P. 1
Israelpolitik: Regimes of Truth and the Clash of Definitions in the “Promised Land”

Israelpolitik: Regimes of Truth and the Clash of Definitions in the “Promised Land”

|Views: 125|Likes:
Published by Brent Cooper
A critical analysis of the academic discourse surrounding the intractable Israel-Palestine conflict and a suggestion for ameliorating the controversy .

*This essay won the Mack Eastman United Nations Essay Prize from the University of British Columbia in 2009

contact: brentcoop1@gmail.com
A critical analysis of the academic discourse surrounding the intractable Israel-Palestine conflict and a suggestion for ameliorating the controversy .

*This essay won the Mack Eastman United Nations Essay Prize from the University of British Columbia in 2009

contact: brentcoop1@gmail.com

More info:

Published by: Brent Cooper on Sep 25, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

Israelpolitik: Regimes of Truth and the Clash of Definitions in the “Promised Land”

“Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici”
“By the power of truth I, while living, have conquered the world”

Brent Cooper (brentcoop1@gmail.com) University of British Columbia January 28th 2009

For better or worse, “truth” and power have always had a paradoxically insidious and complimentary relationship with each other and to war and society. Often power masquerades as truth, resulting in atrocities like the Nazi holocaust, but sometimes truth can undermine power, like with the American civil rights movement or Ghandi’s nonviolent resistance to the British. Unfortunately, either way the process is usually bloody. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a potential watershed for the struggle between truth and power. Not to be crass, but due to the complexity of the issue disinterested observers might appropriately label both the conflict and its commentary a “clusterfuck.”1 In such a contentious and hostile environment how do we filter the fact from the fodder? In this paper I will show that there are competing regimes of truth within the secular Western world. Although framing the issue as such may be viewed as artificial, in light of a multiplicity of discourses, for my purposes I would like to isolate the two strongest currents, between cosmopolitan and egalitarian thinking intellectuals and latent hegemonic power interests (namely of the United States and Israel). I will argue that the latter dominates the discourse on the question of Palestinian statehood, through the perception and exaggeration of a “clash of civilizations,” in order to maintain and expand its geopolitical foothold in Near East. I will then attempt to offer some strategies and appeals to pragmatism that help expedite the peace process. The title of this essay is a play on the term realpolitik which means “operating according to the belief that politics is based on the pursuit, possession, and application of power.”2 The term can also imply that techniques may be amoral or coercive. This concept has unique connotations in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict due to the multitude of interests involved and the conflicting interpretations of facts. Among many

factors of the origin, the modern conflict stems primarily from a long history of territorial dispute, chiefly aggravated in the June 1967 war in which Israel came to occupy the Palestinian territories.3 Thus, it is especially relevant to consider the notion of realpolitik when deconstructing the academic discourse on the subject. The first section of this essay will deal with the regimes of truth and power; the second will address its relation to the Israel-Palestine war; the third will look at the implications for society. Regimes of Truth A regime of truth as defined by Foucault is the types of discourses and mechanisms that society accepts to ascertain truth and falsity; the means by which each is sanctioned; the hierarchy of value given to the techniques of truth acquisition and; the status of the authorities on truth.4 The prevailing regime includes media, academic, and political institutions that shape the discourse we look to for truth. Although imagery and propaganda, as well as rhetoric, play a large role in determining public truth, academics depend heavily on language to describe reality and our ‘truth.’ Eminent scholar Edward Said wrote that the dialectic between East and West about Islam amounts to “word politics” in which each side “sets up situations, justifies actions, forecloses options, and presses alternatives.”5 According to Foucault, it was not until the Enlightenment period that people came to realize that language itself does not reflect reality, but rather is a “transparent film, disassociated from it.”6 Nevertheless, knowledge is not about facts but about the result of a power struggle.7 Through this process new regimes of truth are created and they dominate until they are overtaken by a new and presumably truer regime.8

