"The dependent variable has taken this value before without the presence of the independent variable."

Yeah, but maybe W jumped in a DeLorean and traveled back to 1955, thereby causing the sequence of events to be set into motion.

Oh, wait, wrong thread ;-)

You'd think economists would have good handles on this whole "causality" thing though. Especially since they're always lecturing us political science types about not being scientific enough...

You conclude that Krugman's wrong, but you've only disputed the evidence he presents in a brief essay. I agree Krugman hasn't proven his case, something different. Also, your first objection seems specious to me - Mahathir is stepping down, but he's not abandoning his party or his country. I'd hazard the truth-to-power aspects of his comments needed to be leavened with something more palatable. And your second point doesn't disprove causality.

I don't know the extent of Mahathir's antisemitism. It does seem worrying that the international situation is such that a leader of an important nation decided to say something he surely knew would be repugnant to us. And I think that does reflect on Bush's performance.

rilkefan is right that Dan has overstated his case. He hasn't falsified Krugman, but he has pointed out that Krugman has essentially no evidence for his most dramatic claim.

I agree it is worring that the leader of an important nation would say something so repugnant, and something which he (likely) knew would be repubgant to us.

However, he has been doing the same thing since long before Bush was president. To take the current speach as a reflection, in anyway, on recent US policy, or Bush attitude, is, as Dan points out, completely unsupported by the evidence provided by Krugman.

I think it says alot about Krugman, and his editors, that they were willing to allow a completed unsupported attack on Bush into an otherwise intersting and insightful essay.

As I've noted before, I think Bush is giving unreasonable, one-sided support to Sharon and the Likud against the Palestinians. I think Bush is doing that in order to court major campaign donors , who are strong supporters of Israel, away from the Democrats --both to obtain funds and to weaken the Democrats. As I noted, this political game is contrary both to national values and to the national interest. Bin Ladin cited US arms sales to Israel as the cause of the Sept 11 attack.

However, I think it is very unfair to smear America's 6 million Jews with responsibility for this affair -- many of those Jews neither support
the Likud nor are like to support Bush.

Mahathir is correct to point out the malign effects of massive corruption on US foreign policy. US citizens suffer from those effects , although not as greatly as Muslims. Where Mahathir is wrong is to indict Jews for that situation, instead of pointing directly at the wealthy men involved -- some of whom are not Jewish. Consider Conrad Black, the world's third largest media mogul and patron of Richard Perle, for example.

It is noteworthy that Bush and his officials responded to Mahathir's charges only with vague, meaningless denunciations -- but offered no facts in refutation. Nor did Bush and his Administration seem prepared to discuss and refute the matter in public. I wonder why.

Bin Ladin cited US arms sales to Israel as the cause of the Sept 11 attack.

Yes, yes. He also cited the loss of Muslim Analusia to Spain as a cause. Clearly we should stop being allied with Spain as well, and work to kick them out of NATO. We certainly shouldn't have taken their side in the recent hilarious dispute with Morocco, a Muslim nation, about a couple of barren rocks.

In reality, bin Ladin hardly cited just Israel as "the cause," as you should well know. He also cited the profanity of having US troops stationed in Saudia Arabia-- a problem that we've already dealt with.

I also hardly see how supporting a democracy against tyrannical governments is contrary to America's national values.

In any case, as previous elections, including the one of 2000 showed, if Bush were truly just going for votes, he would do much better to just go after the Arab-American vote rather than the Jewish-American vote. Except of course that evangelicals heavily support Israel as well.

Your claim that support to Israel was "the reason" worries me deeply, Don Williams. I have to say that I suspect your motives. Of course, those arm sales have existed under previous, Labour governments of Israel. So it seems that bin Laden, (and, by extension, you, since you seem to oppose any alliance with Israel, although I could be mistaken) was of course really calling for the destruction of Israel itself, not opposition to just Sharon.

Krugman's remarks about Mahathir would make sense only if he assumed Mahathir reacts to American foreign policy in the same way and for the same reasons that Krugman does, and that he is as outraged at Ariel Sharon as Krugman is. Also, that these are the top items on his agenda.

Well, Krugman does appear to assume all these things, and I've written elsewhere at length about why these assumptions are wrong. I don't hold any brief for the Malaysian leader, but I recognize him as a nationalist and a very smart guy. He would be neither if he were motivated as Krugman claims. Mahathir's priority is keeping Islamist terrorism as far away from his very vulnerable country as possible. For Malaysia, Islamism doesn't just mean religious repression or lost tourism -- it threatens civil war and the undoing of his life's work. However distasteful his anti-Jewish rhetoric is to us, he probably sees it as giving Islamists one reason not to pick targets in his country (which into the bargain has very few Jews).

Malaysia is just one of the many things outside the field of economics that Paul Krugman doesn't know very much about, but if he stuck with economics he wouldn't have this nice gig with the Times.

Zathras, I take it you didn't read the op-ed in question. Krugman is arguing that Mahathir's antisemitic remarks don't reflect his opinions but were calculated for political effect. And the rest of the remarks were hardly calculated to please Bin Laden.

Perhaps you are an expert on Malaysia, but as to whether Krugman is in a position to talk about the country and Mahathir in particular, see
http://slate.msn.com/id/35534/ and the associated links, which indicate reasonable expertise to me.

Well, rilkefan, you had me, and I was preparing a really heartfelt mea culpa until I read Krugman's last three paragraphs.

You were right, I hadn't read Krugman's column first, and reacted based on a selective quote and past experience with this columnist. This is never a good idea and wasn't this time. I will say I think Krugman's view of Mahathir's intent is incomplete -- he very clearly is sending messages to Muslim audiences outside Malaysia rather than throwing "rhetorical red meat" to Malaysian Muslims only -- but to imply that he was wholly ignorant was just, well, ignorant on my part.

However, his last three paragraphs are not consistent with the rest of his column. They reflect Krugman's concerns, not Mahathir's. They suggest that Mahathir is influenced primarily with what American policy has done (and individual Americans have said) over the last couple of months. This is absurd. I won't speculate on the reasons for the disconnect, having embarrassed myself once on this threat already. I will only note it, and if anyone wants to argue without having read the column in question I'll just be all over them.

rilkefan: thanks for the Slate link -- though not for the reasons you give.

See the amended post above

Dan, I know you must be really sharp to be a prof at my alma mater (PhD in physics, 97), and I'm in danger of pulling a Zathras here because of the WS, but it seems to me your argument here is getting more specious as you go on. You base your conclusion on a premise backed only by your wallet (aka argumentum ad bennetum) and then award yourself the point. Also note that as Krugman explained, Malaysia is inherently unstable and was coming out of a near-crisis (I would guess resulting in greater disparity of wealth and hence greater instability).

Advantage: Marlins.

It's clear PK did not provide supporting evidence for his thesis.

But neither does Dan provide evidence that PK is wrong.

PK is saying that Mahathir uses anti-Semitic comments as part of his domestic political maneuvering. He does not say that he ONLY will use anti Semitic language in response to Bush's policy, wich is why Dan's point about the dependent/independent variable is wrong. Dan thinks that PK is saying that the indep variable is Bush's policy. It is not. He is saying the indep variable is domestic pressure WHICH IN THIS CASE is brought by Bush's policy. A very different thing.

Dan thinks that since Mahathir used this language before it disproves PK's argument but it does no such thing. It may, in fact, support it (but we don't really known since we lack sufficient information).

Dan's example is simply evidence that when Mahathir feels under domestic pressure he will use this language. That is exaclty PK's point.

But PK goes a step further. He claims Mahathir is under domestic pressure due to Bush's policies. This is te crux of the argument.

PK argues that Mahathir is under domestic pressure due to rising anti Americanism in Malaysia (in turn due, in PK's thesis, to Bush's policies).

For anybody remotely aware with how most countries now perceive the US this is a perfectly valid analysis.

What remains unclear and unproven is if Mahathir would have said something like this in a similar forum if Bush's policy had been such that America's international support was higher.

