Sunday, September 25, 2005

Dissecting David Horowitz’ Hate Speech Against the Washington Demo

David Horowitz, former Marxist gone to neocon seed, writes about the Washington demo on his Scaife-funded webzine:

100,000 Zarqawi supporters massed in DC today demanding immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq which would mean—and every idiot East of the Mississippi obviously understands this—a bloodbath in Iraq itself, as Zarqawi and his army of Sunni jihadists set out to massacre every infidel who voted “for democracy” in the January 30th elections. Civil war would ensue. And be assured the blood would flow in the streets of New York and Washington as al-Qaeda, no longer pinned down on the Iraqi battlefields, would find a way now to strike at us.

For Horowitz and the neocons, disagreeing with Bush’s invasion and occupation is tantamount to treason and supporting terrorists—or imagined terrorists. I seriously doubt Horowitz believes every single person at the demo in Washington yesterday supports “Zarqawi” (a popular abbreviation for Ahmad Fadeel al-Nazal al-Khalayleh), a dead petty criminal of sub-standard intelligence. Not hide nor hair of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has appeared since he was killed in the Sulaimaniyah Mountains of northern Iraq. But it sounds good (from a Zionist viewpoint) and serves his purpose if the misrepresentation results in angering his enemies.

As for the alleged “bloodbath” in Iraq upon the exit of the United States, this is the same nonsense Nixon used toward the end of the Vietnam invasion and occupation. It never occurred—and yet lives on in the minds of people such as Horowitz, as does the fantasy that Vietnam still holds POWs out of sheer vindictiveness. In fact, the United States imposed a “bloodbath” on the Vietnamese people, as noted by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman. “In a very real sense the overall U.S. effort in South Vietnam may be regarded as a deliberately imposed bloodbath,” the authors write. “Other factors were involved in making the entire U.S. enterprise in Vietnam a huge bloodbath; faith in technological solutions, racism reinforced by the corruption of ‘our’ Vietnamese and the helplessness of the victimized population, and the frustrations of the war. But essentially the initial high level decisions to bomb freely, to conduct search-and-destroy operations, and to fight a war against the rural population with virtually unlimited force were the source of the bloodbath.”

Reactionaries such as Horowitz never mention U.S. engineered massacres and bloodbaths—for instance, in Indonesia, where the CIA facilitated the murder of 250,000 people, a historical fact now admitted by the CIA—and rarely if ever document their claims, as Horowitz fails to do in his latest article posted on the Scaife-funded FrontPageMag website.

Horowitz is fond of making outrageous and even fantastic claims—for instance, “blood would flow in the streets of New York and Washington as al-Qaeda, no longer pinned down on the Iraqi battlefields, would find a way now to strike at us.” First and foremost, there is a dearth of evidence “al-Qaeda” is in Iraq, let alone fighting against U.S. occupation forces. For the reductionist corporate media, feeding off Pentagon propaganda, every foreign fighter in Iraq is a member of “al-Qaeda” and directed personally by the mercurial and cartoon-like villain al-Zarqawi. “Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency,” USA Today admitted last July. “The Pentagon’s focus on foreign fighters initially grew from intelligence that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders enlisted fighters from outside Iraq to resist the U.S. occupation,” a claim stemming from former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s dog and pony presentation at the United Nations prior to the invasion. “The arrogance of the Bush White House should now be well known to most thinking Americans, but it is disappointing that one of our most trusted public officials would go before the United Nations and essentially lie about a matter so essential as this connection,” William O. Beeman noted in February, 2003. “Moreover, the Bush administration must be truly contemptuous of the world body, since the U.N. delegates could have read about the tenuousness of the al-Zarqawi connection in newspapers just days before Powell addressed them.”

But there were others there [at the Washington demo] too, Communists, Jew-haters and supporters of the Palestinian cause—a cause which proposes to complete the job that Hitler didn’t finish… who can doubt that Palestinian nationalism is Nazism in a kaffiya? And why not, since the father of Palestinian nationalism, Haj Amin al-Husseini, mentor and cousin to Arafat, was a Nazi himself and actually Hitler’s mufti?

