ShrinkWrapped

The Persistence of Lies

“A lie can go around the world before the truth gets its trousers on.”

Mark Twain (attributed)

Richard Landes has been doggedly searching for the truth since that terrible day 7 years ago, September 30, 2000, when Mohammed al-Dura was apparently gunned down by Israeli soldiers at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip.  Video of his apparent death shot by a Palestinian freelancer for France 2 Television, in short order became a staple on television news of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, reinforcing the narrative ofl those who attributed all violence to the Israeli occupation and the justifiable rage of the victimized Palestinians.  Mohammed al-Dura, cradled in his father's arms, became the iconic image of the second Intifada.  Thousands ultimately died in the violence that followed. 

Yet all that blood shed was the result of a lie, a lie that persists and continues to poison the waters of the Middle East.  Finally, 7 years later, the Israeli Government Press Office concluded that the video had been staged and has now demanded that France r release the entire film to show what actually happened that day. 

Among all the other issues raised by the al-Dura affair, it remains remarkable how few journalists seem to want to unravel the tangled web.

Today Richard Landes remarks on interactions with James Fallows, an honorable and honest reporter, who despite having seen enough evidence to convince him that a grave misjustice has been perpetrated upon Israel and her people, still cannot quite bring himself to take the final step.  Richard's post is Fallows Comments on Al Durah: Insights into Why the Story has taken so long to break and sheds some light on the issues invovled:

The Psychology of the Politics of Rage

In the 1960s the right wing in America was in a rage.  The ascension of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court in 1953 and the Court's subsequent turn toward an activist liberalism, meant that the country, like it or not, was propelled into a period of judicial activism marked by progressive policies and limitations of executive power.  This was anathema to those on the Right, who found themselves threatened with repudiation and marginalization.  From Wikipedia:

To the surprise of many, Warren was a much more liberal justice than had been anticipated. As a result, President Eisenhower is perhaps apocryphally said to have remarked that nominating Warren for the Chief Justice seat was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made."[2] Warren was able to craft a long series of landmark decisions including Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954), which overthrew the segregation of public schools; the "one man, one vote" cases of 1962–1964, which dramatically altered the relative power of rural regions in many states; Hernandez v. Texas, which gave Mexican-Americans the right to serve on juries; and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which required that certain rights of a person being interrogated while in police custody be clearly explained, including the right to an attorney (often called the "Miranda warning").

The Far Right reacted with unhinged anger:

Warren retired from the Supreme Court in 1969. He was affectionately known by many as the "Superchief," although he became a lightning rod for controversy among conservatives: signs declaring "Impeach Earl Warren" could be seen around the country throughout the 1960s. The unsuccessful impeachment drive was a major focus of the John Birch Society.

The John Birch Society was infamous for its racist and anti-Semitic ideology and the reluctance of the Republican party to alienate part of its base was one of the reasons that Republican became know as the party most comfortable with racism and anti-Semitism; the legacy of that unholy alliance remains today a primary reason Republicans routinely receive less than 25% of the Jewish and Black vote.

Rage interferes with rationality.

No Blogging Today

Time pressures make it impossible to Blog today. However, I hope to have some interesting news to post later today.

Weaponized Psychology

Ever since Psychological concepts entered our cultural zeitgeist, there has been a tendency to use these concepts as weapons.  Epithets such as "Passive-Aggressive" and "Narcissistic" become divorced from their therapeutic meanings and become weapons in the hands of the those who hurl them.  When you are called a "Narcissist" by your opponent, there is little defense possible.  It is one of those insults that, even if containing a grain of truth as the best insults do, cannot be parried.  If one responds at all, it only lends some weight to the attack.  In the best pseudo-therapeutic jujitsu, a defense becomes a confirmation of the "interpretation."  On the other hand, if one does not respond, the accusation hangs and sticks, as long as there is the slightest twig to hang it on.  After all, psychological attacks are directed at aspects of the person that arise from the unconscious and are therefore indefensible.

Adequately trained Psychoanalysts are expected to constantly monitor the state of their own counter-transference to minimize the risks of using interpretations as weapons.  Even in the best of analytic treatments, there are occasions when the analyst's unconscious feelings toward the patient contaminate their objectivity and cause pain for the patient.  Most of the time, when there is a "good enough" therapeutic alliance and an analyst willing to acknowledge his own imperfections, the pair are able to work through such enactments and counter-transference events.

Unfortunately, in the real world outside of the consultation room, psychological weapons are used with little acknowledgement of the motivations of the attackers and even less concern for the sensibilities of the objects of the attack.

There is an interesting and pernicious, albeit subtle, attack under way upon pour military that is reminiscent of similar attacks in the 1970s.  It involves the use and mis-use of the PTSD diagnosis.  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, like so many diagnostic entities in the DSM-IV is a spectrum disorder.  That means that at the extreme, there is a clear set of signs and symptoms that support the diagnosis but as we move away from the extreme back to the mean. the signs and symptoms become much more nebulous and subjective.  There are efforts underway to narrow the diagnosis for the DSM-V, due out in several years, but political groups are already fighting such work.  The more widely PTSD casts its nets, the more people diagnosed as potential victims.  Which brings me to PTSD as a weapon.

GM Roper looks at PTSD, Guns and HR 2640:

Iran & MAD: Can We Learn to Live With an Iranian Bomb?

On Friday, Siggy wrote an important post pointing out the emerging meme, gathering strength by the day, that the concern about Iran and nuclear weapons is being overblown.

The left is all a twitter because they fear a western effort to make sure Iran doesn’t get the bomb. More than one ‘analyst’ has declared that ‘we can live with’ an Iranian bomb.

Siggy does an exemplary job detailing why an Iranian bomb, indeed why an additional Middle Eastern Muslim bomb (beyond the Pakistani arsenal), would be extremely dangerous.  The prevailing ideology of much of the Middle East is Jew-hatred.  Historically, Jew haters have always attempted to bring their genocidal desires to fruition.  Insecure totalitarian states would find the pressure to attack Israel insurmountable in direct proportion to their internal failings.  I will not repeat his argument here.  Dr. Sanity takes a look at the thinking that underlies the idea that we should not believe what the Iranians say about their intentions and instead should assume they are actually rational actors who are practicing their version of Realpolitik.

Caroline Glick actually spent the time to consider Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia and to the UN and focused on the content of the speeches that the MSM either missed or could not imagine meant anything significant:

Ahmadinejad's Overlooked Message

During his visit to New York this week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacked every basic assumption upon which Western civilization is predicated. Ahmadinejad offered up his attacks while extolling his vision of Islamic global domination.

Refusing to note his existential challenge to the Free World, the Western media concentrated their coverage of his trip on his statements regarding specific Western policy goals. His rejection of the UN Security Council's authority to take action against Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program; his championing of the Palestinian cause and Israel's destruction; his denials of Iranian support for terrorism, and his attacks against the US were widely reported. So too, his insistence that Iranian women enjoy full rights and that there are no homosexuals in Iran received banner headlines.

Ahmadinejad gave two major addresses this week - at Columbia University and at the UN General Assembly. He devoted both to putting forward his vision for global Islamic domination. And while the Western media sought hidden meanings and signals for peaceful intentions in his words, the fact is that on both occasions, Ahmadinejad made absolutely clear that his vision of Islamic domination cannot coexist in any manner with Western civilization. Consequently, Ahmadinejad's statements were not negotiating stances. They were the direct consequence of the world view he propounds. As such, they are non-negotiable.