Martial Law: Imminent Arrival?

[Mark Stapleton]

Daniel Pipes - Bush crime family propagandist, xenophobe and supporter of the arming of Saddam Hussein.

Zero credibility.

Irrespective of Pipes' "lack of credibility" overall -- in this instance, I agree with Phil. He is on the mark.

Pipes is a hardline Zionist. He supports continued settlement expansion in the West Bank for example. That means Palestinians getting chucked on the street so wealthy Jewish settlers take possession of their land.

He supports starting a war with Iran. He's an apologist for Israeli genocide like Operation Cast Lead.

So one may assume you also favor these Zionist actions.

[Greg Burnham]

Daniel Pipes - Bush crime family propagandist, xenophobe and supporter of the arming of Saddam Hussein.

Zero credibility.

Irrespective of Pipes' "lack of credibility" overall -- in this instance, I agree with Phil. He is on the mark.

Pipes is a hardline Zionist. He supports continued settlement expansion in the West Bank for example. That means Palestinians getting chucked on the street so wealthy Jewish settlers take possession of their land.

He supports starting a war with Iran. He's an apologist for Israeli genocide like Operation Cast Lead.

So one may assume you also favor these Zionist actions.

Of course not. I did not defend Pipes. I commented only on this single post by Phil.

[Lauren Johnson]

Back in the day, I used to get very emotional over the theme from Exodus.

Daniel Pipes' quote offered by Phil reveals the mythological nature of his telling of the founding of the state of Israel.

Only when the British Mandate of Palestine gave up power in 1948, followed immediately by an all-out attempt by Arab states to crush and expel the Zionists, did the latter take up the sword in self-defense and go on to win land through military conquest. Even then, as the historian Efraim Karsh demonstrates in Palestine Betrayed, most Arabs fled their lands; exceedingly few were forced off.

In order to hold up mythologies, one must tell lies. Usually they are whoppers. "Did you know Deir Yassin never happened and if it did -- so what?

Giving up those lies is painful. For all of us.

Benny Morris' book Righteous Victims has to be painful because Morris strips away the mythology and turns it into a something that is painfully truthful.

Not much is left feel triumphant about. (I live on land that was a fishery for native peoples. Hard to celebrate that.)

Morris was vilified and since has altered his views. He has become more mythological.

In honor of Daniel Pipes, I offer this rendition from the theme from Exodus.

[Charles Drago]

The first ten words of the "Exodus" lyric sum up the problem.

[Mark Stapleton]

In order to hold up mythologies, one must tell lies. Usually they are whoppers. "Did you know Deir Yassin never happened and if it did -- so what?

Giving up those lies is painful.

There are some who will cling to those lies like grim death, refusing to now accept that what they have been told most of their lives was bullshit.

Pipes claim that in 1948 most Arabs simply left and 'exceedingly few' were driven off the land is such exquisite bullshit.

Men, women and children were brutally murdered if they couldn't get away.

The genocidal cruelty has continued to this day. God's chosen people indeed.

[Mark Stapleton]

Daniel Pipes - Bush crime family propagandist, xenophobe and supporter of the arming of Saddam Hussein.

Zero credibility.

Irrespective of Pipes' "lack of credibility" overall -- in this instance, I agree with Phil. He is on the mark.

Pipes is a hardline Zionist. He supports continued settlement expansion in the West Bank for example. That means Palestinians getting chucked on the street so wealthy Jewish settlers take possession of their land.

He supports starting a war with Iran. He's an apologist for Israeli genocide like Operation Cast Lead.

So one may assume you also favor these Zionist actions.

Of course not. I did not defend Pipes. I commented only on this single post by Phil.

So in which respect is Pipes "on the mark" then?

[Lauren Johnson]

In order to hold up mythologies, one must tell lies. Usually they are whoppers. "Did you know Deir Yassin never happened and if it did -- so what?

Giving up those lies is painful.

There are some who will cling to those lies like grim death, refusing to now accept that what they have been told most of their lives was bullshit.

Pipes claim that in 1948 most Arabs simply left and 'exceedingly few' were driven off the land is such exquisite bullshit.

