Just a quick one today.
Both the ‘Jerusalem Post’ and ‘Ha’aretz’ have published video of some Lebanese folk loading a truck. The reports state that they are Hezbollah loading a truck with weapons but, of course, there is no actual evidence that they are either Hezbollah or that they are loading weapon; we’re just told to believe.
Whether it’s Hezbollah loading weapons or not is neither here nor there; it could just as well be ordinary folk loading a truck with carpets or gas cylinders or whatever. The hypocrisy is this: Israel claims that Hezbollah are in violation of resolution 1701 if – and we only have their word for it – it is, indeed, Hezbollah loading the truck with weapons. The problem, however, is that the only way Israel could have got video of Hezbollah violating 1701 is if they violate 1701 themselves by flying Israeli aircraft (manned or unmanned) without permission into Lebanese airspace.
Considering Israel has unsuccessfully invaded and occupied Lebanon several times over the years in order to get at the waters of the Litani River, and, in the process, have killed thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian people, Hezbollah would be silly not to arm themselves to the teeth to defend against Israeli aggression.
Ordinary Israeli people and Jews throughout the Diaspora must reject Zionism before it destroys both the Israeli and Arab peoples.
Visit Murdoch’s Propagandists for the latest piece of deceit from Sydney’s leading liar and deceiver, Tim Blair.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
8 comments:
By heading this post with "Zionist" and "Chutzpah" together, you've unwittingly exposed the cheap line that many Socialists use, when claiming that Zionism (or anti-Zionism) doesn't equal Judaism (or anti-Judasim).
You seem to have just paired up Zionism and a Jewish phrase very cosily.
You're confused. The line that most socialists use (and there's nothing 'cheap' about it at all) is that anti-Zionism doesn't equal anti-Semitism.
Judaism is a religion while Zionism is a political ideology.
Contextually there's nothing wrong at all with pairing Zionism and Chutzpah.
So what's your point?
Well, perhaps it's not really clear that these Lebanese chaps loading something into a truck are actually Hezbollah, but just to be on the safe side we'd better bomb them anyway. Even if they turn out to be ordinary civilians, they're only goyim. No great loss.
While all Zionists display chutzpah. Not all chutzpah is Zionist.
Was that so hard to figure?
Using terms like 'chutzpah' (n. slang shameless audacity. [Yiddish] [POD]) can, IMHO, do two totally undesirable things; 1) it can conjure *positive* connotations (even admiration!) - but much, much worse, like using pet-names for so-called 'leaders' of the Zs (net'n bloody yah-who's baby-name, say), 2) it can trivialise what are, essentially, Nuremberg-class war crimes. The Zs should never, ever have been allowed to dispossess a single Palestinian owner/occupier; there will never be any peace until all dispossessed Palestinians, including every single descendent are a) all dead, whether murdered by the risibly named IDF (offensive!), or dying by natural attrition (the latter unlikely to impossible), or b) allowed to return (hardly likely on current trends). That basically means both constant war and constant war criminality, forever - certainly the Z's apparent choice. (Forever, of course, is a long time; one big slip-up and they're 101% goners.) Given all that I've just said, I'm assuming that no-one in their right mind would choose to use Yiddish terms; too much like fraternisation (or worse, implied complicity.)
Sooo, why give the Zs what amounts to a free kick?
I take your point IDH, and I would never utilise 'chutzpah' in a context where any human life had been lost. However, in the context used on this occasion the word was invoked to emphasise hypocrisy in terms that Israelis and Jews throughout the Diaspora who are not Zionists would easily understand and possibly even appreciate.
Theres nothing wrong with using Chutzpah.,..esp in the context of zionist crimes....
Its use does NOT necessarily constitute positive feelings,..as it can be used ironicaly, esp when used about zionist jews...
Incidentally, look who turns up on a definition page for 'chutzpah':
============
Definitions of chutzpah on the Web:
chutzpa: (Yiddish) unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is known for his career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases and commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah!
Chutzpah is the quality of audacity, for good or for bad. The word derives from the Hebrew word '''' (חֻצְפָּה), meaning "insolence", "audacity", and "impertinence. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah
Nearly arrogant courage; utter audacity, effrontery or impudence; supreme self-confidence
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chutzpah
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1R2TSHN_enAU339&defl=en&q=define:chutzpah&ei=65baSo7REIOYkQWNzIXKDg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAoQkAE
Brian
Brian's definition;
chutzpa: (Yiddish) unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity [princeton.edu]
Mine;
chutzpah n. slang shameless audacity. [Yiddish] [POD]
Common;
audacious adj. 1 daring, bold. 2 impudent. audacity n. [Latin audax bold] [POD]
You might begin to see my problem.
Describing criminal Zs as any of 'daring, bold or impudent' could make them congratulate themselves; "See how clever we (criminals!) are? Criminality can be fun!"
But there's nothing clever at all about invading, stealing land by mass-murder, brutally occupying stolen land. Or lying, or propagandising or the rest of the filthy crimes Zs get up to, like ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide - say.
Of course, it depends on the message one wants to send.
As already noted IF, say, one describes a certain criminal act as "chutzpah," THEN those criminals a) could get a warm inner glow, so b) they are more likely to repeat the same or similar criminal acts.
Similarly, IF, say, one says "When the Zs attack Iran, the US will inevitably support them," THEN one could get the idea that a Z attack on Iran will succeed, actually encouraging that Z attack.
IMHO, the proper thing to say is "Any Z (or US) attack on Iran should be punished in the correct Nuremberg-gallows context."
I've read that some object to Lakoff and his 'framing' concepts, but I can see that IF one uses 'enemy' language (and Zs certainly are one of two of the honest world's absolutely worst enemies), THEN the discussion switches into that enemy frame = any honest person puts themselves at a serious disadvantage.
IMHO, criminality of any sort should never be rewarded let alone encouraged, so I try to be precise in the messages I'm attempting to send.
No rewards, ever, no encouragement at all, only unreserved condemnation, plus calling for justice - which can only ever be served by the utterly criminal land-thieving-by-murder Zs a) returning all stolen land to its prior legal mostly Palestinian owner/occupiers, then b) returning themselves promptly to whence they came. The alternative c) is to be driven, one fine day, into the sea - or worse. Eventually, d) the Z's own criminality will probably devour them from within anyway; we have the first symptoms already appearing with many PTSDs progressing to suicide. Thieving murder is 180° against all 'normal' human standards and should be continually and completely condemned; I do so unconditionally condemn.
Post a Comment