Wednesday, March 14, 2012

John Tilman: "Die Israel Die!"

It may be against my better judgment, but I expect at least some level of quality from Huffington Post bloggers. Now that obvious propagandists like Sharmine Narwani and Ahmed Moor have moved on to Veteran's Today and Electronic Intifada where they belong, I expect the bloggers to at least be at the level of James Zogby. Which makes a recent article titled "The 'Existential Threat' To Israel is Israel," all the more disappinting. It's written by John Tilman who is billed as the director of the MIT Center for International Studies, but the article itself comes off as if it's written by a third rate Palsbarist who doesn't know much about the situation besides what he reads on "If Americans Knew." Don't believe me? Let's take a look as the bias simply slides off the page:
"The nearly complete mastery of U.S. politics that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu again displayed in Washington last week belies a dark reality for the Jewish State. That is the startling prospect that it has sown the seeds of its own destruction, one which will come to its ghastly fruition in a matter of a few years."
Have you got that? Because an Israeli politician is good at politics, that means that Israel is going to be destroyed in "a few years." This is the kind of informed and well researched analysis that is expected on such noble institutions as the Huffington Post. But let's not strawman, let's let Mr. Tilman defend his point of view with three "developments in the past week [that] are emblematic of the coming disaster."
"First is the fabricated fear of Iran's nuclear program, one which poses no immediate threat to Israel -- much less an "existential" threat -- and very likely never will. Even if Iran at some future time managed to build a few nuclear weapons, Israel's nuclear arsenal (reportedly 200 bombs at the ready) would serve as a deterrent, to say nothing of U.S. capability."
Wow. I find this paragraph irritating not because it's wrong but because it's boring. Well done on parroting what ever anti-Zionist has been saying for years now, Mr. Tilman. Way to earn your paycheck. Unfortunately for you these talking points have been going around for a long time and so has their counterpoints. Namely Iran's use of proxies and the millenialism that characterizes their leadership. If you had brought something new to the table I might have been a little more impressed. But instead he's just like "la la la there's no problem," and moves on to throwing insults (emphasis mine):
"Netanyahu's alarmist rhetoric about Iran, echoed by his legions in the United States, really serves another purpose..."
Here's a rarity: A Huffington Post blogger making an accusation of dual loyalty! What a shock! This implies that anyone who doesn't join Mr. Tilman in sticking their collective heads in the sand and saying "Iran is not a threat" belongs to Netanyahu as a member of "his legion." This is what passes for intellectual discourse at the Huffington Post and apparently at the MIT Center for International Studies.

At this point Mr. Tilman whines about the Palestinians which I am skipping because like everything else he says it's recycled talking points and he doesn't explain how Israel will be destroyed because of it. Instead he moves on to something else:
"A second, ongoing drama is the Arab uprising, with attention now focused on Syria. Israel last week offered humanitarian assistance to civilians brutalized by Assad's regime. But Netanyahu wants a weakened Assad to remain in power..."
Of course he does. That's why he criticized Iran from supporting "Assad's brutal slaughter of the Syrian people." And of course Shimon Peres said that Israel hoped for democracy there. But why bother to point of inconvenient facts? That will mean you have to do some actual thinking. And thinking he does:
" A democratized Arab world will demand -- is demanding -- an end to the occupation of Palestine, and the issue itself radicalizes the Arab uprising to the benefit of the Salafis, the most "Islamist" factions that will support Hamas and possibly a new intifada."
Are you following this? First Tilman criticizes Israel for wanting Assad to remain in power, and then he is saying that new Islamist forces will lead to a new bloody war with Israel. So Israel is forced to choose between helping a dictator or bringing a war on itself. Either way Mr. Tilman is going to blame Israel. Welcome to the Huffington Post. Of course the concept of the Arab world demanding something is not exactly earth shattering. All they do is demanding things from Israel and that isn't going to change no matter who is in power there. Nor has the new Egyptian government been particularly helpful in lifting the siege of Gaza, us pro-Israel bloggers have noticed. So as usual Mr. Tilman is hoping things are more anti-Israel than they are, and still has yet to prove any kind of threat.
"Instead of seeing the Arab transformation as a serious, even mortal challenge, Israel is digging in its heels and dismissing the small prospects for a peace agreement with the Palestinians -- a move that would neuter many of the Arab radicals."
Leaving aside for a minute about who exactly is dismissing peace until their demands are met, Mr. Tilman is not worthy of his position at MIT if he sincerely thinks that Arab radicals will be stopped by a peace agreement with the Pale-freaking-stinians. The Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt even though Egypt has been at peace with Israel for decades. No Arab country has ever gone to war on behalf of the Palestinians and never will. If they choose to fight Israel, it will be their choice. The Palestinians will just be a scapegoat, like they always have.

Stay tuned for part 2.

1 comment:

  1. If Jews dominate everything everywhere in America then why aren't there more things to benefit Jews. Oh I dunno, like mandatory Hebrew education, a state religion, a Jewish calendar, kosher food in all schools and specific quotas for Jews in every job? To me it's like the holocaust deniers who worship Hitler. I mean if he didn't kill anyone that would make him a loser by their own rules, no?


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.