Men, women and children were brutally murdered if they couldn't get away.

The genocidal cruelty has continued to this day. God's chosen people indeed.

Actually Mark, trying "make somebody see the point" regarding Israel for the most part a lost cause. Why? (First, I admit that I did what I normally don't do -- I called his Greg's position with regard to Israel "dumb." I know better.) With regard to Israel, it is just useless. One either gets it or not. There is just too much cultural narrative (mythology) involved. What is at stake? Well, choos from among the following binaries: civilization vs. barbarism, humanness vs. animality, light vs. dark, the true god vs. false gods, reason vs. irrationality, capitalism vs. socialism, Christianity vs. Islam, God's chosen people vs. Untermensch and so on. Then you have the myth of the righteous few against the barbaric hordes, and the brain has been captured.

My only answer is that everything I have said also applies to me. I could raise hell about the stupidity of someone's position about Israel, but then I know full well that I live in a land that is built on genocide. Pipes is correct on that point. None of us is righteous. But then his position is something like: Sure, we conquered the land; everybody does it. So what? The IDF is the most moral army in the world. End of subject.

I suppose, the opposite to being captured by the pro-Israel myth is to be captured by its opposite: to believe you can identify evil and point it out: it's the Israelis. Then you start seeing Israel's hand in everything, everywhere. Then the holder of this view feels righteous because he knows who is wrong and has the courage to point it out.

One story: I was conversing with this very pleasant dual citizen Israeli-American. After conversation went for a while, I talked about my travels to Palestine, and it didn't take long before I was saying something like: Surely, you can't mean that! with regard to Palestinians. Yep, she did. The were animals, the were swine, they were filthy, and WHATEVER the IDF would chose to do to them, she would support. Then she went on to all of Islam. She essentially was saying a large portion of the world's population should be eliminated. Surely you don't mean that. Yep, they are vermin. At that point, the only thing that changed in the conversation was the volume.

[Greg Burnham]

Listen Mark and Lauren,

First of all I am not going to write much more about this at all. Suffice it to say: The conclusion that the two of YOU are choosing to conjure up
and then attribute to me is both absurd and intellectually dishonest. You have created a straw man. I am much easier to dismiss if you create
a weaker argument than I expressed. Indeed, I didn't express much, but you both have felt it necessary to take it to the next step.

I am quite capable of expressing my own views should I so desire. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from mis-stating my view and
lumping it in with those of others. That they may have made these giant leaps from point "A" to point "M" does not mean that is what I will
do.

[Lauren Johnson]

Listen Mark and Lauren,

First of all I am not going to write much more about this at all. Suffice it to say: The conclusion that the two of YOU are choosing to conjure up
and then attribute to me is both absurd and intellectually dishonest. You have created a straw man. I am much easier to dismiss if you create
a weaker argument than I expressed. Indeed, I didn't express much, but you both have felt it necessary to take it to the next step.

I am quite capable of expressing my own views should I so desire. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from mis-stating my view and
lumping it in with those of others. That they may have made these giant leaps from point "A" to point "M" does not mean that is what I will
do.

Greg,

You say Mark and I are misstating your view. First, Mark and I are NOT on the same page. He is running his own show which I have disagreed on many times over the months. It's all about Israel. That's Mark, not me.

Second,let's remember what your view is quoting from #61

In my "not-so-politically-correct" opinion: Israel's major flaw is in its Public Relations ineptitude. Israel either just doesn't know how to make itself look good or it cares not
about appearances. In any event, preferring to emphasize its core values over "spin" has come at a cost to Israel's reputation. Don't misunderstand, I don't think Israel is
perfect, but neither are we Americans. Overall, I have supported and continue to support Israel. I firmly believe that Israel has come a long way. From its struggle to even
survive there remain reactionary elements both in the Israeli military as well as in Parliament. Who can blame them? Or better: Would a rational person really expect anything
different? I think not. Her neighbors' charters include the provision: "Drive the Jews into the sea" -- which is not an idle threat as evidenced by several wars initiated not by
Israel, but by those wishing to follow their charter. I'll stop there rather than attempt to over simplify a very complex region of the world.