No doubt “communists” were in attendance, however small and insignificant their numbers, and the term “Jew-haters,” of course, in Horowitz’ Zionist infused world, is code for people who disagree with Israel.

As for Haj Amin al-Husseini, Horowitz, as usual, only tells part of the story—al-Husseini was appointed to the position of mufti (a legal expert who is empowered to give rulings on religious law) by the British High Commissioner Herbert Samuel under the British mandate (or military occupation) of Palestine. Indeed, after the British turned against al-Husseini, he courted the Nazis in an effort to stem the tide of Jewish immigration to Palestine. It should be noted that the Vaad Leumi (Jewish National Council in Palestine) wanted to assassinate Haj Amin al-Husseini, a plan supported by Winston Churchill. It should also be noted that the Zionists in Palestine were great fans of Mussolini and fascism, a fact dismissed out of hand by Zionists such as Horowitz. Ze’ev (Vladmir) Jabotinsky, founder and spiritual leader of Revisionist Zionism (later to become the Likud Party), “decided to set up a party school in Italy and the local Revisionists, who openly identified themselves as Fascists,” writes Lenni Brenner. Of course, after Mussolini aligned himself with Hitler and the Nazis began persecuting and killing European Jews, Zionists leaders decided fascism wasn’t such a good idea, although Likud and other Israeli political parties are so far out on the right they can effectively be deemed fascist. In the future, Horowitz may want to check the historical facts before making the assertion that all Palestinian nationalists are the progeny of Hitler and the Nazis—a likewise argument can be made that the current ruling political party in Israel was at one time in bed with Mussolini and the Italian fascists.

The traitor and Saddam agent and champion of the Fallujah “freedom fighters” George Galloway worked the crowd into a lather by spinning more lies per sentence than any speakers within recent memory. I counted three really big ones in one sentence, a sentence aimed at fanning hatred of the Jews. According to Galloway thousands (it was hundreds) of Palestinians were massacred in Sabra and Shatilla (sic) on the orders of Ariel Sharon while he stood at the gates watching.

As usual, Horowitz is unable or unwilling to tell the whole story. George Galloway, British MP and outspoken opponent to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, was awarded £150,000 in damages plus costs estimated to total £1.2 million after he sued the Daily Telegraph for making up lies about his connection to Saddam Hussein (or, more accurately, between Galloway and Iraqi intelligence agents). In addition, Galloway sued the Christian Science Monitor for pedaling lies the politician received “more than ten million dollars” from the Iraqi regime, even though the newspaper attempted to apologize and retract its claim. On March 19, 2004, the Christian Science Monitor paid Galloway and unreported sum of money. Moreover, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards attempted to investigate spurious claims Galloway took money from Saddam but dropped their investigation after Galloway threatened to sue. Horowitz, as a member in good standing in Bushzarro world, naturally ignores the truth and slanders Galloway. It would be appropriate if Galloway sued Horowitz and emptied his coffers of Scaife money.

Did Galloway say Israel went into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and massacre Palestinians? I cannot find a reference to this. However, regardless of Horowitz’ spin, Israel’s own Kahan Commission (the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut) “concluded that direct responsibility [for the massacre of over 2,000 Palestinians] rested with the Jemayel Phalangists led by Fadi Frem. Israeli forces were deemed indirectly responsible. Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon, was found to be personally responsible. Sharon’s negligence (that is, complacency not complicity, the Commission maintained) amounted to a non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged, and it was recommended that Sharon be dismissed as Defense Minister, which he was,” according to Wikipedia. Furthermore, according to the late then-Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Rafael Eitan, “the entry of the Phalangists into the refugee camps was agreed upon between former Defense Minister Sharon and himself. Thereafter, former Defense Minister Sharon went to Phalangist headquarters and met with, among others, a number of Phalangist commanders,” who it was agreed would oversee the “operation in the camps.” Sharon testified before the Kahan Commission that “no one had imagined the Phalangists would carry out a massacre in the camps,” a defense the Commission responded to by stating “everyone who had anything to do with events in Lebanon should have felt apprehension about a massacre in the camps, if armed Phalangist forces were to be moved into them without the I.D.F. exercising concrete and effective supervision and scrutiny of them.” In short, Sharon was well aware of the Phalangists enmity toward the Palestinians in the refugee camps, especially after the assassination of Bashir Gemayel (who was killed along with twenty-five others in an explosion at the Kataeb, or right-wing Phalangist Party headquarters on September 14, 1982, by unknown assailants).

