Total number of comments: 192 (since 2014-03-04 13:25:41)
Boomer Bob
Showing comments 100 - 1
Page: 2 1
Showing comments 100 - 1
Page: 2 1
Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion
Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion
Total number of comments: 192 (since 2014-03-04 13:25:41)
Showing comments 100 - 1
Page: 2 1
Showing comments 100 - 1
Page: 2 1
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
What's your point?
People interested in the subject of terrorism may be interested in "Anonymous Soldiers," a new book by Bruce Hoffman about the founding of Israel. From the description at Amazon:
"A landmark history, based on newly available documents, of the battles between Jews, Arabs, and the British that led to the creation of Israel
"Anonymous Soldiers brilliantly re-creates the crucial period in the establishment of Israel, chronicling the three decades of growing anticolonial unrest that culminated in the end of British rule and the UN resolution to create two separate states. This groundbreaking book tells in riveting, previously unknown detail the story of how Britain, in the twilight of empire, struggled and ultimately failed to reconcile competing Arab and Jewish demands and uprisings. Bruce Hoffman, America’s leading expert on terrorism, shines new light on the bombing of the King David Hotel, the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo, the leadership of Menachem Begin, the life and death of Abraham Stern, and much else. Above all, Hoffman shows exactly how the underdog “anonymous soldiers” of Irgun and Lehi defeated the British and set in motion the chain of events that resulted in the creation of the formidable nation-state of Israel.
"This is a towering accomplishment of research and narrative, and a book that is essential to anyone wishing to understand not just the origins of modern-day Israel or the current situation in the Middle East, but also the methodology of terrorism. Drawing on previously untapped archival resources in London, Washington, D.C., and Jerusalem, Bruce Hoffman has written one of the most detailed and sustained accounts of a terrorist and counterterrorist campaign that may ever have been seen, and in doing so has cast light on one of the most decisive world events in recent history. This will be the definitive account of the struggle for Israel for years to come."
Good points all. Like the proverbial boiled frog, I've been immersed in the U.S. MSM so long that I haven't noticed a change. The idea that the networks would be--could be--interested in any perspective other than Israel's had not entered my mind.
Here is one discussion to get you started. If you want more, google, bing, et al can help:
link to mondoweiss.net
The review of history and facts with which you start this piece is an excellent reminder, which should have been frequently mentioned in the MSM's coverage of this topic. Instead, we got extraordinary amounts of propaganda and heated rhetoric, consistently served with the hypocrisy and dishonesty of ignoring Israel's aggression and its nuclear weapons. The U.S. also helped Israel's nuclear program, though the full story has never been declassified. We don't know whether LBJ approved sending nuclear material from a plant in Pennsylvania to Israel, or some other high official did so, or if it was a rogue operation by people who felt more loyalty to Israel than to the U.S.
Thanks for this background, which was not provided by any of the several MSM news items I've seen about this.
". . . the Middle East has to be in flames and broken up by constant American military invasions and special ops covert actions and coups in order to keep Israel from having any peer militarily in the region. "
Yes, this is one of the consequences of our policy.
The shameful part of this, for Americans, is that we have supported this and made it possible for so long.
It is good for us to be reminded what we have done. I hope this is taught in all U.S. schools. How sad that we have billions to spend on killing, but are not willing to pay restitution. Of course, lives can't be replaced, but we have not even tried to do what we could to repair what we destroyed.
Thanks for this important history. I lived through the Eisenhower years, yet I had no idea of the what was going on. I don't know how much was known to the elites in the U.S., but the truth certainly wasn't widely reported. When the U.S. embassy/CIA station in Iran was taken over, I still didn't know the background. I think most Americans didn't. And even today, though these events are more widely known, they are mostly ignored in public discourse. There is a fundamental dishonesty about much of that discourse from politicians and media pundits.
Thanks for this. The situation, and U.S. policy, seems confusing (at least to me). Then there is the question of Israel's actions. This is from a pro-Israel source, and may or may not be accurate:
link to al-monitor.com
I hope that they are right. I wish that similar rational voices were common among U.S. politicians and media pundits.
Thanks Prof. Cole. Also, "for some odd reason," as you say, the U.S. media seem uninterested in reporting that a "declassified report by the US Department of Defense revealed the United States assisted Israel in developing a hydrogen bomb, a move which violated international laws."
from: link to presstv.ir
This was at least picked up by a couple of small U.S. websites, Counterpunch and Antiwar, as well as by a variety of foreign sources. But not by the U.S. MSM.