At this point, it is useful to address the basic unit of our subject: a human being. J.R. Lucas’ observations about human nature are particularly cogent and noncontroversial. These observations are; 1) [for coexistence] some interaction and; 2) some shared-value is necessary; and that 3) we have selfish tendencies; 4) we are fallible and; 5) we have imperfect information.9 As obvious as this may sound, there is no shortage of individuals who believe they are not only infallible, but also wield the absolute truth. Although scholars are held to a higher standard of objectivity, they are also not immune from these flaws. As we will see, the dominant regime of truth is typically preoccupied with maintaining the status-quo at the expense of truth, and is averse to criticism. Foucault notes that there is a battle for truth, not an abstract objective truth, but rather the status of truth. It is a battle for the regimes we use to separate true and false and the influence of power that is inseparable from the true.10 Truth and power induce and sustain each other, respectively, in a circular relationship constituting a ‘regime’ of truth.11 The key insight, according to Foucault, is not that we should try to “emancipate truth” but rather to detach truth from the social, economic, and cultural forms of hegemony within which truth applies its power.12 Edward Said speculated that perhaps absolute truth or perfect knowledge exists in the abstract “but in present reality truth about such matters as “Islam” [sic] is relative to who produces it.”13 The image of Islam in the Western mainstream media is often equated with extremism. In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict the United States, Israel, and Christianity for that matter, are all equally guilty of manufacturing a particular ‘truth.’ Jonathan B. Isacoff, a pragmatist who deconstructs the discourse around the ArabIsraeli conflict, writes that such an approach seeks to “reveal that [historical]

knowledge… is filtered through human cognitive capacities, perceptions, and imagination.”14 This approach needs to be recognized in order to improve the quality of the truth produced. For example, we must be careful to not make historical assertions based on principles that have been falsified, such as the notion of “a people” that actually exists outside its social construction. Isacoff writes that this notion is integrated into the history of modern Israel to grant the state and its “people” exceptional status.15 To bequest people such an extreme conception of “peoplehood” clearly exacerbates racism, and in a sense is racist, because it is elitist and exclusionary. Surprisingly, this “teleological exceptionalism” is even supported by some cosmopolitan Israeli elites.16 Indeed this exceptionalism is part of a religious and cultural belief (granted all cultures have similar myths), but this is dangerous to the postmodernist regime of truth which strives to deconstruct such ‘truths’ into their component lies. Isacoff advises that we should execute historical research with equal attention to both the examination of events and critical introspection of oneself.17 This would include challenging ones own belief system and bias, as well as our personal motives and objectives. As this advice is scarcely followed to any serious depth, it is a characteristic flaw of social scientific research. He argues that all humanities scholarship is biased in one of two distinct ways: negatively biased scholarship versus “pragmatically.”18 The former excludes historical evidence that challenge the theoretical bias of the political scientist. The work produced tends to be “highly stylized renderings” and does not address the multiple variants of the historical narrative in question. 19 Edward Said points out that the rhetoric of the dominant experts and scholars of Islam is pervaded by imperialist biases and simplistic clichés.20

Pragmatically biased scholarship, on the other hand, is just that; it recognizes the orientation of the problem as well as the normative implications thereof, and then proceeds to deconstruct the historical narrative.21 The key is that pragmatists are more aware and honest about their own biases – and this makes for a more objective pursuit. Isacoff and Foucault alike advocate that the scholarly approach should be proceeded by critical questions along the lines of: what is the bias of the narrative?; what is my own bias?;22 and what is the relationship between truth, power, and the self?23 In addressing these questions, one is forced to resign to the inherent subjectivity and pliability of definitions. Clash of Definitions According to Noam Chomsky in Understanding Power, the Israel-Palestine conflict would have been solved long ago if not for the United States.24 He says there is an international consensus on how to do so – reflected in the numerous U.N. resolutions repeatedly vetoed by the United States with the support of Israel and a few South Pacific island states.25 The beginnings of global consensus can be seen after the war in 1967 in the unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolution 242,26 of which the recommendations have never been actualized. The U.S. does not care about Israel, Chomsky continues, they care about control of the Middle East’s oil resources.27 Israel acted as a “mercenary” for the U.S.; intervening in African affairs in the 60s, and training and arming Third World dictators in the 70s and 80s. 28 Critics in Chomsky’s camp call Israel a rogue state.29 The key point is that this makes Israel pliable to U.S. commands because Israel would perish without their support. 30 The last point is the crux of the argument: the United States must support Israel unequivocally. We have pinpointed the lever of power in the regime of

