More on James Abourezk's review of Walt/Mearsheimer

It turns out that the California Literary Review allows comments on its website, and the first comment on the review by James Abourezk was someone named "Kyle" who quoted my posting on the topic from yesterday. (Thanks, Kyle!)

Surprisingly, Abourezk responded back, saying that

When Kyle opens his comment with the accusation that I believe Jews were behind 9/11, he makes my point for me.
That is something that I have never said. Kyle’s accusation is one of the ways Israel’s supporters use to silence dissent–that is attributing something to me that is not true.

In response, I wrote two comments:

Kyle quoted the MEMRI translation of Abourezk’s interview with his friends at Hezbollah.

If Abourezk want to dispute MEMRI’s transcript (found at http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD170807 ) the video, which is in English, can be seen at http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1551.htm. The exact quote is “the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation.”

Unless I am mistaken about the meaning of the word “actually” this is exactly what Mr. Abourezk is saying.

Of course, while I am sure that he can quibble about whether he meant that literally, when he in that same interview refuses to call Hamas “terrorists” - preferring to refer to them as heroic “freedom fighters” - which shows that Mr. Abourezk’s definition of terrorism is fairly elastic, twistable in ways to make Jews into terrorists while absolving Arabs who were behind countless suicide bombings against civilians.

Perhaps the evil Zionists who control the world and the media managed to edit the interview with Al Manar to make Mr. Abourezk look like he supports terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah.

And then, since Abourezk is so fond of quoting Ilan Pappe, I added:

By the way, Ilan Pappe himself admits that his “history” is not based as much on facts as on how he wants to perceive them: “My [pro-Palestinian] bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the ‘truth’ when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers; and sides with the workers not the bosses. He feels for women in distress, and has little admiration for men in command…. Mine is a subjective approach….” In other words, he is a fraud as a historian and he uses whatever facts he uncovers in only one direction: to demonize Israel. Which is very similar to how Abourezk seems to write, judging from his “review.”

It is not surprising that Abourezk chooses to base his claims about Zionist atrocities on such a flimsy basis - and Pappe’s description of “Plan Dalet” is just one of his more egregious attempts to build a case for ethnic cleansing when there was none. How effective can Israel’s supposed “ethnic cleansing” be Israel now has more Arab citizens than the total number of Palestinian Arabs in 1948?

I must say, though, that I was amused that Abourzek mentions Jonathan Pollard. One would think that with such an all powerful set of Elders of Zion running the United States government, they would have managed to get him pardoned by now!

We'll see if Abourezk responds.

UPDATE: Someone else did, so I answered them:

• Elder wrote: “Anything but the subject of American policy towards Israel, PLEASE.”

• LOL, reader. I do take requests.

  The best response I’ve seen is Dore Gold’s article here:
  http://jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID=1795&TTL=Understanding_the_U.S.-Israel_Alliance:_An_Israeli_Response_to_the_Walt-Mearsheimer_Claim
  If you want to know chapter and verse of what the US gets out of its relationship with Israel, that’s a great place to start.

  Another good point is made here: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/pollak/902
  “It is no exaggeration to say that France’s Middle East politics are exemplary of the kind of foreign policy Walt and Mearsheimer claim will best serve American interests. But what, after all, did France gain for all its legendary favoritism toward the Arab world? Absolutely nothing—except, I suppose, revenue from arms sales during the Iran-Iraq war (overtly to Saddam Hussein and covertly to Khomeini). France, as with so many Western countries, has found it difficult to convince Middle East thugs to return its affections.”

  Ditto for Denmark - one of the most tolerant and pro-Arab nations in the planet, but a single cartoon causes death threats - and deaths. What a realistic policy!

  My question is, why do we want America to be even-handed towards a people who celebrate American and Western deaths?

  I have news for you: Israel is only the “little Satan.” America is the “big Satan,” and if Israel would disappear tomorrow it would not make any difference at all as to how Arabs think of the US - and the West as a whole. The West symbolizes humiliation for Arabs and that is not going to go away without a wholesale change in the way most ordinary Arabs think. There are group psychologies at work here, and we don’t understand them as badly as they don’t understand us.

  I hope that’s enough for you to start with, reader. My blog elaborates at length on many of these issues.

(h/t Soccer Dad for the Commentary quote.)