“Every Palestinian wound of the last fifty years is self-inflicted,” Horowitz declares, faithfully mimicking Zionist apologia for a brutal occupation, a comment so monstrous and hateful it does not warrant further comment.

I listened only sporadically but was treated to an Aristide groupie and a very confused Jessica Lange in addition to Galloway. I also heard Amy Goodman, the anchor of Democracy Now! (as in Soviet Democracy Now) gush over the fifth columnists polluting the mall.

Note how Americans exercising the First Amendment guarantee (or once was anyway) under the embattled Bill of Rights are nothing short of “fifth columnists polluting the mall.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, defines fifth columnist as follows: “A clandestine subversive organization working within a country to further an invading enemy’s military and political aims.” In other words, Horowitz believes 100,000 Americans are invaders from another country (we know, from previous diatribes, Horowitz believes these folks, and millions of others, are dupes for Saddam, or maybe it is al-Zarqawi, as alluded to above). It is indicative Horowitz reanimates the specter of a long-dead Soviet Union—but then we must remember this neocon cut his teeth as a slogan-shouting Marxist, a trait shared by other neocons who have ventured over to the Straussian dark side where war is peace and occupation democracy.

I’ll get emails and grief over this from Alan Colmes liberals who will tell me that not everybody there knew what they were doing. But how much slack can be reasonably cut for these people? The organizers of the demo are well-known supporters of Saddam, Zarqawui (sic), Kim Jong Il and Milosevic. The speeches were sermons of hate against America. And the goal was to take the only thing that stands between Zarqawi and victory out of the equation. Moreover, the people of Iraq have already voted, and done so in the face of death; and what they voted for was democracy, and against terror, and for their American liberators. That leaves as their opponents the enemies of freedom, cowards, and traitors. Sorry Alan.

Alan Colmes (as I told his producer when she emailed with an invitation to appear on his radio program) is nothing short of a foil for the neocons and reactionaries at Fox News, a cartoonish example of the philosophically flabby liberal. Horowitz, of course, does not really believe the “organizers of the demo are well-known supporters of Saddam, Zarqawui, Kim Jong Il and Milosevic”—official enemies of the moment or, as Orwell noted, “a lot of rubbish which the Party had invented for its own purposes… so exaggerated and perverse that a child should … see through it”—although Horowitz equates all opposition to the same sort of treachery ascribed to these official enemies.

Finally, as usual, Horowitz does not suggest what should be done to these “enemies of freedom” (or enemies of the neocon insanity of forever war, as promised by our rulers), the “cowards, and traitors” he imagines in our midst. But, if my email is any indication, at least some of the people encouraged by the writings and hate speech of Horowitz and other neocons dream of rounding up the “traitors” and summarily dispensing frontier vigilante justice as they see fit (while others simply urge the government to round up the opposition and put them on trial and send them to the gallows for sedition). In the Brave New Neocon World, the Straussian Sturmabteilung (or brownshirts) grow closer and closer by the day to realizing their vicious dreams—and on the day “al-Qaeda” lights off a “dirty nuke” in America (as promised, again by our rulers), the reactionaries may very well get a chance. I wonder if they will fry Alan Colmes as well or leave him around as a token liberal, a sort of dodo bird of a “cowardly” and “traitorous” past species.


Post a Comment

<< Home