Posted on 11/09/2001 1:41:17 AM PST by Ada Coddington
Finally, an America Hater
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Bring up US foreign policy to a warhawk, point out that the terrorists have specifically named US policy in Muslim lands as the reason for their desire to kill, and the response is always the same: you are blaming the victim, which is America, and exonerating the guilty.
This is nonsense! To say that the wife killed the husband to get the insurance money isn’t to blame the husband for being insured. To say the robber held up a bank to get the money isn’t to say that it’s the bank’s fault for keeping money there. As Gene Callahan tirelessly points out, establishing a motive is essential to proving guilt. It doesn’t exonerate; it convicts.
So let’s talk motive. It’s a fact that the terrorist actions and continuing threats are a direct response to US troops in Saudi Arabia, trade sanctions against Iraq, and the perception that the US approves of the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Anyone who pays attention to the news, and understands anything about the region, knew that these policies spelled trouble even before bin Laden announced it.
To take the next step in the libertarian argument requires that we make judgments about whether the policies that inspired the attacks are justified. Even independently of the attacks, the US can and should change these policies because they are bad, period. If by our doing so, potential terrorists no longer feel inspired to poison people and hijack planes, that’s all to the good.
Hence, the neoconservative claim that we libertarians are just blaming America for the crimes of others doesn’t fly. Even in the case of most leftists who oppose this war, they are not "blaming America" but identifying US government policies as a motive force. It’s a simple matter of observing that folks don’t like it, for example, when 1 million people die as a result of sanctions you impose.
For weeks, I’ve looked in vain for someone to actually say the things that the neocons accuse us of saying: that America deserved the attacks, that this is the price we pay for being such a sinful country, that the American way of life needed to get a good wallop. We’ve all looked and looked for actual America haters among those who oppose the US war against Afghanistan.
Where are the people who are saying such things? Certainly no one on LRC. I’ve yet to see any major spokesman for peace promote such absurdities. Does anyone who thinks like that actually exist, apart from a few drugged-up antiglobalism protestors or professors in minority studies programs?
Much to my amazement, a person who actually does fit the neocon stereotype has at last shown his face. It is none other than our old friend Bill Clinton.
Speaking at Georgetown University, Clinton indulged in a flight of fancy about all the things America has done to call down these attacks on us. In particular he named the fact that "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent."
If that isn’t bad enough: "this country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human."
Finally the clincher: "And we are still paying a price today."
So there you have it: a blame America Firster, someone who actually believes that the attacks are the price we pay for our original sin, as well as events a century and a half old. When you hear this kind of drivel, it’s enough to get the old patriotic juices flowing. It tempts one to observe that this man, this former president of the United States, secretly hates this country. That sure would explain much about the Clinton regime.
Or perhaps it’s not a psychological state at all. It’s all the more gripping when you realize that the real reason for the attacks were the policies carried out under his administration. So he more than anyone else would have a good reason for wanting to distract people from events of the last 10 years to events of ancient history–events that no one can control now.
Clinton is pleased to promote the hatred of America, especially among college students, so long as it averts people’s eyes from the US government’s actions in the 1990s. So there we have the motive for the first genuine case of anti-Americanism I’ve seen. Wouldn’t you know that it comes from the mouth of the former president, whom historians will probably someday consider "near great" for his policies that got us into this war.
When Jerry Falwell said the attacks might be God’s judgment for Americans’ sins of abortion, the whole world came crashing down on him. That hasn’t happened and won’t happen to Clinton. The most the Wall Street Journal could muster was a pathetic: "wartime is hardly the time for an American politician to be harping on America's shortcomings."
The problem isn’t the harping as such; it’s Clinton’s theory itself, that the US was born in sin, and terror is the price we pay. I’m willing to bet that the hijackers didn’t care a flip about slavery or Indian policies, and Clinton doesn’t believe they did. His is a metaphysical argument, an anti-American argument. We are paying the price for Bill Clinton and those like him.
November 9, 2001
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.
Laughable. Please don't get angry if I don't take your word on this. Give me some specifics. Even better, why don't you try to back up the lie made by architect that 80% of Israel is made of land stolen from Palestinian farmers. Does this include the Negev desert too? LOL!