truth regarding Israel-Palestine but we still have to determine why the U.S. believes it is so critical that they defend their ‘truth,’ and Israel, through the application of power. Although not explicitly, scholar Norman Finkelstein delineates between what I would like to describe as regimes of truth in competition. In Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, he writes that we must distinguish between the Nazi holocaust and The Holocaust, as well as anti-Semitism and “antiSemitism” (or “new anti-Semitism”). The former of each being in reference to the legitimate grievances about prejudice towards Jews, and the latter terms referring to usage as an “ideological weapon” to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and for defending ideas like the “war on terror,” that cloak a subversive agenda.31 An unbiased political discourse would recognize that in Europe Muslims are far more stigmatized and persecuted than Jews and this would warrant greater attention if it were merely about the suppression of criticism.32 Thus, it is not the narratives of Israel and Palestine that are competing so much as it is the discourse of truth conducted by the powerful state interests versus the pragmatic arrival at truth by disinterested scholars and the public. These are examples of the gross manipulation of language through a regime of truth to support a policy of “Israelpolitik.” The two truth regimes can be further illustrated by two popular schools of thought: Orientalism and the Clash of Civilizations. The premise of Edward Said’s legacy, Orientalism, is that scholars characterize and generalize the East as “outmoded”33 and “immature.”34 These views come from the context in which the cultures are studied as well as our own arrogance towards others. He notes that the circumstances in which Europe has historically been exposed to the Islamic culture have usually been in

pursuance of economic or military goals.35 Said decries that all too often Western scholars have been in non-Western countries as a result of a “complicity between imperialism and ethnology.” 36 This complicity must be acknowledged, for moral as well as intellectual reasons.37 Again we see how power interests compromise the integrity of truth. Said laments that Islam has come to be perceived as “medieval and dangerous.”38 What is ironic is not that we stereotype the “immature” or “medieval” aspects of an alien culture, but that most people of our own society fail to draw parallels between the backwards features of Christianity with that of Islam, which add to the perception of the West as a threat. These orientalist perceptions are made orthodox knowledge in our society by the dominant regime in the interests of power. 39 In the second school of thought, political scientist Samuel Huntington argues in Clash of Civilizations that in this new phase of global relations the primary source of conflict is culture.40 He predicts that conflicts will mainly occur along the “fault lines” of these civilizations. An ironic term, because it suggests that only one side may be guilty of inciting the conflict, but an appropriate analogy to the subterranean – subtextual in our case – violence of plate tectonics nonetheless. In effect, such a line does run between the state of Israel and the Arab world and continues up through the Balkan states. Said rejects the regime of truth Huntington uses as it revitalizes Orientalist thought that is inimical to the postmodernist school. True as his critique may be, it is also true that the extremists who perpetuate this cycle of violence believe in the clash of civilizations. If has become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the post-9/11 world. A special report commissioned by the United Nations (2006) stated that the Israel-Palestine conflict “is a major factor in the

widening rift between Muslim and Western societies.”41 However, they view it to be symbolic as it stretches across culture, politics, faith, and geography. 42 What is valuable from fusing the insights of both scholars is that the fundamentalism that exists in all civilizations antagonizes the others and must be vanquished by a postmodernist regime of truth. Edward Said advocates a category of knowledge he calls “antithetical knowledge” which challenges the status-quo and includes discussion of political influence on scholarship.43 Knowledge is dynamic and contested, far from a mere regurgitation of facts and “accepted” views.44 Moreover, the propagation of fear of disorder promotes conformity of views and by extension, distrust of the “outside” world.45 Within each civilization there is a particular regime of truth that defines the essence of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and this requires distortion of our common humanity.46 Specifically an “official culture, a culture of priests, academics, and the state” defines the notions of patriotism and nationalism for its people.47 This official “mouthpiece” speaks for the whole and so the first order of business is to recognize that this is as true for us as it is for them.48 Therefore, given that the terms of our own civilization are contested Said thinks that we are in the “clash of definitions,” not the clash of civilizations.49 We are in a ‘war of ideas’ whereby the strongest ideas do not always win out due to their indebtedness to power. In other words, if truth can only be acquired by some form of power, then that power needs to be maintained, sometimes at the expense of truth. The U.N. applies a double standard to Israel. In 2002 a Cambridge study showed that compared to analogous global conflicts, the Israel-Palestine has enjoyed “virtual immunity” from typical U.N. sanctions.50 Why? To describe the machinery of truth