The link to his entire letter didn't work for me; I haven't read it and accordingly won't comment on Mr. Nimoy's views based on the brief excerpt quoted above. But I was struck by part of that excerpt. The part that says, ". . . the time for recriminations is over. Assigning blame over all other priorities is self-defeating. . . ." It reminded me of statements I've often read, statements from supporters of Israel, who say, in effect, "the Arabs [they don't say 'Palestinians'] need to get over the past, let it go, assigning blame is self-defeating." In other words, let the victors enjoy the fruits of their victory in peace, forget about the past, move on, nothing to see here.
I understand what you mean, when you describe Israel as a reaction "against European nationalism and imperialism," but I would say, instead, that is is an expression OF 19th century European ideas regarding nationalism, race, and colonialism.
This is what America supports and enables.
Tragic that Israel did this, and that the U.S. supports and enables it.
Disturbing news, but thanks for reporting it. I wish the U.S. media did the same.
I remember when Rudy was on the same stage with Ron Paul in a debate, years ago. Paul alluded to U.S. actions in the Middle East, including support for Israel, as a cause of the attack on 9/11. Rudy said that he "had never heard that." I thought this was probably a lie, but--given the virtual ban on discussing such matters in the U.S.-- I couldn't exclude the possibility that his ignorance really was that great.
Thanks, Prof. Cole.
Interesting. It is good that you report this. By contrast, it is instructive to see what WaPo regards as significant to report from Greece: i.e., that the "new leftist prime minister is shaking up Europe by not wearing a tie"
link to washingtonpost.com
"Washington in the past 15 years, with its violation of the UN Charter and numerous treaty obligations and its casual assassinations and torture (all contravening US statutes), helped unleash a vast wave of violence on Iraq– displacing millions to this day, and setting the stage for massive campaigns of ethnic cleansing and the rise of Daesh religious extremism (there was no al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda offshoots in Iraq before Bush invaded)."
Sad but true. And at home, which the empire's cheerleaders now call "the homeland" to distinguish it from its overseas interests, during this time we have seen the growth of a security-spy agency state unlike any in human history, with serious implications for our society.
PS: if we must use The State's euphemisms for murder, killing, and assassination--terms like 'rub out" and "take out," I prefer to see quotation marks. To me it seems that such terms are intended to diminish the gravity of what is done, the dignity and even the humanity of the people killed. They are terms used by criminals, albeit organized criminals.
Sad news, but thanks for letting us know what is going on. At least U.S. aid to the military continues there.
Thanks for this information about an important topic; information so sorely lacking in news coverage from the networks and newspapers to which I have access..
When I think that Congress can't sink lower, it does.
It has been suggested that the attack may have been timed to affect Israeli politics.
link to 972mag.com
Thanks for this analysis of a confusing situation. I wonder what our leaders in DC think about this? We seem to be involved, but to what end? That isn't clear at all.
"Neither in the US nor in Iran are the legislatures any longer representative. " Yes. Sad but true. Or, one might say, our system represents billionaires and organized special interests very well. Unfortunately, our constitution does not provide for a referendum, and--while I could be wrong--I can't imagine our elected leaders ever permitting an amendment with such a provision. The closest we have is the presidential election via electoral college. Even an amendment to provide direct election of the president seems unlikely, though it is more conceivable than provision for a referendum. Whether direct election of the president would make much difference, it is hard to know, but I doubt it. Sorry to be a wet blanket; your point is valid anyway.
Thanks for the perspective, and for the link to your longer piece at The Nation. I didn't realize that some of your work appears there. That's a good reason to read The Nation. Your link didn't work for me, but I did find your article by using the search function. I don't know if this link will work for others: link to thenation.com
Former President Carter has an op-ed about sanctions on Cuba and NK in WaPo. link to washingtonpost.com:
North Korea is a difficult problem, given its nuclear capabilities. It has a terrible government. Still, while Hollywood defines North Korea for Americans in this movie, it may be useful to remember that from the perspective of North Korea, they have been the victims of gunboat diplomacy and worse by foreign powers, for a very long time. The U.S. role in "gunboat diplomacy" in Korea in the 19th and early 20th century was so minor that Americans aren't even aware of it. To the extent that we remember the Korean War, we likewise don't see our role as problematic.
