US was the main supplier of the means for genocide.

Intentionally supplying the means for genocide, I mean.

Supplying the means of genocide? That implies there are specific "genocide tools" which only we in the West could hand out. As we've seen, nobody needs help from us to murder a great heaping load of people. All it takes is a lot of AK47s or even clubs and bricks. Are you going to suggest that without Western aid Indonesia would not have killed all those people in East Timor? Because I don't believe there's much to support that theory.

And since you say "by and large," and "largely," you are plainly conceding that some of these victims were produced for reasons other than "mak[ing] things better in the world."

To which horrors, exactly, are you referring?

I'm allowing for the fact that even reasonably well-meaning governments can misread situations and apply solutions which actually make things worse. They can do this at home, where they have all the knowledge (presumably) acccess and awareness. I'm less than totally surprised they can do this abroad to an even greater extent. As I understand it, the Indonesian adventurism was acccepted/allowed/supported in the fear that East Timor was going to become some sort of Communist satellite which, natch, would then be used to help subvert and destabilize Indonesia. All part of the Communists' plans to take over the world. Now I think those fears were exaggerated, but apparently the US, at least, believed them. I don't think they were especially pleased with Indonesia's brutality, but then they wound up supporting a lot of distasteful regimes in those days - to fend off insurgency groups which, had they succeded, and many came very close, would have been every bit as distasteful.

When Trudeau felt the need to crush a home-grown "insurgency" even a tiny, poorly funded one, he felt he couldn't do so if he had to observe all the rules of restraint and judicial evidence required in a democratic society. So he suspended human rights. It's difficult to underestand, therefore, how you can presume that less stable third world nations who were faced with far, far more powerful, often foreign funded insurgencies could have fended them off while still observing all the fundamnental legal mechanisms of a democratic society.

If the FLQ had been killing people in the HUNDREDS instead of in single digits, I wonder just how far Trudeau would have gone to crush them. I think a reporter asked him that once, and his response "Just watch me" doesn't lead me to believe he would have been particularly restrained.

[bloodyminded]

Supplying the means of genocide? That implies there are specific "genocide tools" which only we in the West could hand out. As we've seen, nobody needs help from us to murder a great heaping load of people. All it takes is a lot of AK47s or even clubs and bricks. Are you going to suggest that without Western aid Indonesia would not have killed all those people in East Timor? Because I don't believe there's much to support that theory.

First of all, when the arms supplies stopped...the slaughters stopped.

Second, why would we supply them with all thsoe weapons? They were not fighting some communist force. No one even makes this claim, because it's utterly insupportable. They were fighting civilians, mostly unarmed peasants, based upon the decision that they would take over East Timor. (War of aggression, as we were talking about.)

I'm allowing for the fact that even reasonably well-meaning governments can misread situations and apply solutions which actually make things worse.

They didn't misread it; Ford and Kissinger gave the explicit go-ahead for what was incontestably a war of aggression--the supreme international crime according to the Americans who were the ones to develop that principle during Nuremberg.

Ford and Kissinger's go-ahead (and note that...note who's boss there) was long suspected; now it's objectively known as fact, thanks to the declassification of the records.

They only said that the Generals should wait for Ford and Kissinger to get back home, because of the "embarrassment" it might cause them otherwise.

It is not well-meraning to arm mass murders, provide diplomatic suppoort for it. The Indonesians weren't battling hardened Marxist rebels.

As I understand it, the Indonesian adventurism was acccepted/allowed/supported in the fear that East Timor was going to become some sort of Communist satellite which, natch, would then be used to help subvert and destabilize Indonesia.

I haven't seen evidence that would support this. However, on the contrary, we DO have evidence that the West was going to parcel out luxuriously rich resources from the region among themselves. THAT is evidence we DO have.

Now I think those fears were exaggerated, but apparently the US, at least, believed them.

Speaking generally, this specific case aside, yes the fears seem to have been exaggerated, and yes, I too think that the fears were nonetheless genuine, at least among some leaders and planners. No doubt others used the fears in less honest, more calculating ways, as a large and bureaucratic government is never of a single mind.

However, I've not seen any evidence at all that the Indonesian massacres have been shown to be related in any real way to fears of communism.

Even if they were, it's not a clear case of exoneration. We would't tolerate such behavior towards one of our allies for ANY reason. Rightly so. And the E timorese are just as human and worthwhile and important as we are.

I don't think they were especially pleased with Indonesia's brutality,

Being less than pleased, if that's the case, doesn't mean a whiff of anything. Who cares? Is that supposed to exonerate them?

but then they wound up supporting a lot of distasteful regimes in those days - to fend off insurgency groups which, had they succeded, and many came very close, would have been every bit as distasteful.

But why do you think this is the case with East Timor?