Nothing Dan writes addresses this in any way.

A quick way to check would be to find out what Mahathir said after 9/11, especially when the rumors of it being a Jewish plot were flying in Muslim nations.

That would be analytically relevant.

gt: alas, you misunderstood my point.

you are correct that the independent variable is not Bush's foreign policy, but whether Mahathir feels pressure on his domestic base. This pressure clearly varies over time. Krugman's thesis is that as this pressure rises, so does Mahathir's inclination to use anti-Semitic rheotric, and that Bush's policies increase that pressure.

My point is that this domestic pressure was undoubtedly higher in 1997 when he blamed the Jews for the financial crisis, and undoubtedly lower in 1999 when Krugman came to visit. In all three episodes, Mahathir used the same rhetoric.

When there is significant variation in the independent variable but no variation in the dependent variable, the independent variable is not significant.

To John Thacker

1) I support Israel's right to exist, but not Sharon and Likud's aggression. In my opinion, Israel has faced no serious threat since the fall of the Soviet Union and since the US bought off Egypt.

The continued establishment of settlements in the West Band --and the land grab being done with the new wall -- illustrates Likud/Sharon's contempt for the peace process.

Likud recently came close to voting against a Palestinian state-- and it attached a number of restrictions to a peace blueprint approved without reservation by the Palestinians. See
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030525/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_030525164849

2) As I've noted before, The US has been a good friend to Israel, propping her up for decades with an estimated $91 Billion dollars, $3 Billion in aid/year currently, and massive arms transfers. We also bribe Egypt with $3 Billion/year to abandon the Palestinians and to leave Israel alone.

Because the US created Israel, the Islamic world holds us responsible for Sharon's actions.

3) Because of Bush's pandering to Sharon, we suffered 3000+ dead on Sept 11, along with several hundred $billion in direct costs and over a $Trillion in indirect costs.

4) Yet every attempt we make to establish peace continues to be sabotaged by Likud and Sharon.
Did Arafat mimick Sharon and march through Jewish synagogues with several hundred followers carrying AK47s in late 2000?
Look at the recent news headlines -- why did Sharon try to assassinate Hamas leader
Rantissi on June 10 --see http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20030610/ts_nm/mideast_dc_279
--do you not think that the Arabs realize those Apache helicopters are made in the US and sold by the US with aid money supplied by the US?

5) The US government's extremely one-sided support for Israel is a fact. The damage to America caused by that policy -- and that such a policy is contrary to US national interest --are facts. The censorship/misleading depictions in the US news media are a fact. The huge campaign donations made to the Democratic Party
by Israeli supporters is a fact. Bush's extreme cultivation of those contributors is a fact. Their malign influence is a fact.

It is not anti-Semitism to point this out. My quarrel is not with Jews -- it is with wealthy men and their whores in Congress who have brought disaster upon my country for no good reason. It is with people who manipulate and deceive the American voters.

6) As an American, my loyalty is to the people and land of the United States , not to hypocrites who wrap their agendas in the flag.

7) After Sept 11, the New York Times ran an article telling us that the Sept 11 had nothing to do with the US government's support of Israel. Bill Kristol went on NBC's This Week and told us much the same.

In reality, both Israel's supporters and Bush were desperately lying to the American people -- to prevent them from noticing that Bush's pandering to Sharon had triggered Sept 11.

8) The most casual Internet search will show that Bin Ladin gave a series of interviews to US TV networks in 1998 and that he repeatedly cited US support of Israel's attacks on the Palestinians as one of three main reasons for an Islamic Jihad against the US. See
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

9) In his speeches after Sept 11, Bush told America that that "we" (his administration) had "done nothing to deserve this". He stated that the attack occurred because "they hate our freedom" He also stated that he had been "secretly" working on a plan to create a Palestinian state in the weeks prior to Sept 11.

10)However, Bin Ladin indicated in an interview, published in a Pakistani newspaper called DAWN, why the Sept 11 attack occurred:

"The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power. .....The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. "
(See http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm )

11) Recall that Clinton's attempt to pressure Israel into making peace with the Palestinians was disrupted when Monica Lewinsky exposed her affair with him. An Israeli legislator, Sharon, then sabotaged the peace talks in September 2000 by going into the third most holy Islamic mosque with several hundred policemen. Sharon used the ensuring riots that he triggered to win election as Prime Minister and then hit the Palestinians hard. In spring of 2001, he even used F16s fighters bought from the US to bomb Palestinians, arousing the anger and condemmation of the world.

Bush, however, halted State Department criticism and encouraged Sharon by selling Sharon 52 more F16s in June 2001, several months before the Sept 11 attack. (See http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw060601.html#State ,
http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw061301.html#Rep,

12) For the June 20 , 2001 announcement of the F16 sale, go to here :
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ , click on "Archives", select June 2001 from the list, and then search the resulting page for "Israel" or simply page down to the June 20 entries. )

13) The final approval on the sale was announced a few days before the Sept 11 attack. One reason why our intelligence received no warning of the attack was the seething anger in the Arab world over the F16 sale. See http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s300179.htm and
An excerpt from http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/news/2001/sep_01/deal_israel.htm
dated September 8,2001:
" The timing the US chose to announce its decision to give Israel the dangerous F-16 jets is really strange. It seems as though the US is telling Israel "Go ahead Sharon! Carry on with the assassination of Palestinian children and the destruction of the houses of peaceful civilians! Proceed with the destruction of the Palestinian defenseless people's infrastructure and with desecrating Islamic sanctities in the holy land!"

The fact this information has been hidden from the American people-- that it has never appeared in the US news media -- shows the lengths to which Likud's supporters will go to mislead Americans.
When Bin Ladin put out his first broadcast, Condi Rice went to the CEOs of US TV networks and asked them to censor Bin Ladin. The CEOs, vulnerable to FCC action and wanting Administration approval for further media consolidation , readily agreed. Condi Rice's rationale --that Bin Ladin might send secret messages through the broadcast -- was absurd. ( Secret messages, encrypted with the unbreakable one-time pad , can already be sent via Internet chat room posts and shortwave broadcasts. Those channels are not vulnerable to unpredictable TV network editing. )

14) Bush was pandering to Sharon because some of the largest campaign financiers of the Democratic Party are Supporters of Israel --Haim Saban , for example, alone gave the Democrats $12 million in the past two years.
See
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/pro-israel.pro-arab/index.asp , http://www.sptimes.com/2002/06/30/Columns/Jewish_voters_noticin.shtml

Bush is trying to seduce those financiers away from the Democrats
and he is pandering to these donors at the expense of the national interest.

The problem is not American Jews as a group. Rather,the problem is a small group of arrogant wealthy men who let their egos,politics,and devotion to Israel take priority over the loyalty they owe to the United States.

GT,

You are right that Dan hasn't falsified PK, but he has shown that PK has no support for his arguement.

Dan's example is a case where Mahathir used anti-Semitism at a time when domestic pressure was not high. Mahathir's has a decades long history anti-Semitism. (see this for a summary)

Given this, there is an obvious, well supported explaination for why Mahathir was anti-Semitic last week: he is a habitual anti-Semite. Nothing happened last week which is not entirely expected given the speaker and audience (the council of Islamic leaders has it's own history of anti-Semitism.) To posit a recent cause for a long-term phenomena is, at least, a very very weak arguement.

If Krugman were to produce evidence that Mahathir had renounced anti-Semitism and that his recent speach was a surprise, then there would be room for an arguement. Even so, he would have to give evidence for several steps of his arguement; instead he merely states them.

"Krugman describes this as, 'an unfortunate emphasis.' He doesn't say in the article that Mahathir said that the big speculators were Jewish, but I'd bet a fair amount of money that such a sentence was uttered.

"So, in 1999, with no Bush administration in sight, with little domestic or international pressure on Mahathir's political position, does he change his tune? Nope.

"Advantage: Drezner!"

A wee bit premature, given that we don't know yet whether Mahathir actually did engage in more anti-Semitic ravings during this particular exchange.