Prof. Cole, I've no desire to see the film; I'm content to rely on your summary. Thanks for watching it so that the rest of us don't need to do so. Earlier, commenting on your post about the NSA's efforts to weaken internet security, I posted a link to an article in the Daily Beast, based on hacked emails, which indicated that at least two government officials had reviewed an early cut of the film and had given their ok. It showed how Hollywood and official DC can work together to "catapult the propaganda" as a former president would say. That's no surprise. But I was surprised that the government would think it okay to portray the CIA as an agency that tries to arrange for the assassination of foreign leaders. I recall what led President Ford to ban that. That seems no laughing matter, in light of recent revelations about CIA activities, including the death of prisoners under torture. I fear that standards for our conduct have eroded to the point where our leaders no longer share older norms. I don't see how this can be good for our country.
There has been a lot of talk on TV news about this movie and the hack attack, but what I've seen has not been very informative. It verges on propaganda at times. The internet has provided somewhat more information. For example, the Daily Beast reported that at least two government officials screened a rough cut and approved the film (link below), evidently with some hopes that it might incite regime change. If so, perhaps NK's intense reaction is not entirely surprising. It seems a naive strategy on the part of the U.S. Beyond that, I don't understand why our government would want to have the CIA portrayed as an agency that tries to arrange the assassination of foreign leaders. I recall when President Ford banned the CIA from more such efforts, after the nation concluded that it was not well served by such a policy. Based on recent revelations, it would seem that we have forgotten what was learned then.
link to thedailybeast.com
Well said. It is sad that it needs to be said, but good that you did so.
Amen to that.
So sad, so true.
Thanks for saying this. It should be obvious, it should be well known to all Americans, but it is the truth that is merely whispered, implied, or simply ignored in American society.
Disturbing to read. Disturbing to think that my government supports and enables this. "New York accents," indeed.
Mercy for Gaza: a worthy goal. Or at least, if that is too much to hope for, an end to U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support for the oppression of Palestinians.
re Johnny benson: yes, the UK is as responsible as the U.S., it should participate too.
Having done so much for so long to enable the dispossession of the Palestinians, it seems to me that we citizens of the U.S. are morally obliged to give those Palestinians who want to come here a new home in America. It isn't fair or just that they should have to come here, instead of returning to their homeland, but--having expelled them--Israel will never allow them back. We took in about a million Vietnamese after the communists took over. Surely we can and should do the same for the Palestinians.
As a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, I find it disturbing, even tragic, that the U.S. supports and enables Israel's actions.
kathleen: I saw a brief report from him on NBC on another topic from Europe. Evidently he was assigned to another area, for some reason.
Thanks for the explanation. I've thought that I was confused by U.S. policy. Now I realize that it is the policy that is confused.
Regardless of the political calculations, it seems as the military- industrial-security-state complex will continue on its merry way.
True, and truly depressing. But thanks anyway; it is good to know the truth.
Thanks; this helps explain a confusing situation. For the past two years, whenever I read such discussions from people like you who actually seem to understand the situation, I'm left confused by America's policy and actions.
I hope this gets the attention it deserves, and action from Congress . . . but I'm not optimistic.
Thanks for this.
Given the animosity toward Iran of many in the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch, the idea that U.S. involvement there could be about Iran is plausible.
A news item on BBC seems to partly address the question I posed earlier on this thread. Turkey's position as stated seems reasonable enough, i.e., they don't want to go into Syria on the ground by themselves. There may well be more to it than that, but it makes sense:
link to bbc.co.uk
Didn't Turkey call for "humanitarian corridors" in Syria quite some time ago? That would have required military action of some sort, presumably by NATO, since Russia presumably would have vetoed such an action in the Security Council. I wonder if Turkey was sincere then? If so, was it the U.S. that failed to okay it then? Of course, Turkey may not have been sincere then in calling for action. Still, I'm left wondering whether the U.S. and Turkey have changed their positions.
After so many years during which Israel (protected and enabled by the U.S.) has killed, stolen from, and oppressed the Palestinians, it seems foolish to hope for something better, but I do hope that something good comes from this effort.
It is hard to know what Mr. Obama really believes, and what is simply the political line he wants to spin. In any event, I wish that Mr. Obama listened to you instead of the neocons.
As an American, I find it deeply disappointing and offensive that my government supports the oppressor and condemns the oppressed.
But is it good for the U.S.? Based on the long history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, I have reservations.
Thanks for this important background information, missing from all the news items I saw about this in the mainstream U.S. media.