production regarding Israel/Palestine we must look at a particular power factor that is described as the Israel lobby. Distinguished international relations theorists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt articulate the perverse relationship between the Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy. The United States allocates 1/5th of its foreign-aid budget to Israel, a state that by standards of relative GDP needs no such charity.51 The U.S. gives generous military and intelligence support to Israel as well as covers up their nuclear capabilities.52 American support of Israel is so unequivocal that it raises questions about the motives of the United States. Mearsheimer and Walt doubt Israel’s value as a strategic asset, 53 and thus undermine the stated foreign policy rationale. Post 9/11, the U.S.-Israeli alliance is rationalized in a new framework54 – namely the “War on Terror” – that further orientalizes middle-eastern nations, making them a threat to the U.S. via Israel. The authors argue however that Israel is a liability because the terrorists threatening Israel are not the same as those that threaten the United States.55 Moreover, rather than the U.S. allying with Israel because of common threats, they attract more hostility and thus terrorism in part because of their ties to Israel.56 The unqualified U.S. diplomatic and military support for Israel reveals the machinations of the regime of truth in that the hubris of both the U.S. and Israel blinds them to the legitimate criticisms of their policies and actions. The current transnational regime holds a monopoly on truth in order to protect and increase its power. Examples of the “new anti-Semitism” are plentiful. Not even the president of the World Jewish Congress, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., could comment on the West Bank security barrier without being deemed traitorous.57 Case in point, ‘the lobby’ is so quick to vilify potential critics that it did not hesitate to demonize Israel hawk Howard Dean over a comment

calling for U.S. ‘even-handedness’ on the Arab-Israeli conflict. 58 Other high profile targets include 1980 gubernatorial candidate Adlai Stevenson59 and more recently, Jewish billionaire George Soros.60 The complicity that is required for this rift between this regime of truth and its critics is vast. One could draw a parallel – if only in the relationship of power and truth production - to the symbiotic relationship between the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology (that “scientifically” justified the holocaust) and the Nazi regime. The former depended on the latter for funding, so was impelled to produce what the Nazis wanted to hear. The fact that many powerful think tanks in D.C. are also pro-Israel by default61 and the claim of Harvard Law chair and Israel champion Alan Dershowitz that Harvard is virtually supported by Jews62 is at least sufficient to drive home the point that, as Said put it, “scholarly self-congratulation fortifies present practices indefinitely.”63 In defense of the indefensible Nazi scientists, they were under a deadly oppressive regime of truth. Options were very limited. What is our excuse? Said calls our current scholarly complicity in neglecting the relations of power to the work being produced a “conspiracy of silence.”64 Alan Dershowitz is author of the provocative book The Case for Israel that asserts that Israel can do no wrong. Norman Finkelstein’s book Beyond Chutzpah is in large part dedicated to discrediting Dershowitz. Finkelstein writes that books like Dershowitz’ only become best sellers because of a “systematic institutional bias” (his emphasis).65 This means that within the system that produced this work there is an inherent leaning towards a particular conclusion. Said explains that our “methodological consciousness” is inextricable from the market pressures on academia; that is to say, one fails to question