As the World Jewish Congress pointed out back in 1997 ( http://www.wjc.org.il/publications/policy_dispatches/pub_dis24.html), it really is true that Mahathir has engaged in such rantings periodically for decades, not just during the 1997 financial crisis or Bush's war on terror -- either because he really believes them, or because he's been pandering to such virulent full-time anti-Semitism in Malaysia that Bush's actions can only possibly have slightly worsened it. The big question is whether PK knew this. If he did, then he really was dishonestly bashing Bush in that Times column. If he didn't know about Mahathir's earlier outbursts, it proves only that he researched the man very sloppily -- which, however, looks pretty bad itself.

This is the part of Dan's arguement that seems flimsy. It's also the key hinge of the only real attack on the base of Krugman's thesis:

"Even if that's true, there's no need to protect a domestic flank, since this kind of power exercise does not need a popular domestic base."

Krugman states:
1. Anti-semitic remarks in a very public international forum when you are about to meet Bush don't make sense since you know you're going to be rebuked.

2. It only makes sense if you want to be rebuked.

3. Being rebuked by Bush is a good thing for a politician in the Muslim world.

4. It's a good thing because Bush has screwed up our foreign policy so utterly and completely.

Krugman doesn't argue that Mahathir is not an anti-Semite. He suggests that Mahathir paraded his bigotry on purpose before the world with the express purpose of making sure that news reports of his meeting with Bush showed the two in conflict over these remarks. Guess what? News reports of Mahthir's meeting with Bush are clear that Bush rebuked him for his remarks. Don't focus on whether Mahathir has a history of anti-Semitism because it is clear he does. Focus on why he publically proclaimed his prejudice when he knew he would be meeting Bush this week. It only makes sense if being upbraided by Bush is NOT a bad thing because he knew that was going to be the outcome.

Let me add that covering your domestic flank in a corrupt little country where you have been enriching yourself and your friends while in power is most important when you are about to step down. Otherwise , you might find yourself sharing a cell with your friend, the sodomist, when the new guy gets installed and decides he needs a scapegoat for something or another.

Dan, you're not convincing me (not that this means anything necessarily, but, regardless, it's true).

GT's response to you makes sense to me.

Politics in Malaysia cannot be analyzed in quite the same way that perhaps our politics can. Mahathir is not your run-of-the-mill "panderer" with a fickle finger in the wind -- he's an extremely crafty guy. In his younger days (in the late 60s) he was virtually persona non grata in his own country because he wrote a book (The Malay Dilemma) telling Malays (one ethnic group in Malaysia) that they were at fault for their own political weakness. He urged them not only to use an aggressive nationalism against their fellow (non-Malay) citizens, but not to apologize for instituting an ugly sort of economic apartheid that victimized millions of unfortunate and innocent people. At the time, he was excoriated (and worse) by the (entirely non-populist) establishment. His book was banned. His friends were harassed. His name was only whispered. The works. Not long afterwards, he was Prime Minister, and he still is. The currents are twisty and run very deep.

Plus, one of the assumptions you make (but do not state) is that people (in this case Mahathir) don't do something unless (you can see that) they need to do it. (Did Trent Lott need to praise segregation when he was last heard doing so?) I submit this is no way to argue when you really have no idea what Mahathir's world-view and ego dictate. Krugman may not have proved his point to your satisfaction (or anyone's) but I suspect he's a lot closer to the truth about Mahathir than you give him credit for.

Of course, I could be mistaken. This is not a manifesto -- just some thoughts for you to consider if you wish.

Cheers.

[PS: As for the former Deputy Prime Minister who is now rotting in prison on obscenely trumped-up charges ... this was a guy who had been at Mahathir's side for decades ... a partner, almost a protege. It's as if Reagan (or FDR) had called Meese (or Harry Hopkins) a pedophile and thrown him to the wolves. Understand that if you can: that's the kind of guy Mahathir is, not some garden-variety politician from Spring Valley, New York. He responds to urges you and I (and maybe Krugman) don't know all that much about.]

“The big question is whether PK knew this. If he did, then he really was dishonestly bashing Bush in that Times column. If he didn't know about Mahathir's earlier outbursts, it proves only that he researched the man very sloppily -- which, however, looks pretty bad itself.”

Paul Krugman looks bad regardless of how much slack you might wish to cut him. This particular incident should seriously harm his reputation. Nonetheless, the liberal establishment will almost certainly look the other way because of Krugman’s intense contempt for President Bush.

Try to imagine the outrage if a well known conservative uttered such sentiments---especially if they were a member of the Bush administration. The Liberal media would demand their head on a platter.

And another thing: why do so many apparently intelligent people have trouble with the difference between "explain" and "explain away"?

Is this one of those "conjugations" where, you know, I'm firm-minded, you're obstinate, and he's pig-headed? Is there some secret law that says a thing can't be morally wrong if we try to understand why it happened?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Sheesh.

I'd say this kind of (possibly faux) anti-intellectualism is particularly rampant on the right these days -- but that would just be my biases showing again. Probably.

And yet another thing: why on this site does my "Remember personal info?" preference not "stick," when it persists just fine on comment-pages at other sites?

Bah.

And yet another thing -- oh, all right, I'll shut up now.

Dan,

I think it safe to say that it?s almost impossible to truly prove this, one way or the other.

I have already acknowledged that PK does not have strong supporting evidence for his claim. But I submit again that neither do you in rebutting him.

As I read your comments it seems to me that you are changing your logic a bit. That?s fine. I am too as I think more about it.

First, your 1999 example was not in your original post. If one just looks at your original post and not the update, what you provided (the example that in 1997 Mahathir used similar language) could actually be interpreted as supporting Krugman. The only way that example would contradict PK is if Krugman had said that Mahathir ONLY used anti semitic language in response to Bush?s policies. But that?s not what he said. It is, I think, what you thought he said based on your dep/indep variable comment. To write, as you did, that the dependent variable has been there in the past without the indep variable simply shows you misunderstood what PK?s indep variable was. You made a mistake in your original comment.

Also in the original post you write that the pressure that Mahathir faced in 1997 was far stronger than anything he's facing now from the United States. There?s two problems with this. First, you provide no real evidence of this. Is the pressure from a financial crisis greater that than rising anti American sentiment after the Iraq war? How did you measure that?

Second, even if you are correct it could easily be that both breached the necessary ?threshold? to trigger Mahathir?s response. You don?t even address that. So even if Mahathir faced less pressure today than in 1997 he still have faced sufficient pressure to need to respond.

I will agree that PK has not provided evidence that Mahathir is facing such pressures but neither do you that he is not. Since PK has followed the Malaysian situation closely and has contacts in that government and region he has, at the very least, an informed opinion which may be the best we can get in this case. People I have talked to, who I consider experts in the matter (Wall Street and other country risk analysts), although they do not fully support PK?s point agree that Mahathir is under pressure.

You then update your original comments with the 1999 example. It is this example, you now claim, that provides proof for your original dep/indep variable comment. You say that if in 1999 Mahathir, under no pressure (the crisis was over) still used the same words it seems clear he says this no matter what happens. It is a more persuasive argument than your original one but has two problems, one small and another (potentially) huge.

The small problem is that you don?t provide any background to prove that Mahathir faced no pressure in 1999. Yes, the economy was recovering but that may not have been the only source of pressure.

But the much bigger problem with your argument is that it?s not clear Mahathir said what you claim he said. PK does not tell us in the article you link to. In fact, as of right now, the only proof I?ve seen is you saying that you?d bet he said that. Well, that?s not proof of anything.

Finally the last point. Elliottg points out that you have to look at the context. Mahathir did not just say this. He said it right before he was to meet with Bush. He knew this would be controversial, he knew this would put Bush in a tight spot, he has been relatively close to Bush and generally an ally of the US, yet he felt compelled to say it. It is PK?s thesis that this was due to the rising anti Americanism product of Bush?s bungled foreign policy. It can?t be easily proved. But neither have you disproved it. It is, after all, just an opinion.