This is a good, but depressing, summary of the situation. It includes a lot that I knew, and a lot that I didn't. For example: "In 1949, Ben Gurion 'offered' to annex the Gaza Strip and resettle its refugee population in Israel proper, an 'offer' that was flatly rejected by both the UN and the US."
Why did the UN and the US reject that? From today's perspective, it looks like a good deal for the Palestinians, assuming the offer included making them full and equal citizens of Israel. A one state solution, with no discrimination based on race or religion. Maybe that wasn't what was on offer then (I don't know), or maybe it wasn't what the US and the UN wanted, but maybe it should be now.
An excellent, albeit depressing analysis. For me, the most depressing aspect of the situation is that the United States supports and enables the oppressor.
Regarding Kerry's comments about Ukraine, it seems that one could say much the same about U.S. policy. We seem to operate on the assumption that it is fine for us to meddle in other countries, but objectionable when others do so, regardless of the history and facts of the case.
"He was forced" . . . really?
Thanks for this history lesson, which is sadly still relevant.
And brave U.S. politicians continue to support Israel with words, weapons, lots of money, and the threat of the veto at the Security Council.
Great crimes have been committed against the Palestinians, crimes enabled by the U.S. I have heard noting from Obama or his administration except support for the perpetrators whom we continue to enable.
This morning BBC's history feature "Witness" discussed the story of the Kurds in the 1970s, when the U.S. and Israel provided them assistance through the Shah, until Saddam and the Shah reached an agreement that ended their dispute and the flow of assistance to the Kurds. We don't hear much in the U.S. media about the long history of meddling in that region. It no doubt seemed tempting at the time. Perhaps it is sometimes even a good thing.
A disturbing case, which, as you point out, is not unique. It takes bravery on your part to say these things. Thanks for saying them.
The United States has enabled this; we are complicit.
Unfortunately, this is not shocking at all.
I had much the same question. After all, it isn't just an apartheid regime, but one largely based on taking land from the former inhabitants, expelling some of them, and oppressing those who remain. Perhaps the answer lies in perspective. From the perspective of Israel, it is hateful for these truths to be spoken. From the perspective of an objective observer, they are merely truthful statements. Being perceived as "hateful" by the perpetrator doesn't mean it is "hate speech." And Professor Cole didn't say that it is.
When one looks at the four historical maps, sometimes reported here, that show the growth of Jewish areas and the reduction of Palestinian areas in what is now Israel+occupied territories (including Gaza), it is obvious who has been engaged in wiping someone off the map (with help from the U.S.). I'm often amazed by the extreme rhetoric, and the extreme reversal employed by Zionists. I recall Sharon ridiculing Palestinians who wanted to return to their homes before they died, "like salmon swimming upstream." This from the leader of a nation that says its fundamental basis is the right of people who never lived there to "return." The Zionists accuse their critics of being racist, this from a group based on race (or religion . . . the terms vary depending on what is convenient for the argument). To the extent that it is not consciously done, I suppose this is "projection." But I have to think it is mostly a consciously used technique . . . like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" using lies to attack Kerry's bravery, when their own candidate "served" during the Vietnam war by partying and working in his daddy's campaign.
In contrast, from U.S. officials, only words of support and more weapons for Israel,
"The muted reaction to Gaza by our government and our elected representatives is partly a response to the money wielded by donor groups controlled by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has become the National Rifle Association of American foreign policy.
All this reveals a country that has lost the sense of conscience and purpose that were once the bedrocks of the world’s greatest democracy. Unless we find a way to recover our intellectual center of gravity, we will continue to watch US-made bombs burst over Gaza and elsewhere with a shoulder shrug and an Alfred E. Neumann “what me worry” attitude as our great republic crumbles around us."
from: link to lobelog.com
"
Sad but true, so many real issues, so many lies.
If we mentioned Israel, it might raise the question of why we are sending more weapons there.
Thank you for this report. It is disturbing, but good to know what my country is enabling. We are complicit. Obama could at least end our complicity, if not the killing. Without your report, I would know so much less. The U.S. media I mostly depend on didn't say much about it when I was watching or listening. For example, yesterday (i.e., Tuesday), on PRI's "The World" on NPR, Marco Werman opened the program by saying something to the effect that "the news from Gaza was more of the same, so we won't talk about it." (That's a paraphrase from memory, but gives the gist.) On NBC I saw a few pictures, but (while I was watching) not much detail or context. No doubt there were more informative reports on some programs, but I'm sure nothing like the attention given to Ukraine. My TiVo yesterday, in the "popular on the web" suggested a news program about Gaza, but when I tried to view it, I was told that it was from Al Jazeera and "not available in my location." So thanks again for what you do. I only wish more Americans knew more about what is happening.
