" Israel is guilty of 99 war crimes. Why not a hundred? one asks. Well, maybe Falk didn't want to overreach. In the meantime, the Palestinians are the most victimized people on earth. "

It’s very simple. Bertrand Russell explained how public opinion tends to grant the oppressed a superior virtue. As though the oppressed have to deserve their freedom and rights, beyond their state of oppression. When, however, you deal with an oppressed entity like the Palestinians, with their unfortunate choices in favour of violence as a way of solving problems, how can you, in good conscience, extoll their superior virtue? So, in order to maintain the necessary perception of moral balance between oppressor and oppressed, you show that, bad as Palestinians are, they ar still suprior to their enemy, who aremuch worse, by any means possible.

The  “Special Rapporteur" can be quite Shakespearean in his choice of language, without noticing the ultimate in unintentional self-irony:

“It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.”

blog.z-word.com/.../the-truth-about-richard-falk-gaza-and-911

Richard Falk has been a fruitcake forever. Noam Chomsky is extremely intelligent and brought about a revolution in linguistics but in politics he is the worst sort of Manichaen. The demonization of Israel is preposterous and is business as usual at the UN.

On the other hand, Howard Zinn is someone who has produced a complex understanding of American history that doesn't appeal to our cheery faux-centrist consensus (especially post-Reagan).  He would never never be granted any influence or attention in America -- although in a nation where they aren't so scared of intellectuals he might be -- so maybe this UN thing is a kind of compensation.  Hope he doesn't become a sort of parody of himself.

"The United Nations cannot be trusted even on procedural matters..." You talk about the UN as it is a body not connected to the US. Like its a group of foreign conspirators. Mind you, the US is a member of the UN, and actually one of the most powerful. With permanent veto power and everything.

Here are another 2 cents:

"If You Trust The U.N. On Anything You're A Fool"... What does Marty mean? Does he refer to the UN as a whole of just the general assembly. Is he saying that you cannot trust the Sec-Gen on anything at all? If you cant trust the UN on anything Marty is basically saying:

You can not trust WHO

You can not trust UNICEF

You can not trust UNHCR

You can not trust UNIFEM, UNAIDS, UNESCO, WFP, WIPO, IATA etc etc etc...  You cant even trust the world meteorological organisation, WMO. Seems a bit simplistic to me. But not at all surprising. Many journalists I meet display an almost staggering ignorance when it comes to the complexities of the United Nations. There are many things that are wrong with the UN, but also many things that are right. Lumping all UNs people, programmes and projects under one headline calling them untrustworthy is an insult to men and women around the world who dedicate their life to the service of humanitarianism.

Well, It is my opinion that the UN should have its mission redefined and strictly narrowed to two subjects: fighting hunger and disease. No more, no less. And as such, it should be  held accountable to every cent it spends. Since the idea is to  channel money to the poor and needy, disallow UN envoys to travel first class, or be driven in luxury cars, or staying at the most expensive hotels.  These agancies should be run as though they were a private enterprise, with maximum efficiency to deliver the fastest, most credible results in the improvement in the life of its clients, and zero tolerance for corruption and celebrity-status living.

You know, to avoid extravagant expenditure like this:

www.youtube.com/watch

and direct the money to those emaciated African children, stricken by AIDs and sleeping on plastic bags, and sifting through garbage to find something to eat.

If the UN cannot do this, then it is certainly useless. Money is better spent by giving it to scrupulously clean NGO's which are genuinely concerned with helping, not just with the glamour associated with the do-good industry.

Reading ironyroad's comment on Zinn I came away with the impression that Zinn's book failed in attracting much attention, due  to  its lack of  "appeal to our cheery faux-centrist consensus". A swift google search revealed a slightly different assessment:

"A People's History of the United States"  Howard Zinn

en.wikipedia.org/.../Howard_Zinn

What I know of Zinn is that he is a regular contributor to "Counterpunch"* ( which considered Ron Paul a gift from Santa Claus for the antiwar Left)  and that he writes things like this, fancying himself a Sartre fighting Nazism in occupied France, or something:

"Right now, while I'm snug and fed this Thanksgiving holiday in the comfort of my home, halfway around the world a group of teenagers is sitting in a jail cell today, demonstrating the very definition of courage and sacrifice."

www.monthlyreview.org/.../zinn261108.html

Sorry. Can't take any such person seriously.