In conclusion I don?t know if PK?s point is completely correct. I suspect not. But I think there is some truth to it just like I think rising anti Americanism has helped push Brazil and Argentina together in resisting a FTA with the US on US?s terms. I think it explains part but not all of what happened.

Krugman's point: Bush's policies have caused more anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. Using anti-Semetic remarks, Mahathir tried to play on this to solidify local support.

To seriously claim that Krugman is blaming these remarks primarily on Bush, one must prove that Mahathir did not need any boost in local support.

All Drezner manages to show in this respect is that a couple of flimsy sentences. If instead, he had gone in depth and shown that there was absolutely no political reason for Mahathir to issue those remarks; then Krugman would be exposed and charges of objective anti-Semetism justified.

Anything else is just sloppy, worthless spin.

I'd say Drezner needs to do his homework on Malaysia before he claims any sort of early "advantage."

I agree that PK seems to be getting an unfair fisking for his article, which seemed to me to just be attempting to put context around M's comments, not excuse them. His critics - especially the (borderline) stalker Luskin - outright accuse him of anti-semitism, using as further evidence PK's earlier support of M's fiscal defense against currency manipulators.

For the record, while Luskin insists he isn't a stalker, don't you think he is just a bit too obsessed by PK? I mean, come on, get a life...

“But PK goes a step further. He claims Mahathir is under domestic pressure due to Bush's policies. This is te crux of the argument.”

“Don't focus on whether Mahathir has a history of anti-Semitism because it is clear he does. Focus on why he publically proclaimed his prejudice when he knew he would be meeting Bush this week.”

Are some people actually saying that “domestic pressure” and supposedly George Bush’s policies can somehow justify anti-semitic rhetoric? I can hear it now:

“Poor Adolph Hitler was under so much domestic pressure. A man can be expected to endure only so much. Furthermore, we shouldn’t take Mein Kampf so seriously. After all, Mr. Hitler is merely pandering to his political base. Come on, he doesn’t really want to literally kill Jews. Can’t you tell when a politician is merely engaging in rhetorical exaggeration?”

By the way, many western intellectuals did defend Adolf Hitler in this manner previous to WWII.

David,

You seem to not know the difference in meaning between the words "justify" and "explain". This is a distinction that Dan makes on the very first sentence of his post when he writes that:

Paul Krugman explains -- not excuses, but explains -- Mahathir Mohammad's OIC speech.

There are many dictionaries online that will provide you with the definitions. Use them.

You are splitting too many hairs in saying that Krugman's egregious column was an explanation and not an "excuse" for Mahatir's remarks.

There are two ways in which one can make an excuse for a racist verbal utterance. One can excuse the words themselves; that is to say argue that words in and of themselves, when properply analyzed, are not racist. Krugman does not attempt this impossible feat. This is all that he accomplishes by saying the words are "inexcusable". He means that they are inexcusable in and of themselves, which of course they are. He then goes on to make excuses, not for the words themselves, but for the person speaking them, by attempting to say that they were delivered in a context which makes their utterance by the person excusable. He excuses, not the remarks themsevles, but Mahtir's utterance of them, by saying that they were a rational, understandable response by a "cagey" politician to the policies of the Bush administration and to the Domestic political situation the politician faced. He does excuse, he doesn't merely explain. This is wrong in and of itself, as virulent anti-Semitism of this sort is never excusable in any context. But, beyond that, for the reasons you state, and more especially for the reasons Musil states, the logic of the excuse is flawed, because Mahatir has made this type of statement before Bush was even in office.

because Mahatir has made this type of statement before Bush was even in office.

That line of argument has already been debunked since it shows a misunderstanding of what PK said. I suggest you read the comments above about independent and dependent variables. Dan has a better point about this.

GT:

As I said, the column was morally wrong in and of itself, because it is morally wrong to excuse this type of disgusting anti-Semitism regardless of the context. If you want to play logic games to defend the method of excuse, then have at it I guess, but I don't see why any would want to invest themselves in defending racial incitement and hatred, by any means.

In this thread we are trying to make logical and analytical points. That's what Dan made in his post and how I tried to respond.

Once you start with the "it's morally wrong" argument you lost me.

The logical point I am making is that based on a fair reading of the column it is an excuse for Mahatir's remarks. Mahatir's remarks were vile and anti-Semitic. So to defend them is to defend vile anti-Semitism. Ergo, defending them is morally wrong.

Is that logical enough for you?

The only argument that could be had would be whether or not Krugman was actually excusing the remarks, which you have not spoken to.

I'm sorry the concept of morality loses you. May I suggest you consult the works of the various world religious traditions and of the leading ethicists to get some idea of what's meant by that.

Eric,

Yes, I know you think that PK is excusing Mahathir's comments.

But I don't. That is not my reading. Nor is it Dan's, who says so explicitly in the very first sentence of his post.

It is not morality that loses me. It is debating it online. I have little interest in debates about what you consider moral or not and no reason to believe I will learn much in the process.

Contrary to what you say the only argument is not whether PK was excusing Mahathir's comments but rather whether his explanations were supported by the facts. Again, a dictionary wil be useful to understand the difference between excusing and explaining.

My conclusion is that PK's idea is not easily supported by the facts but neither is it rejected by them either. Dan makes a couple of good points and further research may shed more light. Based on what is happening on other countries I think PK is at least partially right.

"Paul Krugman explains -- not excuses, but explains -- Mahathir Mohammad's OIC speech."

Of course, and this is an important explanation.

“David,

You seem to not know the difference in meaning between the words "justify" and "explain". This is a distinction that Dan makes on the very first sentence of his post when he writes that:

Paul Krugman explains -- not excuses, but explains -- Mahathir Mohammad's OIC speech.

There are many dictionaries online that will provide you with the definitions. Use them.”

Nah, I’m not buying your line of argumentation. Paul Krugman did not merely “explain” but also justified. He is attempting to rationalize away the behavior of Mahathir Mohammad. Krugman should be ashamed of himself. Oh well, I guess a Bush hater can’t be all bad. Now if Bill Buckley had said exactly the same thing?

There are also many websites on line that might assist you to learn how to think and follow a logical argument. Use them. This one may be some value:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Paul Krugman did not merely “explain” but also justified.

Fine.That's your opinion.

I don't agree.

Neither does Dan.

That's not what the debate is about in this thread.

GT:

I only bring up morality because I hoped it would be a generally agreed upon point of morality that the sort of lunatic anti-Semetic (and anti-Western) ravings of Mahatir's speech are morally wrong. I guess it was too much to hope.

PK's arugmnet, such as it is, in a very short, sloppily written and argued op-ed, is essentially: "Sure, these were bad things to say, but he was just saying them because of the domestic political situation in his country, which is all somehow related to the diabolical Bush administration." Again, to me, right-wing faux anti-intellectual that I am, that seems like, you know, kind of an f'd up thing to say in and of itself.

I've now read all the, like, really logical posts that all the "intellectuals" made up above, and they are absurd. You are placing an unduly high burden of proof on Drezner or on any critic of Krugman, which is entirely out of proportion which the level of argumentation which Krugman brought to the table in the op-ed, such as it is. Presumably, in writing the column Krugman means to say that recent Bush administration foreign policy is the major reason for Mahatir's remarks. He offers no concrete proof of this, only speculation. It's an easily falsifiable claim. All one has to do is find a pattern of Mahatir thinking and speaking this way in the past, before the Bush administration. That's it. You create out of thin air the requirement that for this to matter Krugman must have said that Mahatir only ever made this kind of speech in response to Bush foreign policy. That is utterly absurd, and the only reason you would bring it up is to unfairly hamstring anyone who would dare criticize Krugman. All that Drezner, Musil, and countless others are saying is that Krugman's thesis for explaining Mahtir's ravigns is not a compelling one. The fact that the same results have happened during different adminstrations and completely different situations is enough to prove that claim.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/chafets_2003_10_20.php3?printer_friendly

How to be a Muslim moderate : An Islamic leader camouflages some truth-telling about the Islamic world with anti-Semitic lies
By Zev Chafets

On Thursday, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made headlines by charging that a Jewish conspiracy controls the planet.

