From: Dave <dakersting@earthlin
Date: June 5, 2010 1:17:20 AM EDT
Sorry, but what Glenn Greenwald did in his 'debate' with Eliot Spitzer boils down to classic psy-ops – seeming to 'clobber' one of the bad-guys, while meticulously avoiding the crucial issues, the only issues that actually end the 'debate' and make the simple realities clear. Everything said by Greenwald is very easily answered by the Zionists. It's just 'good Zionist' versus 'bad Zionist,' posing a false 'front-line' of debate and burying the entire discourse deep inside the Zionist world-view.
The one absolutely redeeming fact about Hamas – when accused of denying Israel's right to exist – is that Hamas and the Palestinians have every right and obligation to oppose an officially racist-supremacist regime, as well as all the officially prejudiced policies that must be violently enforced in order to maintain the supremacist 'Jewish identity' of Israel-Palestine. The semantic muddle between 'destroying the state of Israel' and ending Zionist Israel's defining racist policies is no accident, and those who avoid clarification of this issue show themselves marinated in the Zionist perspective whether intentionally or just very ineptly. When Greenwald fails to address the crux of the issue, he perpetuates the primary Zionist cover-up.
IF this is not an intentional process, it is yet another case of activists soft enough for big-media approval doing the best that's allowed in that truncated, career-based, Zionist-dependent climate: inadvertently avoiding the only truths the Zionists don't want spoken, and inadvertently injecting the Zionist ploy deep into 'progressive' circles.
The absurdly obvious reality is that a Jewish state forced into Palestine is violent racism as plain as it can ever get: the initial ethnic-cleansing was violent racism; the perpetuation of that ethnic-cleansing is violent racism; starving the population of the Gaza Strip is further intentional ethnic-cleansing and violent racism; the constant new 'Jewish Only' settlements forced onto Palestinian land are further obvious violent racism.
The only possible way to conceal such an obvious moral malignancy at the root of the conflict is to trot out people like Glenn Greenwald – and Noam Chomsky and Jeff Blankfort and Amy Goodman and so on – to charm the 'progressives' while powerfully modeling the false ABSENCE of any truly debate-ending challenge to Zionism.
The forced creation and constant expansion of an officially Jewish state in Palestine is the most FLAGRANT campaign of openly-declared ethnic violence to be demanded by any significant sector of the US population since Southern Slavery, and everyone who discreetly pedals around this fact is a component of the racist infrastructure.
> (7) Eliot Spitzer defends Israel in Debate on attack on Gaza Flotilla
> From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@
Gmail.com> Date: 03.06.2010 10:24 PM
> Glenn Greenwald Clobbers Eliot Spitzer in Debate on the Gaza Flotilla
> One of the best cable news smackdowns ever recorded.
> June 3, 2010
> By Jane Hamsher
.org/story/ 147087/glenn_ greenwald_ clobbers_ eliot_spitzer_ in
> You don't often get a piece of cable TV this good, so it's worth transcribing
> and posting in its entirety.
> Yesterday, two Netanyahu propagandists appeared on MSNBC prior to Glenn
> Greenwald, painting a picture of the flotilla raid that was so grossly
> distorted it was unrecognizable as the incident that is being rightfully
> condemned around the world. Host Eliot Spitzer vigorously agreed with them,
> and then brought them back once again to counter Glenn after his appearance.
> Spitzer was not nearly so conciliatory with Glenn, and during the interview,
> clips of the selectively edited IDF propaganda videos and their helpful
> English subtitles played continuously. In a rare and contentious eight minute
> cable news segment, Glenn decided to set the record straight:
> ELIOT SPITZER: Now let's bring in Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com who calls
> Israel's actions quote, "heinous and repugnant" and, well let me just ask you,
> you have ships approaching Gaza, controlled by Hamas; Hamas is a terrorist
> organization, Israel did (I don't think this is disputed) offer to have the
> ships inspected, if there was no contraband on board, let the ships continue
> on to Gaza. Why was that not a reasonable offer, why should Israel not
> intercede to stop the flow of contraband?
> GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, international waters, which is where this
> ship was, is not owned by Israel. It is a crime, a war crime, to attack a
> ship in international waters that has not engaged in any aggression, and no
> one claims that these ships were. I mean, what you're describing is absolute
> anarchy, that any country can just say, "no ships can go here, and if you
> disobey our order, we're going to attack you, board your ship forcefully, and
> kill anybody who does resist."
> SPITZER: Well, let me interr…
> GREENWALD: No, let me just finish because you just had on 10 minutes of
> uninterrupted pro-Israeli propaganda filled with falsehoods. The blockade is
> one of the most brutal and inhumane blockades that we've seen in the last
> generation. Look at UN reports that are objective, not Netanyahu aides, that
> say that 60% of the babies in Palestine have anemia, 65% of the population is
> food insecure; the entire Palestinian economy has collapsed as a result of
> this blockade. Israel routinely refuses to permit all sorts of imports
> including food, chocolate, french fries, anything but the barest necessities
> to keep those prisoners — which is what they are — alive…
> SPITZER: Glenn, I hear you. Hold on one second. Let's go back to Ruth
> Wedgewood, who is really a top-flight intellect and scholar of international
> law, said that nations that are a war are permitted in international water to
> enforce a blockade and to check to see if contraband is on board. Now, nobody
> has said that Israel has prevented humanitarian materials to flow through to
> Gaza. You may be saying there's not enough…
Messages in this topic (1)