When Trudeau felt the need to crush a home-grown "insurgency" even a tiny, poorly funded one, he felt he couldn't do so if he had to observe all the rules of restraint and judicial evidence required in a democratic society. So he suspended human rights. It's difficult to underestand, therefore, how you can presume that less stable third world nations who were faced with far, far more powerful, often foreign funded insurgencies could have fended them off while still observing all the fundamnental legal mechanisms of a democratic society.

If the FLQ had been killing people in the HUNDREDS instead of in single digits, I wonder just how far Trudeau would have gone to crush them. I think a reporter asked him that once, and his response "Just watch me" doesn't lead me to believe he would have been particularly restrained.

Sure, but Indonesia did not attack East Timor to fend off an insurgency. They attacked to take it as their own by force.

[DogOnPorch]

East Timor...that's near Hebron, right?

[bloodyminded]

East Timor...that's near Hebron, right?

Yes, DoP. Near Hebron. Troll somewhere else.

[JB Globe]

Although this post wasn't personally directed at me, I think Argus is still referring to his idea of who I am in it, so I'm responding.

Besides, he can't expect to call me a self-hating Jew and then run away like a little boy without explaining himself. This isn't kindergarten.

Are you suggesting there are no self-hating Jews?

What exactly do you know about what it means to be Jewish? Can you even define it without cutting and pasting from Wikipedia?

Drivel. Such people use the fact of their Jewishness as a shield to hide behind.

People on BOTH sides of the debate do this. And frankly, the neo-con hawkish Likhud camp does this a lot more often. Much like the "if you don't support the Iraq war, you're anti-american" argument in 2003 in the US, the far-right in the Israeli community and diaspora equates anything but unwavering support of all Israeli policies with being a self-hating Jew or an anti-semite. Non Jewish neo-cons have also seized this opportunity, but haven't yet figured out how to call a Jew a "self-hating Jew" without it coming off as inherently anti-semitic. There's something inherently bigoted about someone from outside an ethnic/religious group shouting down someone from that group as "not a true member" because of their political opinions.

I never bring my Jewishness into the argument unless someone else brings it in: ie - someone directly calls me a self-hating Jew or says that any Jew who holds my opinion is a self-hater. And I always respond by posting comments and articles from folks like Ehud Barak, and various Israeli scholars and journalists who share my opinions, along with polling data that shows that a large chunk of Israelis think the same way.

The whole point I'm making in those circumstances is to point out that it's not even logically possible to make the "self-hating Jew" argument if 30-40% of all Jews hold that opinion. Because Jewishness is defined by consensus among all Jews - and if there's no clear consensus on a given issue between Jews, it's logically impossible for anyone to definitively say "this is the true Jewish opinion on issue x, everyone who disagrees hates themselves"

And most of these little Nazi groups love to find Jews they can push up and hide behind, snickering and smiling and leering while the Jew says nasty things about Israel - or Jews, so they can they step up and say "See!? See!? I'm not an anti-Semite! Even this Jew boy agrees!"

So how many Nazi groups have Jewish members exactly? You make it sound like a pandemic, where it's probably less than a handful.

And, you talk as if this isn't happening on the other side of the fence. As if bigots haven't used Jews as "model minorities" for decades for their own purpsoes: "I'm pro-segregation, but I can't be racist! My deputy secretary is Jewish!"

Then there's the whole "Jewish cultural festivals" those evangelicals put on all the time in Utah, and invite folks like Ariel Sharon to speak at, and pretend to "love Jews" when in reality they want to bring about the apocalypse, where they ascend to heaven and all Jews burn in the fire because we don't believe in Jesus.

EVERYONE has tried to use Jews - trying to say that certain sides of a debate are illegitimate because they do so means there is no legitimate debate - because everyone is guilty of this.

Quite frankly, if the rest of the world kept their nose out of the conflict going on - it would get resolved a lot quicker. At least then we wouldn't have the world's lone superpower basically backing the agenda of ONE spectrum in Israeli politics.

Frankly, I think you're just using the whole self-hating Jew/anti-semite card as an escape hatch to get out of debates when you realize you're clearly in over your head. I also think your obsession with Likhud/Shas talking points has more to do with the anti-Arab sentiment they hold than any sort of positive feelings towards Jewish folks.

Edited March 4, 2010 by JB Globe

[DogOnPorch]

Hey, guess what? Not that long ago it was all the Dutch East Indies. Guess who fought the Japanese and took it back...Indonesia? Timor rebels? Zionist Jews?

Nope: Austrailia, New Zealand, the USA and the UK....and the free Dutch, of course. Evil countries all.

Edited March 4, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

Hey, guess what? Not that long ago it was all the Dutch East Indies. Guess who fought the Japanese and took it back...Indonesia? Timor rebels? Zionist Jews?