their own motivation if someone is buying what they are selling.66 Ironically, Dershowitz accuses Mearsheimer and Walt of exactly the same “scholarly derelictions” that Finkelstein accuses Dershowitz of.67 In academia, analysis of the relationship between scholarship and power is ignored all too often and thus a mechanism for reconciling the truth between these scholars eludes us. The key that differentiates between the two camps is the methodology by which truth is produced. Said, Finkelstein, Chomsky, Mearsheimer and Walt fundamentally disagree with Huntington, Dershowitz, the Bush administration and mainstream media, not on the facts, but on the regime of truth employed. For Said, the domain of so called “experts” on Islam and the Middle East (Dershowitz is one who is called upon about Israel frequently) amounts to “crisis management,” and the U.S. dominated paradigm is therefore confined to “geopolitical and economic interests” facilitated by a knowledge production structure that is “unimaginable” to the individual.68 These “experts” are cogs in the regime of truth and are utilized for the purpose they serve to power, not so much for their “expertise.” Ultimately, the decision makers that send countries to war are of lesser intellectual clout than the scholars who contemplate the nature of war and study its effects on society. For this reason, it is paramount that intellectuals exercise serious selfcriticism and decision makers take a more pluralistic approach.69 The “Promised Land” An image is constructed by Israeli leaders and sympathizers that depicts Israel as weak, vulnerable, and victimized.70 This is not true however, since Israel has enjoyed military supremacy over its adversaries since the conception of the state71 and thus such jingoism is superfluous. The imagery and discourse around the Israel-Palestine conflict

says very little then, if anything, about the Israelis or the Palestinians. It says a great deal about our society at large, and our regime of truth. Finkelstein echoed this sentiment in asking “what it says about intellectual life” when a tenured professor like Alan Dershowitz is permitted to proliferate nonsense?72 In pop-culture, the acute irony of the “new anti-Semitism” was articulated well, by a Jewish comedian no less, on the hit show Seinfeld. Jerry Seinfeld’s “Uncle Leo” was constantly accusing people, falsely, of being anti-Semitic when things went wrong in his life.73 As hilarious as the parody may be, it is as if there is a taken-for-grantedness in our culture about such prejudice and hypocrisy. We do not just conspire in ‘silence,’ I argue, but also in the degree to which we bestow power to regimes of truth to produce palatable myths for ourselves to insulate us from the harsh truths of reality. Ultimately, people decide whether the contradictions in the regime of truth are tolerable or not. The real sources of conflict in this world are cleverly obfuscated so as to keep people running around clinging to false positives (and false promises!). Ergo, the nature and status of belief is therefore invariably tied to the regime of truth. It should go without saying that religion, although not the proximate cause of the conflict, plays an inextricable role in the local Israel-Palestine conflict as well as the global clash of definitions. Public perceptions are garnered, in large part, through the institutional global proliferation of dogmatic religious ‘truths.’ Burgeoning intellectual Sam Harris highlights the clear geo-political consequences of belief by citing the statistical fact that 44 percent of Americans believe that Israel is the “God”-given “promised land” of the Jewish people.74 Land claims based on birthright are still based only on social facts and not on empirical evidence and thus are highly disputable.

According to Norman Finkelstein, the essence of Zionism is to create those facts and allow sufficient time to pass so it would be impossible to reverse.75 The pernicious influence of power on truth has always been best exemplified by religious-style thinking – even in atheistic communism. If the power structure in the regime of truth were to reveal to its constituents that these tenets are nothing more than potent myths and metaphors, it would lose its power base and thereby forfeit its ability to produce truth. The compromise many people have reached is to be a religious moderate, but Sam Harris argues that this acts as a cover for religious fundamentalism since it is politically taboo to criticise religious literalism.76 We leave the fundamentalists and extremists to criticize each other’s faith, which accomplishes absolutely nothing. What Harris is getting at is people are behaving in a rational way within their given regime of truth. In the middle ages, heretics were lynched and burned alive for five centuries because the inquisitors acted in accordance with scripture.77 This notion infects the social scientific discourse as well, in that one is scorned and vilified for analyzing taboos as it threatens the established order. Tolerating unfounded beliefs is intellectual bankruptcy, says Harris, because it means you can not call a spade a spade. He concludes that the only spiritual truths and experiences we can tolerate are those that transcend culture.78 To return to the clash of definitions, Said further excoriates Huntington by highlighting the “counter culture,” secular movements, dissent, and discussion that occurs within Islamic societies, and “attacks [the] official and orthodox.”79 However, he notes that the recent history of the Middle East has been a struggle to transcend religious and ethnic discord and to aspire to a sort of secular democracy.80 One such example in the “promised land” is the so-called Israeli New Historians – a more united and pragmatic

