:
Mo Feb 14

BLURRY VISION -

I mentioned in my previous remarks [see entry directly below] on Jihad Khazen's Neon-Cons series that his narrative is full of blurry material. And I wanted to give an example that illustrates this.

From the current VII chapter:

*Out of his Zionist extremism, Douglas Feith objected on the performance of Benjamin Netanyahu's government; as he is the real son of his father Dalck Feith, who was a militant in Betar, a Zionist youth movement founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, an admirer of Mussolini. Betar, whose members wore dark brown uniforms and spouted militaristic slogans modeled after other fascistic movements, was associated with the Revisionist Movement, which evolved in Poland to become the Herut Party, which later became the Likud Party.*

The Herut Party, he asserts, became the Likud Party. But that is factually in error. Every political party has its own platform and credo, what it stands for, what it believes in, and what it wants to try to accomplish. The Herut party was, in part, a product of a certain time and place and conditions and demography. It still exists as a separate and distinct entity apart from the Likud Party. And it even has its own website.

It is clear from Khazen's discourse that he blames the Likud party for something he attributes to the Herut party. That's like blaming the Democrats for something the Green Party said or did, while claiming that the Green Party became the Democratic Party. The Likud party is not the Herut party. They have different histories. And they are not synonymous. His series is full of this kind of "fuzzy" thinking.

What Khazen does NOT mention in that paragraph above is conspicuous in its absence: the Nazis and the Nazi genocide of the Jews. He has crafted his narrative in complete isolation from the context of reality, in this case, historical reality.

Let's return to the current Khazen piece:

*Even if Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle are more famous than Douglas Feith, the latter remains one of the most dangerous and despicable neo-conservatives. I personally held him accountable for the killing of Americans and Iraqis, and if there is a true justice, they should have been in Guantanamo Bay prison, or facing the International war crimes tribunal, which the Bush administration refuses to join it for clear reasons. Feith's resignation is not enough; he ought to be punished.*

Frankly, I worry about speech like that. Khazen describes Feith as "despicable." The intensity of Khazen's feelings concerns me. While Khazen's remarks may not constitute "a clear and present danger" vis a vis a distinct death threat, he is advocating that Feith "ought to be punished."

Thus, one wonders, what kind of punishment does he have in mind? Because throughout his series thus far, Khazen strings together insinuations by propinquity, innuendos by association, allegations and accusations. But no criminal convictions. Does Khazen have legal punishment in mind? Or does he have an extra-legal punishment in mind? Is he thinking of a courtroom environment or is he thinking of "street" justice or "rough justice?" Or is he invoking the death penalty on Faith for "killing" those he named?

While I support freedom of speech, I worry that remarks such as Khazen's "ought to be punished" may come perilously close to the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

:: Dar Al Hayat ::

...