The Boss Has Gone Mad

[bemildred]

By Uri Avnery

Some interesting bits, and because today I was thinking that this business does resemble Richard Nixon's "crazy guy" theory of politics. In fairness to Nixon, I have to admit that it was not his invention either, it's about as old as civilization.

---

In this war, politicians and generals have repeatedly quoted the words: “The boss has gone mad!” originally shouted by vegetable vendors in the market, in the sense of “The boss has gone crazy and is selling the tomatoes at a loss!” But in the course of time the jest has turned into a deadly doctrine that often appears in Israeli public discourse: in order to deter our enemies, we must behave like madmen, go on the rampage, kill and destroy mercilessly.

In this war, this has become political and military dogma: only if we kill “them” disproportionately, killing a thousand of “them” for ten of “ours”, will they understand that it’s not worth it to mess with us. It will be “seared into their consciousness” (a favorite Israeli phrase these days). After this, they will think twice before launching another Qassam rocket against us, even in response to what we do, whatever that may be.

---

WHEN THE killing and destruction in Gaza were at their height, something happened in faraway America that was not connected with the war, but was very much connected with it. The Israeli film “Waltz with Bashir” was awarded a prestigious prize. The media reported it with much joy and pride, but somehow carefully managed not to mention the subject of the film. That by itself was an interesting phenomenon: saluting the success of a film while ignoring its contents.

The subject of this outstanding film is one of the darkest chapters in our history: the Sabra and Shatila massacre. In the course of Lebanon War I, a Christian Lebanese militia carried out, under the auspices of the Israeli army, a heinous massacre of hundreds of helpless Palestinian refugees who were trapped in their camp, men, women, children and old people. The film describes this atrocity with meticulous accuracy, including our part in it.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00212.htm

[bemildred]

1. The Nukes of October: Richard Nixon's Secret Plan to Bring Peace to Vietnam

On the morning of October 27, 1969, a squadron of 18 B-52s — massive bombers with eight turbo engines and 185-foot wingspans — began racing from the western US toward the eastern border of the Soviet Union. The pilots flew for 18 hours without rest, hurtling toward their targets at more than 500 miles per hour. Each plane was loaded with nuclear weapons hundreds of times more powerful than the ones that had obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The B-52s, known as Stratofortresses, slowed only once, along the coast of Canada near the polar ice cap. Here, KC-135 planes — essentially 707s filled with jet fuel — carefully approached the bombers. They inched into place for a delicate in-flight connection, transferring thousands of gallons from aircraft to aircraft through a long, thin tube. One unfortunate shift in the wind, or twitch of the controls, and a plane filled with up to 150 tons of fuel could crash into a plane filled with nuclear ordnance.

The aircraft were pointed toward Moscow, but the real goal was to change the war in Vietnam. During his campaign for the presidency the year before, Richard Nixon had vowed to end that conflict. But more than 4,500 Americans had died there in the first six months of 1969, including 84 soldiers at the debacle of Hamburger Hill. Meanwhile, the peace negotiations in Paris, which many people hoped would end the conflict, had broken down. The Vietnamese had declared that they would just sit there, conceding nothing, "until the chairs rot." Frustrated, Nixon decided to try something new: threaten the Soviet Union with a massive nuclear strike and make its leaders think he was crazy enough to go through with it. His hope was that the Soviets would be so frightened of events spinning out of control that they would strong-arm Hanoi, telling the North Vietnamese to start making concessions at the negotiating table or risk losing Soviet military support.

Codenamed Giant Lance, Nixon's plan was the culmination of a strategy of premeditated madness he had developed with national security adviser Henry Kissinger. The details of this episode remained secret for 35 years and have never been fully told. Now, thanks to documents released through the Freedom of Information Act, it's clear that Giant Lance was the leading example of what historians came to call the "madman theory": Nixon's notion that faked, finger-on-the-button rage could bring the Soviets to heel.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-03/ff_nuclearwar?currentPage=all

[shira]

2. Avnery is not a reliable source at all

In the above article, he wrote WRT the 2006 Hezbollah/Israel war:

"In 33 days of war, some 1000 Lebanese, almost all of them civilians, were killed – a record already broken in this war by the 17th day."