"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," he told the leaders and representatives of 57 Islamic nations who were gathered in Putrajaya, Malaysia, for their biggest summit meeting since 9/11.

"We are up against a people who think. They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others. With these, they have gained control of the most powerful countries."

Naturally, this screed elicited loud protests from Jewish leaders and Western governments. A State Department spokesman denounced the remarks as "offensive and inflammatory" and said the U.S. government views them "with the contempt and derision they deserve."

On the other hand, Mahathir received a standing ovation from his Islamic colleagues. Supposed moderates cheered along with everyone else. Afghan President Hamid Karzai praised the speech as an "an eyeopener."

"It is great to hear Prime Minister Mahathir speak so eloquently on the problems of the Muslim world and ways to remedy them," he told reporters after the speech.

How could Karzai, an American client of surpassing moderation, laud such a paranoid rant? The answer, I think, is that Karzai heard a different speech than the one reported in the press — a rather subversive speech camouflaged by the virulent anti-Jewish rhetoric that typifies all Islamic gatherings....

Paul Krugman sought to explain not justify, as did Zev Chafets. Get it folks!

I only bring up morality because I hoped it would be a generally agreed upon point of morality that the sort of lunatic anti-Semetic (and anti-Western) ravings of Mahatir's speech are morally wrong. I guess it was too much to hope.

Not really. Everyone, PK included (and myself and Dan) agree on this. The issue is not, for us, whether what Mahathir said was reprehensible. We all agree it was. The issue is to understand why he said it. PK proposed a theory for this and Dan countered it with his view. That’s all. No need to get all ‘hopeless’ about how amoral or immoral we all are.

PK's arugmnet, such as it is, in a very short, sloppily written and argued op-ed, is essentially: "Sure, these were bad things to say, but he was just saying them because of the domestic political situation in his country, which is all somehow related to the diabolical Bush administration."

Which shows you still don’t understand what PK said. No need to repeat myself then.

All one has to do is find a pattern of Mahatir thinking and speaking this way in the past, before the Bush administration. That's it.

Once again you show you don’t understand the argument being made. Dan, in his response to me already acknowledged that what you are saying is wrong. Just go and read it.

Dan, unlike you, has offered valid counterarguments. I think he made a couple of small mistakes but he may be right. The evidence is unclear.

Now, if you rely on someone like Musil for analytical support…

It’s now time to get to the real nitty-gritty: Paul Krugman may be coming a self hating Jew! This is the price tag demanded by the far Left. According to this mindset, Jews should never hesitate to apologize for Israel and those “wealthy Jews who sneakily control everything.” Krugman will do just about anything to cater to those far left of center. Has anyone ever heard of Noam Chomsky? Heck, what about Karl Marx? Jews are inevitably despised by both political extremes, right and left.

Here is Daniel's response to you:

gt: alas, you misunderstood my point.

you are correct that the independent variable is not Bush's foreign policy, but whether Mahathir feels pressure on his domestic base. This pressure clearly varies over time. Krugman's thesis is that as this pressure rises, so does Mahathir's inclination to use anti-Semitic rheotric, and that Bush's policies increase that pressure.

My point is that this domestic pressure was undoubtedly higher in 1997 when he blamed the Jews for the financial crisis, and undoubtedly lower in 1999 when Krugman came to visit. In all three episodes, Mahathir used the same rhetoric.

When there is significant variation in the independent variable but no variation in the dependent variable, the independent variable is not significant.

If you think this means that he concedes your nonsensical "point" then I can see how you would also be able to misread the Krugman column so egregiously.

You have posted a response to this and he hasn't posted another response, which could be for a variety of reasons, but I have my guesses . . .

And, by the way, none of you logical people have explained how the column amounted to an "explanation" and not an "excuse" in logical terms to begin with.

Why should we care that the Prime Minister of Malysia is anti-Semitic? Most of the Muslim world is anti-Semitic. Krugman puts those remarks in context. The Muslim world is now so anti-American that anti-Semitic statements sure to be condemned by the US are easy to make because Bush's foreign policy has made condemnation by the US something to be sought rather than avoided. Krugman may be wrong, but if he is right, then the point is much more worthy of note than the fact that Mahathir is a racist.

Eric,

Do I really need to explain everything?

You claimed that to prove PK wrong:

All one has to do is find a pattern of Mahatir thinking and speaking this way in the past, before the Bush administration. That's it.

Dan recognized that this is not sufficient. PK had already accepted, in his article, that Mahathir had used this language in the past.

What Dan said is that you are correct that the independent variable is not Bush's foreign policy, but whether Mahathir feels pressure on his domestic base.

See? The indep variable is NOT Bush’s policy, so simply showing that this happened before Bush became president proves nothing.

Hopefully that is settled.

Dan goes on to say that there are examples of Mahathir using this language in the past when the level of pressure was different. He says, correctly, that is the indep variable can be al over the place (a lot of pressure or little pressure) and the dep variable is the same (anti semitic remarks) the indep variable is not useful in explaining the dep variable.

My only disagreement there is whether the indep variable is as volatile as Dan makes it out to be. I don’t really have an answer for that.

The Muslim world is now so anti-American that anti-Semitic statements sure to be condemned by the US are easy to make because Bush's foreign policy has made condemnation by the US something to be sought rather than avoided

Yeah, I remember back before the stolen election when the whole Muslim world just loved America and Israel and Jewish culture. Why, there were no terrorist attacks or anything. The stock market was high and everything was great, and there were no problems with Islamists that couldn't be solved by firing off a couple cruise missiles whenever there was a sex scandal going on.

Um, I'm gonna vote for Krugman being "wrong" in his analysis.

Then you remember when over 70% of Indonesians has a favorable view of the US. Now less than 25% do.
I can't find the exact link, but this article makes the same point. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-14-prawar-gns_x.htm

Krugman's point:

"Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become."

“....and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.”

---Paul Krugman

One needs to reread Paul Krugman’s comments regarding Ariel Sharon. They should disgust any moral human being. What is this nonsense about Sharon? Why should jews be apologizing for his behavior? The charges against this man are mostly slanderous. I will be blunt: you show me a Jew who is ashamed of Ariel Sharon---and I will show you a self hating Jew!

Hasn’t Ariel Sharon engaged occasionally in excessive behavior? Yes, you could point out a few instances. This still does not justify the exaggerated accusations made against his great leadership.

Lastly, Paul Krugman has the audacity to cite Bernard Lewis. This is hysterical to say the least. Lewis would be the first to disagree with Krugman’s main thesis concerning the Muslim world.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/chafets_2003_10_20.php3?printer_friendly

Indirectly, cautiously but unmistakably, Mahathir informed his guests that the Muslims are too weak to fight, that the jihad — from Palestine to Putrajaya — is a disaster and the Muslims have no one to blame but themselves.

Given the low state of the Islamic world, this may seem self-evident. But saying it out loud at an Islamic summit is a rare act of intellectual honesty.

"There is a feeling of hopelessness among the Muslim countries and their people," Mahathir said. "They feel they can do nothing right. They believe that things can only get worse."

This sense of failure has, he noted, bred violent frustration. "Our only reaction is to become more and more angry, and so we find some of our people acting irrationally. They launch their own attacks, killing just about everybody, including fellow Muslims."

What was he talking about? The attacks of Al Qaeda certainly, but also the Palestinian intifadeh.

Mahathir denounced the behavior of would-be martyrs as "irresponsible and un-Islamic acts" — a characterization that brought him to the very brink of what is acceptable speech at a Muslim summit.

Which is where the Jews come in.

Mahathir wasn't quite willing to say that jihad is inherently an uncivilized mode of expression. Instead, he framed the thought in practical terms. "We must not antagonize everyone," he said. "We must win their hearts and minds. ... We must not strengthen the enemy by pushing everyone into their camps."