More, on Zinn, from Oliver Kamm:

"How fortunate, then, that Griffin's book also receives comments from a historian... Howard Zinn. Zinn comments:

"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."

You can only wonder whether some new edition of Zinn's People's History will explain the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon with reference to Griffin's crank accusations against the US administration. "

oliverkamm.typepad.com/.../truth_seekers.html

I meant more Zinn's contribution to opening up mainstream American history with "A People's History of the United States," rather than any lunatic conspiracy nonsense he's involved with now.  Yes, Noga, his big book has sold enormously well -- I didn't want to imply otherwise.

I should make a basic position clear,  however:  when I mention somebody's name or work approvingly, it doesn't always mean that I inevitably agree with them on this or that issue, or that everything they researched or wrote produced a stellar result, or that there aren't dumb or meretricious paths they have taken.

I'm getting kind of tired of having these absolutist frames slammed down on everything.  Although I am, I admit freely, more sympathetic to left-of-center perspectives, conservative or otherwise non-classifiable writers and commentators such as Samuel Huntington and Max Boot have also written things that I admire and have read with pleasure.  I disagree massively with their politics, however, but often enough I disagree with books or essays or chapters that I nonetheless think worthy of grappling with, of taking seriously.

Chomsky pissed me off recently with his (not unexpected) phrasing of the U.S. as a 'one party state,' that's such bullshit.

Obama believes a strong middle class = strong national democracy, and is willing to make real changes to get there, the GOP does not and is willing to do nothing.

Obama believes science rather than corporations should take the lead in energy and environmental policy, the GOP does not.

These are HUGE differences, I'm sorry Chomsky can't see this.

"I'm getting kind of tired of having these absolutist frames slammed down on everything."

More sympathetic to this sentiment, I couldn't be.  However, the slamming down of sbsolutist frames is very much a disease of the far left. As Zinn's edorsement of Griffin's book suggests, as long as it is anti American, it merits his support.

It makes me think of my cable TV arrangment. I cannot just pick out the channels I like. If I have a preference for a certain channel, I can buy it only as part of a pre-designed package  of other channels in which I haven't the slightest interest.

_____

BTW, when you said something like this: "He would never never be granted any influence or attention in America -- although in a nation where they aren't so scared of intellectuals he might be -- so maybe this UN thing is a kind of compensation. " I was under the impression that you were  expressing a rueful  regret that Zinn is not being granted more real influence in America, and for reasons that have to do with America's flaws rather than his own critically-flawed ideologies.

"However, the slamming down of sbsolutist frames is very much a disease of the far left."

That may be.  But it's you who's doing it right now.

Oh, about the "rueful regret" -- yes, in a way.  I've been irritated by the fact that some of the most startling rightwingers get paid court by GOP administrations (certainly the last two) while the Democrats are so terrified of labels such as "class war" or "intellectual" that they do their best to be seen walking out with only the the most ideologically vanilla people.

However, in a country in which "liberal" means something like "social democrat, actually, but I'm afraid to say that out loud," what can you expect?

"But it's you who's doing it right now."

I confess, I have very little regard for the far Left. It used to worry me how enthusiastic they were for Obama, in spite of what he publiclly avowed. I thought they understood something about him that I did not. They readily explained his statements as  politically motivated lies. Something he had to say in order to get elected. In other words, Obama's value for them resided in what they perceived was his ability to deceive many people, with false pretexts. They were perfectly OK with a hypocritical oppostunistic Obama.

Do you think, in light of this pervesrion of every good and honest principle, that they are not diseased?

www.spiked-online.com/index.php

ironyroad, it's only your fault that you shit in your pants when bullied by Republicans. They will always be bullies, that's what they do. But the difference is you. if anyone accuses of starting a class war, you can very well reply with an equally stinging accusations,such as pointing out that Republicans love kleptomaniacs.