This is patently false, as at least 500 were Hezbollah militants.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=147&x_article=1195

When will this defamation end?

Israel's harshest detractors are bound to be disappointed again after the dust settles and IDF videos display the true face of Hamas. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for these defamers of Israel to be embarassed about their arrogance and (willful) ignorance. After all, true believers are only amenable to indoctrination based on emotion, not reason based on any amount of evidence that would invalidate their beliefs. They'll inevitably find other ways to justify their hatred and demonize Israel.

[bemildred]

3. Do you have a source for that?

I always wonder when people trot out these numbers where they came from. I don't really imagine anyone went around and counted all the bodies and categorized them somehow.

"Hmm, this one looks like a militant, eh?"
"Check."
"Hmm, underage female, must be civilian."
"Check."
...

But it's true, Uri is not always a stickler for accuracy.

[scarletwoman]

4. Why should anyone believe the right wing Telegraph or the right wing Washington Times?

When the website you cite in turns cites such dubious propaganda sources as those, it hardly demonstrates superior reliability.

I also noticed a glowing endorsement for CAMERA from Alan (torture apologist) Dershowitz -- certainly enough to give any decent person pause as to whose agenda they are REALLY serving.

Even the addendum touted at the end -- an article stating that Hezbollah acknowledges that 250 fighters were killed -- doesn't in the least contradict the assertion that the majority of the 1,187 people killed (as quoted from the Lebanese Higher Relief Council on that same page) were civilians. Do the math, that's still almost 4 times as many civilian deaths as fighter deaths.

Or is that too small a ratio for you care about.

Israel defames itself quite well enough without any help from me or anyone else fed up with coddling a terrorist state.

sw

[shira]

6. it's not just RW newsrags

if you carefully read the article, you'll see far more than just the 2 sources you cited.

Also, there's this - and please do keep up and check the sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Hezbollah

The point is, Hezbollah's propaganda campaign was enormously successful. It wasn't until after the dust settled, that Israel's claims were verified and shown to be more accurate. Uri Avnery is either disingenuous or misinformed. Either way, he's unreliable.

Really now, when you're dealing with journalists in Hezbollah occupied Lebanon or Hamastan, what do you expect? Either journalists play their game and remain in the war zone, or they report against Hezbollah and Hamas and risk kidnapping or worse (like Alan Johnston, Steve Centanni, etc.).

Is it any wonder the news is so slanted? News is big $$$. Play according to Hamas/Hezbollah wars, or find yourself on the outside looking in. Also, since most news outlets lack journalists fluent in Arabic, who do you think helps them while in Gaza/Lebanon, if not Palestinians who had better be loyal to Hamas/Hezbollah? And then there are the Palestinian stringers.

Biased advocacy journalism. And most people don't even question it. Blame it on our poor education system.

[scarletwoman]

10. I'm saying that if this organization considers the Telegraph & the WashTimes to be reliable sources

then they are NOT so balanced and unbiased.

BTW, Lebanon is not "occupied" by Hezbollah, they are Lebanese citizens and part of the democratically elected government.

Hamas was elected to the Palestinian government also. But the refusal to deal with their political arm, which was open to negotiations, merely strengthened their militant arm.

Israel makes it impossible for moderate factions to prevail, because it does not want a true political solution, it has no intention of allowing the Palestinians to have their own sovereign state.

sw

[azurnoir]

20. Odd that this link was not used

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Lebanon_War

note the subtle edit and it is an edit from the last time I looked at this page of Lebanese civilians to Lebanese citizens which is bolded as if to make some point

[bemildred]

5. Thanks for the link.

That does not really put to my rest my feeling that there are no accurate numbers. I'm perfectly willing to consider that Hezbollah would fudge the numbers, but so would the Israelis, and CAMERA has a bias too. I still have to ask where the list of 500 names came from? Given the "fog or war" and Hezbollah's reputed imperviousness to Israeli intelligence, it seems fair to ask how they know all that?