The Malaysian prime minister was talking about more than improving Muslim public relations. In effect, he was calling upon his fellow leaders to leave the Middle Ages for the modern world. This means, in practice, breaking the grip of the clerics over political culture and, especially, education.

Mahathir didn't want to say explicitly that Islamic education is responsible for the current backwardness of Muslim societies. So he again invoked the practical benefit of secularism in the war against the Jews.

Re David Thomson's comment: "It’s now time to get to the real nitty-gritty: Paul Krugman may be coming a self hating Jew! "

Where is the real difference in mentality between comments like this and what Mahathir said? Isn't it anti-Semitic to suggest that Jews who don't support a particular political policy --e.g., Bush's pandering to Sharon/Likud -- are not acting out of moral conviction but rather are "self hating Jews"?

Then you remember when over 70% of Indonesians has a favorable view of the US. Now less than 25% do.
I can't find the exact link, but this article makes the same point. ">http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-14-prawar-gns_x.htm

Fine, but to use the high-falutin' language that's popular here, that doesn't prove causality.

And, we're talking about the Malaysian leader here not the Indonesian, and he was speaking to an audience of Muslims from all over, not just Southeast Asia.

Sorry for the double posting, but a much better source for the decline from love to hate brought about by Bush:

"The declines, according to Kohut, did not begin in mid-2002. Pew has been monitoring global attitudes towards the US since just before Bush took office; between then and 2002 U.S. favorability ratings abroad have fallen in virtually every country covered by the survey. In Turkey, for example, the U.S. was considered favorably by a majority of 52 percent of respondents in 2000. The percentage dropped to 30 percent by mid-2000 and then plunged to 15 percent after the Iraq war."

http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id114.html

The declines, according to Kohut, did not begin in mid-2002. Pew has been monitoring global attitudes towards the US since just before Bush took office; between then and 2002 U.S. favorability ratings abroad have fallen in virtually every country covered by the survey. In Turkey, for example, the U.S. was considered favorably by a majority of 52 percent of respondents in 2000. The percentage dropped to 30 percent by mid-2000 and then plunged to 15 percent after the Iraq war."

Again. Doesn't prove causality, and there is infinite argument to be had with any survey regarding methodology etc.

And, I'm sick of all this crap that it was a good thing that the speech talked about reform and modernization. Everyone's right. The speech did talk about the need for reform and modernization in the Islamic world, for the purpose of triumphing over the Jews and the West Yippeee!! That's just so heartening.

Wow. I thought this was one of the few places where things could be debated without flinging anti-semitic accusations at anybody with the audacity to question our unflinching policy of supporting Sharon/Likud. As Don suggested, that sort of moral superiority blurs the distinction from what Mahathir said.

Hmmm ... let's see ... we have the old and oh-so-convenient staple self-hating Jew ... then we have the exquisitely idiotic confusion between trying to explain and trying to excuse (I'm now ready to drop the hope I expressed above that it's a faux anti-intellectualism) ... and then to top it all off, now comes out of a cave a man in a scary Halloween mask screaming his lungs out: Has anyone ever heard of Noam Chomsky?

Drezner deserves a lot better than some of these folks. And -- you know what? -- so do I. Ciao.

“Where is the real difference in mentality between comments like this and what Mahathir said? Isn't it anti-Semitic to suggest that Jews who don't support a particular political policy --e.g., Bush's pandering to Sharon/Likud -- are not acting out of moral conviction but rather are "self hating Jews"?”

Not at all. I am non-Jewish and perhaps able to be more objective about this sort of thing (although some may wish to disagree). The far Left is anti-Semitic---and they are the ones (along with David Duke and his ilk) who slander Ariel Sharon. Any Jew who goes along with this unsubstantiated nonsense is therefore self hating. It’s as simple as that.

You show me anyone who constantly attacks Sharon and the allegedly vile Likud Party---and I will show you someone who feels guilty about the very existence of Israel. Have we already forgotten the Olso con game? This silliness perpetuated by the Old Europeans only made everything worse in that part of the world.

Well, I've seen someone going by Don Williams elsewhere peddling all sorts of "Elders of Zion" type anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. If he's the same person, he's toned down his rhetoric a tiny bit here, but not much, really, the substance is still the same "I'm not anti-Semitic, I just believe that a small group of Jews and their allies control all US policy by forcing us to support Israel, which brought 9/11 upon us etc. etc." He might not be the best person to look to for an idea of what constitutes "moral superiority".

“Drezner deserves a lot better than some of these folks. And -- you know what? -- so do I. Ciao.”

Gosh, you can’t stand the heat? That’s tough. You might therefore wish to get out of the kitchen. As I’ve said previously, the politically correct Liberals can no longer get away with their cowardly and evasive rhetoric. The Internet is here---and you have no place to hide. And indeed, Noam Chomsky is the quintessential example of a self hating Jew. Alan Dershowitz agrees totally with me on this point.

then we have the exquisitely idiotic confusion between trying to explain and trying to excuse (I'm now ready to drop the hope I expressed above that it's a faux anti-intellectualism)

Interesting how no one has even attempted a rational explanation as to how the Krugman column was an explain of the former and not the latter.

"explain" meant to be "example", obviously.

(Sorry, hit "post" when I meant to hit "preview").

There is a widespread myth that only ultra-right wing Jews can legitimately be described as self hating. This was the case of the American Jewish Nazi of some thirty years ago who committed suicide after being publicly outed. However, it is supposedly unjust to say the same concerning those Jews of the far Left. This is logically nonsensical. Both extremes equally hate Jews. At best, one might argue that the lunatic Left is a bit more subtle and discrete.

Eric-
I think the issue is that nobody wants to bother explaining it to you.

David-
Is your argument that anybody who doesn't subscribe completely to the Sharon party line - because they are to the left or to the right - is by definition an anti-semitic self-hating jew?

Dan does deserve better.

Eric-
I think the issue is that nobody wants to bother explaining it to you.

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that it's because nobody has a viable argument on the point, which is why it is merely stated and not argued.

To David Thomson:
Paul Krugman is, among other things, a US citizen. Which means that he should be able to advocate any political position up to ..say, sexual intercourse with goats --and be heard on the merits, without someone dragging his presumed religion into it.

There are many Jews --Israelis even --who strongly disagree with Sharon/Likud' actions and policies.

Re Eric Deamer's comment "Well, I've seen someone going by Don Williams elsewhere peddling all sorts of "Elders of Zion" type anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. If he's the same person, he's toned down his rhetoric a tiny bit here, but not much, really, the substance is still the same "

In trying to respond, I looked really hard and I could not discern a single fact stated by Mr Deamer --but then maybe that's the point.

I usually give citations and references to support my statements. Maybe Mr Deamer could do the same.

“David-
Is your argument that anybody who doesn't subscribe completely to the Sharon party line - because they are to the left or to the right - is by definition an anti-semitic self-hating jew?”

Did I say completely? Nobody earns our unreserved adulation. However, I most certainly do believe that Ariel Sharon deserves substantial support. Many Jews, like the notorious Noam Chomsky, are indeed liberal sluts (Alan Dershowitz provides ample evidence of this in his most recent book defending Israel). They will just about sell their soul to the devil to curry favor with the liberal establishment. Nothing is more important to them. And yes, Liberalism of the extremist variety is inherently anti-Semitic. It is foolish to argue otherwise.

Many people criticize Sharon for illicit reasons. And when you push them to the wall---they really are ashamed of the very existence of Israel. What is the essential truth of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The Jews of Israel are primarily decent people who desire to live in peace with their Arab neighbors. Unfortunately, many, if not even the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs, are nothing more than racist scoundrels. Do I upset anyone’s politically correct sensibilities? If so, that’s your problem and not mine.

Dear Ignoramus Deamer,

As someone who has studied the philosophy of science and has a graduate degree in physics let me set you straight on something. Nobody can prove causality. Ever. For anything.