After al,that is what United States is now thanks to Republicans - a state where kleptocrats rule. From Dick Cheney and his Halliburton no-bid contracts all over the world, to Wall Street truly demented individuals helped by the government, that's where the love of money has brought the US.

The argument that "you shouldn't argue" ALWAYS comes from the party that has the upper hand and has something to lose from the argument, from the re-negotiation of the current deal. And that's not just in American politics. Haven't you learned as much yet?

I always thought the far Left, if they did support Obama (and some didn't), did so because he was the best they were going to get at any time in the near future.  But I'm sure some imagined a new dawn of something-or-other and perhaps they'll be disappointed.  It also depends a little on what you mean by "far Left" -- I've met people who deeply hate consumerism and want a more peaceful, less violent and manic society, and also people who doggedly supported Milosovic in the Kosovo crisis.  I could see them getting the same label.

Moi, I think capitalism needs strong regulation in order to work for the commone weal -- I don't know what that makes me.

noga, the far Left is piece of shit, here and in Israel.

It is because of Yossi Beilin and similar cirminals that hundreds of Israeli citizens were murdered by Arafat's terrorists - sorry, militants. Beilin looooved Arafat, along with other far Left quislings like Ury Avnery. I hate their guts. They're as good peaceniks as the 1930s peaceniks who helped Hitler.

As for the American far left, it is even more apocalyptic. Noam Chomsky has supported the French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. He also helped the Khmer Rouge Cambodians by denying their genocide. Chomsky alone is one-man synthesis of Nazism and Communism. This man also is the main force behind the American boycott-Israel movement. He is a hard-core anti-Semite who counters the accusation by saying he's Jewish. As if being born Jewish changes his acts, which are those of an evil out and out anti-Semite.

"It also depends a little on what you mean by "far Left""

My rule of thumb, anyone on the Left who opposed the principles articulated in the Euston Manifesto, which offers a pretty large umbrella for a variety on positions, but not compromising on the universality of Human Rights.

I wonder if you would ever consider a thinker/writer's ideas about history praiseworthy if you knew, for example, he was a believer in Creationism?

BTW, found this on youtube, starring Howard Zinn:

www.youtube.com/watch

______

sleepyavl: Beilin is a decent guy. Uri Avney still resides within the tolerable (he does not support the one state solution). That is not to say that there are no crazies out there. Like this one:

simplyjews.blogspot.com/.../why-dont-israeli-soldiers-rape.html

Noga, I agree with both the spirit and general terms of the Manifesto, as you know.  But there are some issues that it doesn't cover, and there are some themes that resonate a bit differently in American than in European surroundings, I think.

But I'm not so sure I'd be ready to label everyone who considers themselves on the Left but who doesn't fit in with the EM as "far Left."  The reason for my hesitation is that I never know if "Left" is a good or bad descriptor for the person doing the describing.  It's often a bad idea to get involved in discussions of nomenclature if the real issue lies elsewhere (e.g. that someone is opposed to the Left in general, from the most mild to the most radical, but uses the phrase "far Left" to suggest a nuanced assessment or a capacity for moderation that don't really exist).

It works both ways, because I'm often amused by struggles in and around the Republican Party to claim the "most conservative" title, when for me that's like claiming the title of "most dorky" or "most clueless about the outside world."  There seems to be more of a desire for labels more among the Right new, incidentally, perhaps because major fissures are appearing on that side of things.

The youtube clips are interesting (aren't Canadians weird!) and it looks like Zinn is trying to back off from the 9-11 loopy circuit without saying directly that they are conspiracy nuts.

mmathog said:   "Chomsky pissed me off recently with his (not unexpected) phrasing of the U.S. as a 'one party state,' that's such bullshit."

If the US were a one party State he would have loved his country.

The self centered totalitarian adores one  party States like Iran or Hamasistan.

Calm down jackson.

Yes, Joel Andersson, you got it right; you can't trsut Unicef, et al. It is as useless and corrupt as its parent. When, a few years ago, the wasteful bureaucracies of various charities came to light, Unicef, not surprisingly, proved to be among the worst. A tiny percentage of donations actually got to the needy. Surprise, surprise.