[oberliner]

8. Here is another reference from an AP story

BEIRUT, Lebanon --More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and combatants died during the summer war between Israel's army and Hezbollah guerrillas, according to tallies by government agencies, humanitarian groups and The Associated Press.

Israeli authorities put the death toll for the Jewish state at 120 military combat deaths and 39 civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets fired into northern Israel during the July 12-Aug. 14 conflict.

Both sides have revised their figures of Lebanon's war dead. The latest Lebanese and AP counts include 250 Hezbollah fighters that the group's leaders now say died during Israel's intense air, ground and sea bombardments in Lebanon -- more than triple the 70 they acknowledged during the war. Israel initially said 800 Hezbollah fighters died but later lowered that estimate to 600.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/12/28/lebanon_sees_more_than_1000_war_deaths/

[bemildred]

9. I don't need another "reference".

I'm not defending the accuracy of Avnery's numbers. I'm pointing out that all of the numbers are more or less biased guesses, and hence, that Avnery's choice of one of those that is congenial to his purpose does not mean much. You aren't going to convince me of anything unless I get a coherent description of how the numbers were arrived at. Shira produced a list of news sources that gave a minimum number of 162, from CAMERA, which is the most impressive bit of evidence I've seen.

[oberliner]

11. Wasn't trying to convince - just sharing info

I've had a hard time finding any reliable sources of info to answer this question.

If you find any reliable source material, please share.

[bemildred]

12. I'm asserting that there is none. nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. The fact remains: the boss has gone mad. Regardless of which paper prints it.

What exactly did Israeli achieve with this massacre?

Nothing. It has elevated Hamas to represent the people's stand against oppression.

It has drawn the line in Palestine between those who wish to cavort with the occupier and his patron and those who want to achieve national liberation.

It has signaled the death knell for quislings.

It has displayed Israel's psychological problems.

Stupid. Foolish. Barbaric. Illegal. Immoral.

The boss had indeed gone mad... unless the entire point was to ensure another 8 years without actually having to make peace.

[bemildred]

23. Yeah, I don't see that quibbling about the numbers gets you very far. nt

[Vegasaurus]

24. What Israel achieved is exactly what they achieved in Lebanon in 2006

despite worldwide condemnation, they achieved quiet to the north.

No more rockets.

If there is a similar result from the south, they will have achieved a great deal.

War ****s, so perhaps Hamas will finally learn that it doesn't make sense to provoke a more powerful entity with 6000 rockets and expect them to do nothing.

[stillcool]

7. I think that line of 'hatred' for Israel...

is getting old...even older than 'they hate us for our freedoms'. Don't you think it's time for something new and different?

[PerfectSage]

13. Well your certainly a reliable source of war mongering and war losing entertainment.

Funny, I don't feel like I hate Israel. I just want Israel to make peace and survive and thrive for a long long time. Rather than fight wars incompetently. :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

14. Quoting a RW site, I see. and a Christian Dominionist at that!

The unholy alliance among self-described "holy" people.

:puke:

In one of its media alerts, CAMERA describes Israel's acclaimed historian Benny Morris as a "fabricator." <6>. Its other targets include Robert Fisk, Israel Shahak, Edward Said, Norman Finkelstein, John Pilger, Ilan Pappe, Amira Hass and Gideon Levy, and has even accused Israel's prominent daily Ha'aretz of fueling "anti-Israel bias."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CAMERA

The Mideast Editing Wars

The hawkish pro-Israel group CAMERA's campaign to warp Wikipedia articles was ineffectual. But it's a warning not to trust the online encyclopedia -- and to be wary of partisan "accuracy" advocates in the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative War.