One can find evidence for causality, quite strong evidence, but you can't "prove it" in either a legalistic sense or a mathematical sense. The best physicists in the world are still grappling with time reversal assymetry and problems regarding EPR paradox or quantum interference.

Even on a larger scale, causality usually has to be assumed. The standard for doing so is what the real topic is.

BTW, my vote is that Mahathir said what he said because he really believed it and wanted to say something to inspire Islamists to unite in order to improve themselves. Paul Krugman probably thought this too, but was too politic to say so in a published column being more intelligent than say Easterbrook.

I can hear the baying now - Krugman is anti-muslim!!! And he's a Jew!!!

Gimme a break. The man is brilliant. The only reason why Dan here could score a point is because Krugman told a *white lie*. He made up some stuff to avoid having to publicly embaress himself and someone else with a socially unacceptable truth.

Dan, I'm sure you feel real good about "Scoring" on Krugman but I have to tell you - he let you have it to save face. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Dear Ignoramus Deamer,

Dear Pseudonymous Coward:

Have you noticed that there seems to be a correlation between not using one's real name in internet discussions and engaging in name-calling, flaming, ad-hominem attacks, and having a general lack of manners and civility? Do you think there's a casuality relationship there? I mean, you tell me. You're the man of science after all.

By the way, how's that Valerie Plame leak story going? Has it brought down the Bush administration yet? I haven't seen much about it in the news lately so I was wondering if you knew.

Re David Thomson's comment "Many people criticize Sharon for illicit reasons. And when you push them to the wall---they really are ashamed of the very existence of Israel."

1) I criticize Sharon because I see nothing different between Palestinians suicide bombers and Sharon's firing missiles into civilian crowds in heavily populated Gaza. Except that one requires courage and the other only requires US weaponry provided by a political whore in the White House.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45924-2003Jun28.html?nav=hptop_tb

-- it indicatest that 100 Palestinians civilians have been killed during Israel's assassination attempts.

Firing six anti-tank missiles from Apache helicopters into a crowded intersection in Gaza and killing five civilians, including an 8 year old girl, is terrorism.

2) However, note that many Jews --even Israelis --criticize Sharon was well.

Some excerpts from this June 14, 2003 story at the Toronto Star (see
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251834564&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

***********
"Whether he deserves it or not, Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon finds himself today bearing the brunt of the blame for perhaps the bloodiest and most depressing week in the past 33 months of Middle East misery.

Sharon's decision on Tuesday to dispatch Israeli helicopter missiles against extremist Hamas political leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi was, in the view of many, akin to holding a match to a pile of dry leaves."
***************
No surprise, too, that Haaretz, the most dovish of Israeli newspapers, editorialized yesterday against what it called "a poor decision" by Sharon.

"The timing and method of the operation reinvigorated doubts regarding Sharon's sincerity and commitment to Bush's vision for the Middle East and its implementation," Haaretz said.

What is surprising, however, is that as many as half of Israelis themselves believe Sharon's motivation for the attack was to sabotage the peace plan, according to a poll yesterday in the Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

The survey showed Israelis evenly divided, with 43 per cent of respondents accepting at face value the Sharon government's explanation that Rantisi was a "ticking time bomb" of terror.

Yet 40 per cent of Israelis say they believe the attack came for the sole purpose of sabotaging the road map. A further 3 per cent say both reasons were behind the strike.

"The number of citizens who reject the government's explanations and attribute malicious intentions to it is very high," wrote Yedioth analyst Sever Plotzker.

"When the percentage of Israel's citizens that depend on the army's professional ethics is identical to the percentage who view the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) as a political tool, it is not only the state leaders who have a problem of justification. The IDF also has a credibility problem that it has not suffered from so far during the intifada."

The Yedioth survey, which sampled opinion from 501 people, giving it an error margin of 4.5 per cent, also found six out of 10 Israelis favour an immediate halt to further assassinations.
************
A clear majority of Israelis have consistently favoured withdrawal from most or all of the West Bank and Gaza, including the dismantling of most settlements.

Yesterday's survey numbers indicated that as of this week, 67 per cent of Israelis agree with Sharon's controversial assertion that the military "occupation" of Palestinian territory must end.

But the ideological resolve of Israel's estimated 200,000 Jewish settlers and their international supporters backers remains breathtaking. Every bit as breathtaking as Hamas' resolve to never accept the existence of Israel, under any circumstance.

As the week drew to a close, settlers were busy reconstructing the 10 uninhabited outposts dismantled Monday and Tuesday as Sharon's first gestures toward the promises of the Aqaba peace summit. Settler leaders also won Israeli court injunctions stalling the removal of five additional outposts.

Emboldened by the disintegration of peace prospects with each passing day, the Yesha Council of West Bank rabbis went on the offensive, restating its biblical claim to the whole of the territory and urging neighbouring Arab countries to absorb all Palestinian refugees.

After "a serious look at the Arab problem," the rabbis concluded the only solution is "at the roots."

"According to the Torah, there is no place for Arabs in the Land of Israel," the rabbis' statement said.
*************
Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. presidents quietly close their Mideast files in the run-up to re-election out of fear of provoking the wrath of domestic lobbies. If the theory holds true, the window of opportunity for Bush to win traction for his road map amounts to only a few more months.

The interminable process of 2004 elections will then be upon him.
-----------

1) I would also note to David Thomson that I criticize Sharon because I think that dropping a 2000 lb F16 bomb onto an apartment building in Gaza at night --when the building is crowded with civilians and children are sleeping -- is terrorism.

At 3100 people per square km, Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth -- see http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_density_2.html

2)An Israeli F16 dropped a bomb on an apartment building in Gaza last July. The attack, aimed at a Hamas leader, killed nine children and wounded 140 people.
(some of whom probably subsequently died.)

See

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,329867,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast/index.html

3) One day earlier, a leader of Hamas had proposed a halt to suicide attacks if Israel withdrew from the West Bank. See bottom of
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/24/world/printable516226.shtml

4) In an earlier post, I explained why I thought Bush's sale of 52 F16s to Israel in the summer of 2001, coming after Israel attacked the Palestinians with F16s, helped motivate the Sept 11 attack --based on a Bin Ladin interview published in a Pakistani
newspaper.

What really angers me is that this information was covered up in the US news media after the Sept 11 attack.

5)Note that Mr Thomson's benevolent Likud recently came close to voting against a Palestinian state-- and it attached a number of restrictions to a blueprint approved without reservation by the Palestinians. See
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030525/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_030525164849

I would note to David Thomson that I am not the only person critical of Sharon.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,975538,00.html
An excerpt:
***********
"t is question rarely asked by Israel's Jews, and almost never in public. But yesterday one member of the Israeli parliament, Roman Bronfman, cautiously wondered if the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, did not have Jewish blood on his hands.

In carefully couched terms, he raised the question after the militant Islamic movement Hamas responded with its favourite weapon - the suicide bombing of civilians - to Israel's botched attempt to kill its political leader.

"It is necessary to examine government policy which may not have been helpful in progressing the "road map" and seems to have taken us back to death, pain and sorrow," Mr Bronfman said

In the 24 hours between the failed assassination bid on Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi and the killing of 16 people on a bus in central Jerusalem, there was fevered speculation about the timing of Mr Sharon's order to kill Dr Rantissi. "

***********

In my opinion, Sharon will continue because he knows Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress are amoral whores who will do anything for a campaign donation -- even when such pandering triggers attacks like Sept 11, costing 3000+ lives. Hell, Bush will even greet the widows with tears in his eyes for the photographers.

Don Williams:

Do you just cut and paste your Counterpunch articles and postings on other forums over and over again, regardless of the actual topic at hand? It might be more helpful to make shorter comments that are more related to the topic at hand, as opposed to saying the same things in every forum regardless of what's being discussed, and offering such long, eye-glazing posts that it would take way too much time and space to respond to each post in the space of a comment.