A reminder of the colonial, imperialist, racist attitudes that were so common then, that have caused so much suffering, and that continue to do so.
So true, and so sad. As I see the news from Gaza, I feel the same shock and dismay that I felt when we attacked Iraq. In this case, it isn't the U.S. Army and Air Force, but we provide the weapons and the impunity. Morally, we are complicit. Now, as then I feel helpless, impotent, and deeply saddened. Only Mr. Obama has the power to change this tragic dynamic, yet he does not. I wonder, Is he a coward, or a sociopath? His behavior and his character remain mysterious for me.
Re: "virtually the entire population of Egypt wants to see the Israeli attacks on Gaza stop. To have high US officials defend it is distasteful to them." To that I would add that many Americans feel the same way. And to your list of reasons, I would add moral outrage, human compassion, and justice. As an American, it is distressing to know that my elected leaders have for so long enabled, defended, and financed the oppression of the Palestinian people.
Can decent people in America defeat the neocon warmongers, the military-industrial-congressional complex, the bankers and corporations that rule them?
Thank you for this informative report on important developments. So far this morning I have checked several of the major U.S. news sources, but didn't find a clear discussion of what happened. Without your contribution, I would still be confused and uninformed about this subject, as will likely be the case for many Americans.
Another thing this episode in the Gaza conflict reveals (not a "war" so much as it is "shooting civilians in a barrel," -- to coin a phrase) is how easy it would be for the U.S. to stop the killing. Obama has many levers to use, if he had the will. Instead, we continue to enable this horror, as we have done for decades. We hear a lot of complaints from our government about Russia's guilt, because it provided the weapon that downed the airliner over Ukraine. But we are guilty of far more deaths, and for the ongoing dispossession and oppression of the the Palestinian people. (To say nothing of what has happened, and continues to unfold, in Iraq and elsewhere. For that matter, our hands are hardly clean even in Ukraine.)
Excellent, albeit sad, review of the situation. I learned a lot from it, but the general picture has been clear even for outsiders. (I had no idea of Aristide's background: the American media reports that I saw were not very informative, even about what happened to him, much less why.) The current over-the-top attack on Dwight Howard for saying "Free Palestine" shows that some things have not changed. link to tmz.com
The map is powerful. I recall the first time that I saw it was when Harpers published it, which I believe was right around 9/11. (I don't recall whether just before or just after.) For me--and I suspect for some other Americans--much of its impact arises from the way it concisely, yet accurately, presents important information that has been ignored by the U.S. government and our big corporate media for most of the past 66 years.
Perhaps things are changing, perhaps not. To me, the map is now a commonplace; its impact somewhat reduced by familiarity. From that standpoint it seems odd that it should elicit controversy. But from another standpoint, the reason for controversy is all too clear. Thanks for presenting it and the related background.
I also greatly appreciated the post elsewhere on your site of the film and commentary from 1896. Previously, my clearest vision of 19th century Palestine was that provided by Mark Twain from his travels there, which I read as a youth. He observes that Mary, Mother of Jesus, would naturally have resembled the other brown-skinned residents of the region. It may have been a scandalous observation then. Evidently, for some people, there remains some potential for scandal when discussing the demographic history of the region.
Thanks for this informative review. I don't know what the future holds, but the present is depressing. Earlier this week NBC Nightly News showed a woman in Gaza who lost her unborn child when Israel destroyed her home. It was a rare example of U.S. networks showing the reality of life there. It was hard to watch, especially knowing that my tax dollars and my elected leaders support the oppression of the Palestinians. Last night PRI's The World included an interview with an employee of Oxfam who lives in Gaza. She indicated that most of the tunnels have been destroyed, and food is limited to what they can grow and what Israel allows in. Evidently supplies are low. I suppose medicine and other supplies are controlled by Israel too. Clearly the need is great. I feel powerless to help. It is good that you at least speak out.
"Americans don’t have a responsibility to liberate everyone in the world. But they do have a responsibility not to help Israel deprive Palestinians of their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Amen to that. And, I would add, having supported and enabled the dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians for the past 66 years, we Americans have a moral responsibility to make amends as best we can. Having taken their homeland from them, we could at least offer them a new one here by giving those who want it citizenship and financial help to make a new start. For the others, financial reparations, and an apology.