OK: I have disagreed and still disagree. Done.

You said you liked what Phil said: he said a lot. Two parts: first was a quote from Daniel Pipes and second were some rambling thoughts ... well, Ayers, Hillary, DBA Obama, Ahmadinijad, etc. etc. The Pipes stuff was not much more than Exodus. Disagree with that construction as well...mythology.

That then sums your position? Am I now misstating your views?

You have said you have very different, more complex views. But you are not going to write about it. That's fine with me. Most discussions on the web regarding the situation in Palestine get nowhere. My explanation for that is that they turn on mythologies, which are largely in the subconscious. Hence, my references to the theme from Exodus. My story about the dual citizen Israeli was meant as a story of where one can go when we are possessed by mythologies--any mythology. And even my last post was aimed at Mark and his "it's all about Israel" mantra.

Well, you want Mark and I to stop it. Can't speak for Mark. He is on his own program. But as for me, I am totally so done with this. Let's get back talking about the martial law.

[Greg Burnham]

Listen Mark and Lauren,

First of all I am not going to write much more about this at all. Suffice it to say: The conclusion that the two of YOU are choosing to conjure up
and then attribute to me is both absurd and intellectually dishonest. You have created a straw man. I am much easier to dismiss if you create
a weaker argument than I expressed. Indeed, I didn't express much, but you both have felt it necessary to take it to the next step.

I am quite capable of expressing my own views should I so desire. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from mis-stating my view and
lumping it in with those of others. That they may have made these giant leaps from point "A" to point "M" does not mean that is what I will
do.

Greg,

You say Mark and I are misstating your view. First, Mark and I are NOT on the same page. He is running his own show which I have disagreed on many times over the months. It's all about Israel. That's Mark, not me.

Second,let's remember what your view is quoting from #61

In my "not-so-politically-correct" opinion: Israel's major flaw is in its Public Relations ineptitude. Israel either just doesn't know how to make itself look good or it cares not
about appearances. In any event, preferring to emphasize its core values over "spin" has come at a cost to Israel's reputation. Don't misunderstand, I don't think Israel is
perfect, but neither are we Americans. Overall, I have supported and continue to support Israel. I firmly believe that Israel has come a long way. From its struggle to even
survive there remain reactionary elements both in the Israeli military as well as in Parliament. Who can blame them? Or better: Would a rational person really expect anything
different? I think not. Her neighbors' charters include the provision: "Drive the Jews into the sea" -- which is not an idle threat as evidenced by several wars initiated not by
Israel, but by those wishing to follow their charter. I'll stop there rather than attempt to over simplify a very complex region of the world.

OK: I have disagreed and still disagree. Done.

You said you liked what Phil said: he said a lot. Two parts: first was a quote from Daniel Pipes and second were some rambling thoughts ... well, Ayers, Hillary, DBA Obama, Ahmadinijad, etc. etc. The Pipes stuff was not much more than Exodus. Disagree with that construction as well...mythology.

That then sums your position? Am I now misstating your views?

You have said you have very different, more complex views. But you are not going to write about it. That's fine with me. Most discussions on the web regarding the situation in Palestine get nowhere. My explanation for that is that they turn on mythologies, which are largely in the subconscious. Hence, my references to the theme from Exodus. My story about the dual citizen Israeli was meant as a story of where one can go when we are possessed by mythologies--any mythology. And even my last post was aimed at Mark and his "it's all about Israel" mantra.

Well, you want Mark and I to stop it. Can't speak for Mark. He is on his own program. But as for me, I am totally so done with this. Let's get back talking about the martial law.

You do so seem to be on a mission, though. Good luck with that--whatever it is. You obviously have deep passion regarding this subject. It shows you care. Having said that, the "myth" to which you have been alluding does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it singular. They are multiple and they permeate BOTH sides of the debate. Sorting out truth from myth is not everyone's cup-of-tea, nor is it within the analytical abilities of many who do feel strongly about it. Passion is not necessarily accompanied by reason. Effective myth busting is often instigated by the wisdom of the poet rather than by the analysis of the belligerent.