The bottomless narcissism of the alpha victims, part 2

Despite the intense suffering of his country's citizens, Israeli president Shimon Peres is willing to forgive the one-sided media coverage of Israel's Gaza attack:

[Peres] understood that coverage could not be balanced, "because TV cannot show what it means for one million Israelis to be constantly nervous. We cannot show the daily tensions on TV."

(I know what you're thinking, but if you don't see just how awful it is to be "constantly nervous," try asking a chihuahua.  "Eet ees awful," the chihuahua will tell you.  "All the time I am worried that someone will step on me! I would shatter like glass!"  You can see a heartrending photo of some nervous Israelis here.)

Peres then helpfully provided advance testimony for his war crimes trial as he explained the goal of the attack:

Israel's aim, he said, was to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel.

For reference, here's article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

Article 33

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

It may seem odd to hear a high Israeli official so openly admitting to terrorism and war crimes, but you have to recall that whereas most people see the Geneva Conventions as fundamental underpinnings of human rights, Israeli leaders just invert the sense of each article and then use them as military planning documents.  So it's easy to slip up when you're talking to outsiders.

Comments

[KDelphi]

A girl on another blog, said, that I "should understand", because the "noise was interrupting her university studies"(!!) Not kidding! She lives in Israel!

[John Caruso]

I'm speechless.

Well, at least that removes any niggling doubts I might have had about the fairness of the posting title.

[Mike]

whereas most people see the Geneva Conventions as fundamental underpinnings of human rights, Israeli leaders

And, of course, US leaders as well, but I suppose that goes without saying.

And I'm not entirely sure who these 'most people' are of whom you speak.

[John Caruso]

It does, but thanks for saying it anyway.

I actually changed it from "some" to "most". Which was a moment of hopefulness—but I do think it's true that the majority of people in the world believe (strongly, even) in the principles of human rights.

[Mike]

the majority of people in the world

Oh, them. Well, they don't count, so who cares what they think?

[cemmcs]

(I know what you're thinking, but if you don't see just how awful it is to be "constantly nervous," try asking a chihuahua. "Eet ees awful," the chihuahua will tell you.

That actually made me laugh out loud.

[Donald Johnson]

Friedman, of course, said the same thing even more explicitly. I decided not to follow FAIR's guidelines on letter-writing exactly. For one thing, I think it's important to have nitwits like Friedman around, people so stupid they don't realize what they are saying, so I wrote this instead--

To Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Rosenthal:

I'm writing about Mr. Friedman's Jan. 15 opinion piece, where he explicitly supports "exacting enough pain" on the Lebanese in 2006 for supporting Hezbollah and on the Palestinian population today for supporting Hamas .

I don't think you should forbid your opinion writers from supporting attacks designed to inflict pain on civilians. On the contrary--I think it is a service to your readers to have someone on staff who blurts out exactly what his moral position really is. Otherwise it goes underground and we get a lot of Orwellian doubletalk, though there was still a little of this in Mr. Friedman's column, where he simultaneously denied that Israel targeted civilians, but intended collateral damage to inflict pain on civilians. The US and Israel and other "civilized" actors have favored a brutal sanctions regime imposed on Gaza and did not come out against it until this war started to pose a significant public relations problem for Israel. It is best that people stop pretending they don't mean to hurt civilians when they support policies intended to pressure Hamas by hurting civilians. I suppose hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, but perhaps virtue doesn't need such a constant stream of revenue. My hat is off to Mr. Friedman for his inability to conceal his real attitudes.

What I would ask, though, is that the NYT invite op ed writers to express their displeasure with the views of Thomas Friedman on punishing civilians. They don't have to attack Mr. Friedman explicitly, which would go against NYT policy, because fortunately Shimon Peres just came out and said something very similar--

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849038&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

They could ask, for instance, how it would sound if someone supported similar policies aimed at non-Arab civilians.

Donald Johnson

[Donald Johnson]

I forgot to include the link to FAIR's current campaign against Thomas Friedman--

FAIR

[John Caruso]

I'm entirely convinced by your argument, and I hope the same goes for the Times. In fact I halfway* think we should organize a letter-writing campaign to FAIR to get them to stop this particular type of campaign; attacking lies and bias in news report is fine, but as you say, it's actually counterproductive to drive morally grotesque creatures like Friedman underground.

* (it's now up to three-fourths)

[Donald Johnson]

Exactly. If you drive Friedman underground, or at least push him in the direction of the nearest cave you get the NYT editorial page instead--

Link

Look at that thing, if you haven't already. In a way the moral depravity is only a little better concealed than Friedman's, but though not deeply buried, there is enough cover so that maybe the typical NYT reader might not even notice. How nice of them to think that Israel's campaign has reached a point of diminishing returns.

And I suspect that a great many NYT readers are clueless unless you take them by the hand and very gently and carefully point out to them just what is wrong with their beloved "liberal" paper. Hell, who knows how many of them even noticed anything wrong with what Friedman said? I'd bet Charlie Rose didn't. Friedman himself might represent a great many NYT readers, with the more sophisticated wincing at Friedman's vulgarity and turning with relief to what the NYT editors say.

Maybe I'll ask Jon S if he thinks we should campaign in favor of Friedman.

[KDelphi]

Is that the "Democratic Underground"? (That I was ALSO banned from? LOL! Dont know if I still am! Or, if theyve loosened up!)

Dont they back just about everything the Dems do? (I thought they were sponsored by NBC) I could have this all wrong.

I cant stand Friedman--never could. I hope he falls off the edge of his flat earth!

[Donald Johnson]

The DU site is what popped up first when I was googling to find the FAIR website--I don't normally visit DU. I've heard second or third hand horror stories about the site, but know nothing about it.

[KDelphi]

I got to the thing on Friedman--thanks...