Your comment about Keller reminds me of a long, pointless op-ed piece he wrote after it was obvious that the NYT was guilty of repeated serious errors on Iraq. By that time, I had already lost respect for the man, but that judgment was confirmed by his own words. I quote from memory, but what has stuck in my mind was a phrase along these lines: "putting aside those critics who were against the war from the start." Keller obviously wasn't concerned about them. They didn't deserve credit for being right, nor consideration. They were not (to use Paul Krugman's phrase) Very Serious Persons, whose opinions mattered. Keller seemingly was only concerned with criticism from those who supported the war initially. It seemed a bizarre, contorted, column that reflected a bizarre, contorted world view.
Thanks for this history lesson, still very much relevant.
So sad . . . so much hope, gone. So many lives, lost. Back to the status quo ante.
Sadly, this has the ring of truth. Wisdom comes too late to avert the tragedy of the past decade (though I recall there were voices, even at the time, who urged a different strategy). Perhaps at least our leaders will be wiser in the future.
PS: another bit of history, from today's WaPo:
"When the party of Maliki’s rival, Ayad Allawi, won slightly more seats in parliament than Maliki’s in the 2010 elections, the U.S. Embassy backed Maliki’s bid for the premiership over Allawi’s because they feared a transition of power could destabilize the country."
Thanks for this review. I found the section dealing with the U.S. role particularly relevant. How quickly we forget. Of course, if we depend on U.S. news media, we are never reminded of many aspects of that role . . . if we are ever told at all.
As you note: " In fact, this has been the obvious course since 2001, when president Mohammad Khatami of Iran staged pro-US candle light vigils throughout Iran after 9/11. Instead, Neocons like David Frum maneuvered the Bush administration into declaring Iran part of an imaginary Axis of Evil on behalf of right-wing Israeli interests."
How sad, how tragic the outcome for us and--far more--for Iraqis.
Thanks for this background information. I have seen several reports from major news sources in the US, and all of them omitted significant points you make, or were simply wrong. So much of what we read and hear is superficial or distorted.
Thanks again for your analysis. I wish your blog were required reading in high school history classes.
Thanks for this interesting and relevant analysis. Most of us don't know enough about history to realize how it still affects us. There are so many interconnected threads here. The fabric of history is dense. I wonder how many of our "leaders" know, or care, about such matters.
This is a disturbing report. (By the way, the new website format sometimes leaves me confused about who wrote a given item. On my screen, I see "By Juan Cole," but the dateline is Bangkok. Of course, those are not necessarily inconsistent. But as I said, I'm sometimes confused about the author.)
Re: "Netanyahu isn’t speaking in religious terms here. He is talking about a national grouping, i.e. a racial one, having a special connection to the soil. In other words, he is hearkening back to Ernst Moritz Arndt’s (d. 1860) notion of “blood and soil.” It is an extremely pernicious form of nationalism, from which Jews suffered horribly."
This reminds me of reading a book, years ago, that discussed the influence of 19th century European (mainly German) ideas about race and nationalism on 19th century Zionist thought. It was chilling, with the benefit of hindsight, so see how the same ideas were subsequently used and abused.
Prof. Cole: Thanks for being one of the best sources available to Americans concerned about this. There are rare exceptions: Yesterday I saw a good report on BBC World News America, carried by the local PBS station. I don't recall seeing anything like it on ABC, CBS or NBC. Presumably, they could if they wanted. Evidently they don't want to show the reality. The disparity in world view or narrative is breathtaking. A settler complains that for 20 years Israel has "given and given."
link to bbc.com
Fascinating. I have often read variations of the assertions, "there was no Palestine" or "there was no Palestinian people." It is a strange notion; it is hard to understand the mentality of the person who says such things.
Thanks for this history lesson. It would be wonderful if more Americans were aware of it.
Sad but true. Sad, but good that you say it, since so few will, based on the news reports I've seen and heard.
Prof. Cole, thanks for another excellent commentary. You do a great service. I share your esteem for President Eisenhower. Being human, he made a few mistakes that are visible with the benefit of hindsight, but he was truly a great man and a great leader. My only comment about your analysis would be to suggest that Russia's actions today in the Crimea seem far more defensible than Israel's with respect to the Palestinians. I would not equate them. It is a shame that the U.S. has--as you have often eloquently pointed out--enabled the dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians. The U.S. applies different standards when judging our own actions and those of others.