I get that your general point is that the Likudniks and their neocon allies have an unhealthy influence over US policy, that this is what brought about September 11th etc., that you don't hate Jews or Israelis per se, you just don't think they shouldn't go around assassinating terrorist leaders who are trying to kill them. Halliburton and the Central Asian oil pipeline also make an appearance I believe. I happen to think all these opinions are wrong, and reveal a deeply paranoid, fearful mindset fueled by misinformation, anti-Semitism, an over-active imagination, and a feeling of impotent rage.

However, to try to explain to you each of the myriad points on which you are logically or factually mistaken, which is something I would very much like to do, would require a herculean effort just given the raw number of assertions, albeit most often the same ones over and over again, that you like to throw at the computer screen.

It would be helpful for everyone if you tried to limit yourself to one or two salient points per post. If you want to keeep going on like this, it would be more appropriate to do so on your own blog, or on Counterpunch or whatever. Also, it seems rather impolite to the proprietor of the blog to not even attempt to relate your comments to the topic of the thread, in this case the Krugman piece.

“I criticize Sharon because I see nothing different between Palestinians suicide bombers and Sharon's firing missiles into civilian crowds in heavily populated Gaza.”

This single sentence proves that you are logically unable to distinguish between terrorism and legitimate military actions. Your premise would make it impossible for any nation to defend itself. The Palestinian terrorists are responsible for endangering the lives of innocent civilians. They deliberately hide behind them forcing the Israelis’ hands. The Israeli military takes enormous measures to limit civilian casualties.

Roman Bronfman and other leftist Israelis are merely Uncle Toms. These folks shamelessly pander to the ultra-Leftists. They will do just about anything to be wined and dined by the Old Europeans.

Eric Deamer and David Thomson have made, in my opinion, a number of questionable statements in the posts above--
statements without substantiating evidence. When I then introduce facts to refute them, they do not address those facts
--rather they duck a discussion by irrelevant ad hominems. The most laughable is Eric Deamer's complaint that I introduced
too much material for him to comprehend and that I'm off topic.

I will reiterate my points, in baby talk this time.

a) Sharon and Likud have sabotaged the peace talks on several occasions, including deliberate terror attacks on Palestinian
civilians using US-made F16s and Apache Helicopter missiles. As a result, many Israeli citizens have died in reprisals.

b) 3000+ US citizens have died as well. Bin Ladin explicitly cited US government's sale of advanced weapons to Sharon as a cause for Sept 11.

c) Bush's unquestioning support of Sharon/Likud is contrary both to American values and to US national security--especially
after that support provoked the carnage of Sept 11.

Bush and his supporters are pandering to a small group of powerful,very wealthy men
who support Israel --because those men hold the key to the financial destruction of the Democratic Party. A lot of very wealthy Bush supporters --who are indifferent to the fate of the Israelis --stand to benefit if Bush retains power after the Nov 2004 election.

d) As I noted, Mahatir was wrong to blame the entire Jewish people for the actions of a few men --some of whom, like Conrad Black, are not even Jewish. However, Mahatir was correct in noting that this cabal now dominates US foreign policy for the Middle East, that they are hostile to Muslims, and that they are manipulating the Bush Administration into wasting American lives to defend Sharon/Likud. The power of this group is shown by the extent to which major facts re Sept 11 and Iraq have been suppressed in the news presented to most US citizens -- and by the major way in which the American people have been lied to and misled

e) Iraq was not a threat to the US --but was seen as a threat by Sharon and Likud. That's why Bush attacked Iraq

f) Paul Krugman and others who criticize the actions of Bush and the neocon cabal are not "self hating Jews" or "Uncle Toms". They are intelligent people acting in accord with both Israeli and US national interests --in accord with both the moral values of Christainity and of Judaism.

By contrast, it is hard to see what motivates Bush supporters --other than simple greed. Certainly it is not patriotism --although they try to wrap their selfish agendas in the US flag.

g) It seems to me that Dave Thomson and Eric Deamer are more interested in spewing half-understood, unsubstantiated propaganda
than in rational discussions of the US national interest.

PS I would note to Eric Deamer that I am a NRA member. I have published an article on George Mason's History News Network --about how Michael Bellesiles's false history (Arming America) was the spearhead for a strong campaign by liberal historians to influence the Supreme Court in a major Secord Amendment case. See http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=741

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has cited my article and HNN comments about Bellesiles on several occasions --although I obviously disagree with him re Israel and Iraq.

Sharon and Likud have sabotaged the peace talks on several occasions, including deliberate terror attacks on Palestinian
civilians using US-made F16s and Apache Helicopter missiles. As a result, many Israeli citizens have died in reprisals.

If that's your idea of a "fact" I'd hate to see what rampant speculation looks like. The Israeli government, regardless of which party was in power, has never engaged in a "deliberate terror attack", ever. All of their military operations target specific terrorists, arms smugglign tunnels and the like. Despite the fact that IDF troops are perhaps the most skilled in the world at engaging in urban combat without harming innocent civilians, regrettably abd unintentionally, but inevtiably, innocent civilians have been killed. This is about as far from a "deliberate terror attack" as you can get. A deliberate terrorist attack is for example when someone goes onto a crowded city bus filled with women and children and sets off a bomb filled with nails in order to kill as many women and children as possible. See the difference?

When I asked you to shorten your posts it was not because I couldn't understand them but because as they were they contained so much wrong information and so much speculation and editorializing trumpted as "fact" that it would take too much time to tell you all of the different things that were wrong with what you were saying.

All of your other bullet points contained enormous factual inaccuracies or were simply unsupported assertions with no facts to back them up. If you really want me to engage each one of these points directly click on the link from my name, follow it to my blog, and find my e-mail through there or type a comment on a post or something. I imagine this is tiresome for everyone else reading and it's kind of rude to Mr. Drezner to be taking up bandwidth etc. with all this crap that is barely tangentially related to the topic of the original post.

PS- I hardly see what your NRA membership has to do with anything. I never asked for your CV or anything like that.

Re Mr Deamer's comment that "it's kind of rude to Mr. Drezner to be taking up bandwidth etc. with all this crap that is barely tangentially related to the topic of the original post."

my understanding is that Daniel Drezner runs this blog, not Eric Deamer.

My comments were directly relevant to the topic under discussion. I'm sick of and tired of Bush supporters thinking that they can define the bounds of a discussion -- and that they can attack the character of critics like Paul Krugman --via what I see as misleading falsehoods.

Mr Deamer says above that my posts "contained so much wrong information and so much speculation and editorializing trumpted as "fact" that it would take too much time to tell you all of the different things that were wrong with what you were saying." --yet he seems reluctant to challenge the facts I submit or to offer alternative evidence.

Re Mr Deamer's comment "The Israeli government, regardless of which party was in power, has never engaged in a "deliberate terror attack", ever. All of their military operations target specific terrorists, arms smugglign tunnels and the like. Despite the fact that IDF troops are perhaps the most skilled in the world at engaging in urban combat without harming innocent civilians, regrettably abd unintentionally, but inevtiably, innocent civilians have been killed. This is about as far from a "deliberate terror attack" as you can get "

All contrived excuses and rationalizations aside, dropping a 2000 lb bomb on a three story apartment building in Gaza at night --when buildings are crowded with sleeping civilians, including civilians --is terrorism, pure and simple. As I noted, Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth.

Sharon's excuses are simply evidence of his two-faced deceit and hypocrisy. As I recall, he made similar excuses when he let Lebanese militia massacre Palestinian civilians in refugee camps about two decades past.

Maybe Mr Deamer would like an Israeli's take on Sharon's explanation for the Gaza F16 bombing. See
http://www.israelblog.org/1027621677/ .

Don Williams:

Last link didn't work.

There is a difference between the deliberate taking of civilian life, i.e. terrorism, and unintentional loss of life in the course of an attempt to kill terrorists. To call both terrorism is to debase the term and rob it of any meaning.

This is all quite tiresome. You're referring to me in the third person and playing to the crowd like a pro wrestler or something. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. I have better things to do with my time. Interpret that as showing how you've strangled me in the crushing grip of reason, or however you wish. I don't care anymore.

Bye,
Eric