front, much like the “New Atheists”81 – who have effectively pried open the negotiation framework, regarding the refugee problem, through various tradeoffs such as partial Israeli guilt acknowledgement for partial Palestinian concession on the right of return of Palestinian refugees.82 Far from a consensus and further from a practical solution, the movement is significant because it represents crossing the threshold of a major taboo in Israel. In 2001 there were attempts by the Likud Government to reform the education curriculum in order to induce “more patriotism.” They were subsequently thwarted and now the publications of the New Historians are taught as well.83 What is required then is constant vocal pressure by academics on taboos until the dissenting voices reach a critical mass and infringe upon the incumbent regime of truth. Conclusion In terms of law, the only body that has jurisdiction over the issue of Palestine is the United Nations.84 The international community is nearly unanimous, in multiple U.N. resolutions, on how to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict: some form of a two-state settlement with Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and a just resolution of the refugee issue.85 I thus lay to rest questions about the practical solution. The purpose of my essay was to analyze the current regime of truth that, in a struggle for power, causes academics to butt heads, blocks states compliance with the higher truth of the U.N. courts, and dissuades our officials from arriving at such pragmatic conclusions themselves. My recommendations have been iterated throughout this paper. They are, first, for our full acquiescence to our limited “human nature.” Second, a more pragmatic and postmodernist pursuance of knowledge and truth must not only be enforced in universities, but extended to the mainstream media, government, and religious

institutions as well – the main appendages of social ‘truth’ proliferation – so far as they may validate the truth produced in universities to be free from the hegemony of power. We must be vigilant to overcome the psychological despotism of regimes of truth that perpetuate the socially constructed boundaries that divide and exploit us. Third, I urge states and individuals to aspire to the U.N. as the more legitimate forum for truth production based on the collective intentionality of states and the principles of perpetual peace. Finally, in the words of the 18th century Quakers, we must “speak truth to power.”86

Bibliography Chomsky, Noam, and Peter Mitchell. Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. New York: New Press, 2002. Finkelstein, Norman G., Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.
"Glossary." International Politics on the World Stage. http://highered.mcgrawhill.com/sites/0073526304/student_view0/glossary.html (accessed January 28, 2009).

"h2g2 - 'Seinfeld' - the TV Series." BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A972326 (accessed January 28, 2009). Harris, Sam., "The Problem of Religious Belief." Idea City, Toronto, June 24, 2005. Hirsch, Michal Ben-Josef. "From Taboo to the Negotiable: The Israeli New Historians and the Changing Representation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem." Perspectives on Politics 5, no. 2 (2007): 241-258. Huntington, Samuel P., "The Clash of Civilizations?." foreign affairs 72, no. 3 (1993). Hurley, Andrew J., Israel and the New World Order. Santa Barbara: Fithian Pr, 1991. Isacoff, Jonathan B., Writing the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Pragmatism and Historical Inquiry. New York: Lexington Books, 2006. Lucas, J.R., The Principles of Politics. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1966.

Macfie, Alexander Lyon. Orientalism: A Reader [book on-line]. London: NYU Press, 2001. <http://books.google.ca/>. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. "The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy." Middle East Policy 8, no. 3 (2006): 29-86. Said, Edward W., Covering Islam. New York: Pantheon Books, 1981. Said, Edward. "The Myth of ‘The Clash of Civilizations’." Media Education Foundation, Amherst, September 16, 1996. <www.mediaed.org/assets/products/404/transcript_404.pdf>. "Speak Truth to Power." The Religious Society of Friends. http://www.quaker.org/sttp.html (accessed January 28, 2009). Report of the High-level Group. New York: United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, 2006. <http://www.unaoc.org/repository/HLG_Report.pdf>. The Question of Palestine and the United Nations. New York: United Nations, 2003.