Nope: Austrailia, New Zealand, the USA and the UK....and the free Dutch, of course. Evil countries all.

One you learn a little more about the subject being discussed, feel free to come back and offer an educated opinion that isn't self-congratulatory chest-thumping.

[bloodyminded]

Although this post wasn't personally directed at me, I think Argus is still referring to his idea of who I am in it, so I'm responding.

Besides, he can't expect to call me a self-hating Jew and then run away like a little boy without explaining himself. This isn't kindergarten.

What exactly do you know about what it means to be Jewish? Can you even define it without cutting and pasting from Wikipedia?

People on BOTH sides of the debate do this. And frankly, the neo-con hawkish Likhud camp does this a lot more often. Much like the "if you don't support the Iraq war, you're anti-american" argument in 2003 in the US, the far-right in the Israeli community and diaspora equates anything but unwavering support of all Israeli policies with being a self-hating Jew or an anti-semite.

I never bring my Jewishness into the argument unless someone else brings it in: ie - someone directly calls me a self-hating Jew or says that any Jew who holds my opinion is a self-hater. And I always respond by posting comments and articles from folks like Ehud Barak, and various Israeli scholars and journalists who share my opinions, along with polling data that shows that a large chunk of Israelis think the same way.

The whole point I'm making in those circumstances is to point out that it's not even logically possible to make the "self-hating Jew" argument if 30-40% of all Jews hold that opinion. Because Jewishness is defined by consensus among all Jews - and if there's no clear consensus on a given issue between Jews, it's logically impossible for anyone to definitively say "this is the true Jewish opinion on issue x, everyone who disagrees hates themselves"

Although this post wasn't personally directed at me, I think Argus is still referring to his idea of who I am in it, so I'm responding.

Besides, he can't expect to call me a self-hating Jew and then run away like a little boy without explaining himself. This isn't kindergarten.

What exactly do you know about what it means to be Jewish? Can you even define it without cutting and pasting from Wikipedia?

So how many Nazi groups have Jewish members exactly? You make it sound like a pandemic, where it's probably less than a handful.

And, you talk as if this isn't happening on the other side of the fence. As if bigots haven't used Jews as "model minorities" for decades for their own purpsoes: "I'm pro-segregation, but I can't be racist! My deputy secretary is Jewish!"

Then there's the whole "Jewish cultural festivals" those evangelicals put on all the time in Utah, and invite folks like Ariel Sharon to speak at, and pretend to "love Jews" when in reality they want to bring about the apocalypse, where they ascend to heaven and all Jews burn in the fire because we don't believe in Jesus.

EVERYONE has tried to use Jews - trying to say that certain sides of a debate are illegitimate because they do so means there is no legitimate debate - because everyone is guilty of this.

Quite frankly, if the rest of the world kept their nose out of the conflict going on - it would get resolved a lot quicker. At least then we wouldn't have the world's lone superpower basically backing the agenda of ONE spectrum in Israeli politics.

Frankly, I think you're just using the whole self-hating Jew/anti-semite card as an escape hatch to get out of debates when you realize you're clearly in over your head.

Thanks, JBGlobe. Whenever it gets insinuated that I'm an anti-semite, I get extremely frustrated. It's a difficult slur to even battle against (which is why it's used...it's a method of politically-correct attack, because they know damn well that a liberal-minded fellow like me will hate the slur.)

Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

Although this post wasn't personally directed at me, I think Argus is still referring to his idea of who I am in it, so I'm responding.

Besides, he can't expect to call me a self-hating Jew and then run away like a little boy without explaining himself. This isn't kindergarten.

Maybe you're not a self-hating Jew. Maybe you're just really, really, really, really dumb.

You have a habit of jumping into any argument discussing Islamist violence like some sort of fawning, obsequious Muslim wannabee to frantically explain away the culture of violence which is so often espoused by Muslim clerics and community leaders. "Muslim violence? Oh no! No such thing! I should know! After all, I'm a JEW, and Muslims love me. Yes they do! I go to their homes all the time, as a JEW, bringing gifts and showering them with love! And not one has tried to beat me to death, even though as I said, I'm a JEW! And i say to them, btw, I'm a JEW. And they always respond with joy and happiness, for they love JEWs like brothers! All this nonsense about Muslims being homophobic or mysogenistic or anti-Semitic is just bigotry on the part of right wingers! I should know. I'm a JEW."

I never bring my Jewishness into the argument unless someone else brings it in:

Demonstrably a lie, for I certainly never asked you your religion. You bring it into the conversation repeatedly, brandishing it like some kind of shield with which you attempt to "protect" Islamists from those concerned about a spreading culture diametrically opposed to our own.

And btw, if I don't respond to you, it's probably because you're not saying anything worth responding to.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Argus