> Michael J. Smith wrote:
>
> > ...once somebody starts nattering about Israel's "right to defend
> > itself" in the (usual) context of a massive Guernica-style Israeli
> > assault, I figure I've heard it all before, and not just once.
>
> Exactly. Sadly enough, Paul Krugman began his column today with the
> assertion, "Israel is clearly acting in self defense." Interestingly, he
> found it necessary to re-assert it at the end -- "Israel has the right
> to protect itself."
Indeed, the phrase seems to have become permanent boilerplate in current Western discourse. The problem is... does anyone believe otherwise? I have yet to encounter a single assertion that Israel *does not* have the right to defend itself. More than anything, it demonstrates who is framing the debate: Israel and its supporters. The former bombs Lebanon to smithereens, unchaining an enormous humanitarian crisis, and claims: it is just defending itself. Everyone in the West thenceforth feels obliged to prepend to every criticism of Israel's actions the disclaimer that "of course Israel has a right to defend itself," as a kind of preemptive defense against the charge of anti-Semitism.
On 8/1/06, Michael J. Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> But criminy, it's so glacial. And fighting one's way through
> that thicket of introductory exculpations and qualifications
> and reassurances -- it's worse than tedious,
A few years ago there was a thread here on "liberal windbags" (I just searched the archive but i couldn't find it). I can't recall whether Bérubé made it to the list, but if not he'd certainly be a worthwhile candidate. I take a look at his site once in awhile, but he seems to have fallen prey to an affliction common to many prolix bloggers: chronic solipsism. Maybe the success of that book about his son went to his head.
--
Colin Brace
Amsterdam