Evidence of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Amin al-Husseini) Before the Royal Commission, January 12, 1937 Quote from text SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews? MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired. SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes? MUFTI: No, it wasn't. SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition? MUFTI: No. Evidence of Haj Amin al-Husseini Before the Royal Commission LORD PEEL: ... Just one question, then. You want completely to stop Jewish immigration. What do you want to do with the 400,000 Jews here at present? MUFTI: They will live as they always did live previously in Arab countries, with complete freedom and liberty, as natives of the country. In fact Moslem rule has always been known for its tolerance, and as a matter of fact Jews used to come to Eastern countries under Arab rule to escape persecution in Europe. According to history, Jews had a most quiet and peaceful residence under Arab rule.... MUFTI: But I can say that the Jews, many thousands, are actually living in Iraq and Syria under Arab rule and have the same rights and the same position as the other inhabitants of the countries. SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation. MUFTI: First of all I would like to say that one of the members of our Committee will deal later with the land question, but nevertheless I will give you the figures. At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams. SIR L. HAMMOND: What year? MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation. SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much? MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams. SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned. Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams? MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered. SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000. MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot. SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab? MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth. SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews? MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired. SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes? MUFTI: No, it wasn't. SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition? MUFTI: No. SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold? MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases. SIR I HAMMOND: I don't quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold Who iold them? MUFTI: Land owners. SIR I HAMMOND: Arabs? MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs. SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom? MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said? MUFTI: They were not prevented from selling the land, and mostly the country was in such economic condition as facilitated the sale. If the Government had the interest of these poor people at heart they should have prevented sales and these people would not have been evicted from their land. A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords? MUFTI: I am sure the Department of Lands can supply such a list. SIR L. HAMMOND: I didn't ask him to tell me where I could get the information from. I asked was he in a position to give it to me. MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list. SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated? MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter? MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens. SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily? MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs. On this very point a member of the Arab Committee will deal. LORD PEEL: On the burden of taxation? MUFTI: Yes. LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now? MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is there any conscription for the army now? MUFTI: No. SIR L. HAMMOND: Would the people like to have that back? MUFTI: Yes. Provided we have our own Government. SIR L. HAMMOND: Then am I to take it from his evidence that he thinks the Arab portion of the population would be more happy if they reverted to a Turkish rule than under the present Mandatory rule? MUFTI: That is a fact.
1 The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini was later the notorious Nazi who mixed Nazi propaganda and Islam. He was wanted for war crimes and the slaughter of Jews in Bosnia by Yugoslavia. His mix of militant propagandizing Islam was an inspriation for both Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein. He was also a close relative of Yasser Arafat and grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti. "Arafat's actual name was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the notorious Nazi and ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini." Howard M. Sachar, A HISTORY OF ISRAEL (New York: Knopf, 1976). The Bet Agron International Center in Jerusalem interviewed Arafat's brother and sister, who described the Mufti as a cousin (family member) with tremendous influence on young Yassir after the Mufti returned from Berlin to Cairo. Yasser Arafat himself keeps his exact lineage and birthplace secret. Saddam Hussein was raised in the house of his uncle Khayrallah Tulfah, who was a leader in the Mufti's pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in May 1941. This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst Brooklyn, New York
|
BTW, I think you should know what I mean by Israel proper - that part of Palestine which became the state of Israel after the war of independence. I used this term to contrast with malador's claim that all of Palestine is Israel. I would agree with him, on the condition that all Palestinians - Moslem, Christian and Jew - had the right to Israeli citizenship. But of course you Zionist racists would never accept that. Would you?
And you consider yourself an American, you don't like what a person has to say, so let's ban them?. If anything, that would be positively un-American. I guess the word rebutal isn't in your vocabulary.
Facts are stubborn things, deal with the reality that our foriegn policy practices have boomeranged on us and will continue to do so. Keep believing what politicians tell you.
When you stick your nose in other people's business, sometimes it get's bloodied.
---max
The US turning tail in the Mid East will not make a brighter world for you. Quite the opposite will happen if we allow MidEast oil to be controlled by Saddamned Hussein, Iran and China.
When the provocateurs—young Egyptian-born Jews trained in Israel and returned to their homeland—were caught and tried, Sharett publicly denied Israeli complicity and accused the Egyptians of "vicious hostility to... the Jewish people."
I had no idea that you were a Clintonite, Miz Nopie.
Pinchas Lavon was a member of the Knesset from 1949 to 1961.
From 1950 to 1952 he served as minister of agriculture under David Ben-Gurion. In 1952 he became minister without portfolio. From 1953-1954 (one year!), he was minister of defense because Ben-Gurion had resigned as both prime minister and minister of defense. There were some suggestions that Lavon was selected because he would quietly go along with the decisions of the generals.
It was in 1954 that the "Lavon Affair" took place. Israeli intelligence planned a strange operation in Egypt. The plan was to set off some bombs to show that Egypt's security was weak and that there were Egyptian terrorist groups. It appears clear now that Lavon was not notified.
The plan back-fired: the Egyptians swiftly and efficiently picked up eleven of the thirteen participants. Two of the accused were sentenced to death and executed. Six others were sentenced to prison terms of various lengths.
Little was known about the affair; Lavon claimed complete ignorance. He tried to fire his second-in-command, Shimon Peres, but failed.
In order to find out what had actually happened, a board composed of two members Supreme Court Justice Isaac Olshan and the first chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Ya'akov Dori was appointed by the prime minister Moshe Sharett. This board stated that it was unable to reach a clear-cut answer about who was responsible.
When the board's conclusions became a matter for discussion in the Mapai party itself, Lavon resigned from his position as minister of defense, and David Ben-Gurion resumed this post under Sharett.
Lavon became head of the Histadrut, a major job. In 1960, six years later, the verdict of a district court in a completely different context against one of the officers connected with the incident aroused renewed debate over the affair. The verdict said that the accused was persuaded by his superior officer
(The objective of the operation was to turn the US against the Egyptians.)
Ariel Sharon (Arik) was born in 1928 in the Israeli Moshav Kfar Malal as Ariel Sheinerman.
His family belonged to Mapai, the party of Ben-Gurion, which controlled Israeli politics for many years.
Sharon himself was a member of Mapai, then a Zionist-socialist party. As a young man he joined the majority para-military organization which was controlled by Mapai, the 'Hagana' (defense). It was the underground of the majority of the 'Yishuv' (the Jews in Palestine under the British mandate 1918-1948).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.