1

chaotic and messy situation; multiple mistakes or problems happening in rapid succession "Glossary." International Politics on the World Stage. http://highered.mcgrawhill.com/sites/0073526304/student_view0/glossary.html (accessed January 28, 2009). 3 The Question of Palestine and the United Nations. (New York: United Nations, 2003), 18 4 Alexander Lyon Macfie, Orientalism: A Reader [book on-line]. (London: NYU Press, 2001) 42, available from http://books.google.ca; Internet 5 Edward W. Said, Covering Islam. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1981) xvi 6 Macfie 41 7 Ibid. 8 Macfie 41 9 J.R. Lucas, The Principles of Politics. (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1966) 3 10 Macfie 42 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 43 13 Said, Covering Islam xviii 14 Jonathan B. Isacoff, Writing the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Pragmatism and Historical Inquiry. (New York: Lexington Books, 2006) 25 15 Isacoff 53-54 16 Ibid. 55 17 Ibid. 175 18 Isacoff 175 19 Ibid. 20 Said, Covering Islam xiii 21 Isacoff 175 22 Ibid. 23 L.H. Martin et al, (1988) Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault [excerpt online]. London: Tavistock. pp.9-15. accessed 24 January 2009; available from http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/techne.htm; Internet 24 Noam Chomsky and Peter Mitchell. Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. (New York: New Press, 2002), 124-5 25 Norman G. Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008) 349 26 The Question of Palestine and the United Nations, p. 18 27 Chomsky and Mitchell. Understanding Power 125 28 Ibid. 29 cf. Chomsky, Finkelstein 30 Chomsky and Mitchell 127 31 Finkelstein 84 32 Evidence here is given by a 2004 Pew poll that shows animosity towards Muslims was increased by the Iraq war while the imagined bigotry against Jews not changed from a decade earlier, Finkelstein 76 33 Said, Covering Islam 140 34 Ibid. 139 35 Ibid. 131 36 Said, Covering Islam 131 37 Ibid. xvii 38 Ibid. 149 39 Ibid. 149 40 Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?," Foreign Affairs 72, no. 3 (1993). http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5188/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations.html (accessed January 18, 2009). 41 Report of the High-level Group. (New York: United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, 2006), 17, available online at http://www.unaoc.org/repository/HLG_Report.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2009 42 Ibid. 17 43 Said, Covering Islam 149 44 Ibid. 152 45 Ibid. 153
2

46

Edward Said, "The Myth of ‘The Clash of Civilizations’." Media Education Foundation, Amherst, September 16, 1996. 8, available online at http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/404/transcript_404.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2009 47 Said, "The Myth of ‘The Clash of Civilizations’." 8 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Finkelstein 64 51 John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy," Middle East Policy 8, no. 3 (2006): 31 52 Mearsheimer and Walt 31 53 Ibid. 32 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 33 56 Mearsheimer and Walt 33 57 Ibid. 41 58 Ibid. 44 59 Andrew J. Hurley, Israel and the New World Order. (Santa Barbara: Fithian Pr, 1991) 126 60 Finkelstein 79 61 Mearsheimer and Walt 43 62 Finkelstein 70 63 Said, Covering Islam 142 64 Ibid. 143 65 Finkelstein 17 66 Said, Covering Islam 141 67 Finkelstein lii 68 Said, Covering Islam 145 69 It is important to note that even this virtue can be abused by totalitarian systems, as it was under Maoism, where unabated elites hypocritically forced dissidents to self-criticize, sometimes only to be executed. 70 Mearsheimer and Walt 34 71 Ibid. 35 72 Finkelstein 95 73 "h2g2 - 'Seinfeld' - the TV Series." BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A972326 (accessed January 28, 2009). 74 Sam Harris, "The Problem of Religious Belief." Idea City, Toronto, June 24, 2005. 75 Finkelstein 12 76 Harris, Sam. "The Problem of Religious Belief." Idea City, Toronto, June 24, 2005. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid. 79 Said, "The Myth of ‘The Clash of Civilizations’." 8 80 Said, Covering Islam 138 81 In reference to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris who have collectively launched an anti-Crusade against the pervasive threat of dogmatism and superstition by organized religions 82 Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch, "From Taboo to the Negotiable: The Israeli New Historians and the Changing Representation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem." Perspectives on Politics 5, no. 2 (2007): 241 83 Hirsch 253 84 Hurley 317 85 Finkelstein 6 86 "Speak Truth to Power." The Religious Society of Friends. http://www.quaker.org/sttp.html (accessed January 28, 2009).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->