Gershom Gorenberg | May 1, 2008 | web only

Wikipedia's "about" page describes the encyclopedia as aiming for balance through consensus. But consensus isn't the same as accuracy, and there is no consensus on an issue like the history of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Each side has a "correct" story of the past, identifying the villains and victims. Or rather, each camp within each side has such a narrative. When Wikipedia tells a different story, at least some people will feel their very identity assaulted and will respond. They'll regard their work as an essentially defensive effort. Scholarly and journalistic accounts that challenge the standard narratives are likely to get attacked from all sides, and a random reader won't know which way the battle has shifted today. On Wikipedia, in contrast to a book or an article in the media, there's no byline to aid the reader's judgment. While CAMERA's alleged effort to change Wikipedia was uncovered, that doesn't mean it's necessarily the first such organized effort, or the last.

But this doesn't absolve CAMERA of being duplicitous. In what appears as his first instructions to volunteers, Ini advised volunteers "to avoid… picking a (Wikipedia) user name that marks you as pro-Israel, or that lets people know your real name." In a later email, another participant asks some volunteers to edit articles unrelated to Israel until other editors elect them as "uninvolved administrators," who can adjudicate disputes on Middle East articles and ban biased editors. Ini later backed up that proposal. CAMERA's foot soldiers were to hide their intentions in order to abuse the system.

So in pursuit of accuracy, it appears, CAMERA did not feel constrained to be truthful about its own actions. From previous experience, I'm not shocked. I've already learned that CAMERA pushes the media to correct errors, but does not see itself as similarly obligated. On its website, on pages like this one by Ini, CAMERA continues to assert that the Carter administration was the only U.S. administration after 1967 that judged Israeli settlements to be illegal. That's after I publicly confronted the group with Johnson and Ford administration statements asserting that the settlements violated international law. For PR purposes, CAMERA's fib is convenient, since many Jews regarded Jimmy Carter as unfriendly to Israel long before the publication of his recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. But if CAMERA cared about accuracy, it would revise its story. When CAMERA fires off its letters to newspapers, both editors and readers should look at them with a cold eye, asking what the organization has left out or warped.

Obviously, the media does make mistakes. Sometimes media outlets do show bias against or for Israel. Journalists can benefit from a "fifth estate" of critics. But the Wikipedia affair is a hint at the psychology of CAMERA's advocacy. It aims at defending the story it already knows by presenting only what is necessary to bolster that narrative. CAMERA's story is an un-nuanced, hard line version of Mideast history in which Israel can do no wrong. It's a narrative that disturbs many thinking supporters of Israel.

When CAMERA fights for "accuracy," what it really wants is for the media -- or Wikipedia -- to promote that narrative. In defense of such "fair and factual reporting," it might even recruit some volunteers to misrepresent themselves in the Wikipedia wars. Let the reader beware.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_mideast_editing_wars

[oberliner]

15. Weren't you quoting the Iranian Quranic News Agency recently?

Doesn't get much more right wing and religious fundamentalist than that!

[IndianaGreen]

16. I quoted a news site, not an advocacy group that changed Wiki to reflect its ideology

:puke:

[oberliner]

17. Anybody can change Wikipedia to reflect their ideology

There are so many editing wars on there, it is ridiculous.

[shira]

18. that CAMERA article linked to various news articles which

reported their claims. I then cited wikipedia which gave even more sources for 500-700 Hezbollah killed.

And state-controlled PRESSTV is hardly a "news site". Faux News can be trusted over them.

[Idealism]

19. Considering CAMERA is a pro-Israeli think tank... i'd say your source isn't reliable

In a 2003 profile of the organization in the Boston Globe, Mark Jurkowitz observed: "To its supporters, CAMERA is figuratively - and perhaps literally - doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias in the media. But its detractors see CAMERA as a myopic and vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into media coverage."<65>

The group has been criticized as not seeking accuracy in reporting but rather engaging in censorship and fighting for a pro-Israeli bias:

* Mitchell Kaidy, writing in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, criticized CAMERA's efforts to pressure university libraries to remove books that the organization finds offensive.<66>

* Journalist and author Robert I. Friedman wrote in 1987 that "CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don't want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants."<67>

* Writing about criticisms from CAMERA he and his colleagues have received, Jerusalem-based journalist Gershom Gorenberg wrote " It is not the press's job to provide PR for any government. Until CAMERA gets this straight, self-respecting journalists will regard an occasional snarl from the watchdog as proof that they're doing their job."<68>

* Writing about attempts by CAMERA to get a local Pasadena, California church to cancel an appearance by Palestinian activist Reverend Naim Ateek, Rob Eshman, Editor-in-Chief of The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, wrote "I'm always leery when Jewish groups ride in from out of town to try to save us from the bad guys. We have plenty of sharp-eyed Jewish defense groups locally who can tussle on our behalf. It's just a bit condescending to think we rubes, out in America's second-largest Jewish city, don't know how and when to fight. Or whom."<69> Eshman later clarified that his criticism was directed specifically at CAMERA's handling of the Ateek visit, and not toward the organization in general. "I think CAMERA, which in so many cases I find useful and correct, is in this case making things worse," he wrote.<70>

* In 2005, Donald Wagner, Executive Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and Associate Professor of Religion and Middle Eastern Studies at Northpark University,<71> argued that "for propaganda purposes Israel and its friends at CAMERA claimed "there were no new settlements" while "not only did the settler population double, so too did new settlement construction in the 108 new 'settlement outposts' established between the end of 1992 and 2000".<72>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#Criticisms

Great source you have shira! almost as good as your little green footballs 'debunker' of a CNN story...

[shira]

21. um....do a little reading of that article

and you'll find that CAMERA cited many various, credible sources. Add the wikipedia article in as well and you'll find that most media outlets' reporting of civilians killed in Lebanon 2006 was way off.

It's telling that you have problems with media watchdogs that are trying to keep the media more honest, accurate, and accountable. The fact is that, in this case, most media outlets were wrong - and were merely spouting off Hezbollah propaganda. What do you expect when journalists within Lebanon or Gaza are forced to tow the line? Remember, there is no freedom of press and dissent in such societies. But if you're an advocate for biased reporting, I can see why you'd prefer PRESSTV, al-Jazeera, al-Manar, etc.

When you find strong evidence of CAMERA spouting off propaganda like the bogus Jenin massacre, the Muhammad al-Dura hoax, this latest 1000 civilians killed in Lebanon, and count on crap WRT the Gaza/Israel conflict, you'll be sure to let me know, right? You do expect some accountability, honesty, and non-bias from your trusted media, do you not?

[Idealism]

25. You call them media watchdogs

Their critics call them blatant Pro-Israel purveyors of propaganda.

Who to believe? :shrug:

[shira]

26. look no further than the Muhammad al-Dura case

without media watchdogs like CAMERA, everyone would still assume that hoax was true. What's scary about the whole incident is how MSM from France deliberately chopped up the original footage, sold libelous propaganda to the the international MSM, and has neither retracted the story, apologized for its repurcussions, or called for investigations to improve upon their reporting methods.

That case alone reeks of a massive cover-up. Imagine what other propaganda slipped through over the years undetected - in more media outlets.

The al-Dura hoax is enough on its own to make any objective follower of mideast news skeptical of such one-sided reporting. Now you know why others here like myself aren't as quick to accept spectacular claims against Israel until the dust settles.

Honestly now, haven't you noticed the great number of times accusations against Israel have proven to be myths, hyperbole, or half-truths?

[Idealism]

27. There are always crazy accusations on both sides

The genocide claim irks me. Israel has committed enough crimes without genocide thrown in the mix, and those who try to invoke that word (or "holocaust") instantly lose credibility with me.

Similarly, I dislike how the IAF and Israeli government claims that 5 UN schools being bombed were 'mistakes' or 'there were militants shooting from inside,' just to retract their original statements. It does them harm on more than one level to continue acts like that.

[bushmeister0]

28. Israeli must be like a mad dog! A freshened up version of an old theme.

Martin van Creveld:

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force...Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' Our armed forces...are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that will happen, before Israel goes under."

http://www.de.indymedia.org/2003/01/39170.shtml