Is
self-hyping reporter Greg Palast kidding or is he finally showing off his
Zionist-imperialist colors?
Does he think that
progressives cannot see past his mordant wit to those whose agenda his
writing serves?
His recent
article
takes on Iran and the “elephant in the room (camel in the tent?) that
can’t be acknowledged”: Saudi Arabia. [1] Palast’s
derisory language is tawdry and trivial. What would the reaction be if
someone wrote about a “bagel in the kibbutz”?
That the “shy mullahs” of Iran are seeking a nuclear bomb is axiomatic for
Palast. After all, “Iran has zero need of ‘peaceful’ nuclear-generated
electricity. It has the second-largest untapped reserve of natural gas on
the planet, a clean, safe, cheap source of power. There’s only one reason
for a ‘nuclear’ program.” This glaring contradiction comes from the same
Palast who devotes a sizeable chunk of his currently promoted book,
Armed Madhouse, to Peak Oil. Apparently, Iranians are not affected
by Peak Oil. But maybe the Shah of Iran was when the US assisted Iran in
starting up its nuclear power program.
Palast is also denying Iranians the
inalienable right to an equivalent self-defense that the “shy rabbis” have
secured for Israel. [2]
Palast writes,
Here’s the problem with
Baker’s weird combo of embedding our boys with Iraq’s scary army
while sucking up to the Iranians: it won’t work. The mayhem will continue,
with Americans in the middle, because the Baker brigade dares not mention
two words: “Saudi” and “Arabia.” [italics added]
The descriptive language of Palast’s piece,
upon comparing occupation fighters with Iraqi fighters, is most telling.
Occupation fighters are: “US forces,” “our boys,” “our troops,” and “our
soldiers.” Iraqi fighters are: “Shia death squads,” “Shia cut-throats,”
“Iraq’s scary army,” “murderous Shia militias,” “Sunni ‘insurgents,’”
“Sunni berserkers,” and “Shia killers.”
Palast does,
briefly, manage to rip into the architects of the genocidal plunder of
Iraq calling them “neo-con nuts.” Ouch! Of course, Palast dares not
mention “Zio nuts.”
Palast asserts, “But the Shias only shifted into mass killing mode in
response to the murder spree by Sunni ‘insurgents.’” Is Palast shifting
culpability for the genocide in Iraq to the victims? Palast’s omissions
speak loudly. The “murder spree” is a US-UK murder spree encouraged by
Zionists. [3] The Shia death squads were set up by the
Americans. What does that make such Shia squads? It makes them
collaborators of the occupiers. Collaborators are a legitimate target for
the Iraqi resistance forces.
Palast points to “Saudis” as financing Sunni “mayhem.” Who does Palast
cite as an authority? The same organization that has been dissed by the
Bush administration for providing faulty information on the danger that
the Iraqi regime posed to the US (a risible proposition): US intelligence.
Even though post-invasion the “seething memo[s]” were lambasted for being
wrong, now Palast would seek to convince the reader based on the evidence
of one “seething memo”? Nice.
Palast writes, “Yet we close our eyes to the Saudis acting as a piggy bank
for the other side, the Sunni berserkers. (The House of Saud follows
Wahabi Islam, a harsh, fundamentalist sect of Sunnism.)” Palast is
remarkably blind when it comes to the Americans acting as a piggy bank for
the their side: the Zionist “berserkers.” Moreover, the House of Saud does
not follow Wahhabi Islam. [4] It rules through an
accommodation with the Wahhabists.
Why is Palast so coy with the Zionists?
Palast has a new twist on the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis on the strength of
the “Israel” Lobby. The genuine power is elsewhere. According to Palast,
the neoconservatives are at the beck and call of the Sauds! How odd, then,
that the Sauds cannot stop the US from sending high tech armaments and
billions of dollars to Israel to ethnically cleanse and kill their Arab
kin in Palestine. Palast’s zionist reasoning is that it is okay for US
troops to kill Sunnis, but if the US delegates the killing of Sunnis to
Shia death squads -- assuming that they are, indeed, responsible for the
daily mayhem -- then that is unacceptable.
Palast sees the “fratricidal fracas in Iraq” (so just what is it: a
“fratricidal fracas” or “uncivil war”?) as “a remote control proxy war
between Iran and Saudi Arabia to control Iraq’s place in OPEC, the oil
cartel.”
So, according to
Palast, the US-UK invasion-occupation of Iraq has turned out to be a
battle for control of Iraq’s oil not by the US but by Iran and
Saudi Arabia?
Question: Whose hand
is on the remote control?
While he might have
been against the invasion of Iraq, the Palast agenda, when read closely,
is “sucking up” to imperialism and Zionism. Therein lies the danger of
theoretician Palast. Progressives must read with a sufficiently skeptical
and questioning mind the liberal-sounding colloquial prose of a man who
uses progressives as a base for self-promotion.
Kim Petersen,
Co-Editor of Dissident Voice, lives on the outskirts of Seoul in
southern Korea. He can be reached at:
kim@dissidentvoice.org.
ENDNOTES
[1] Greg Palast, “The
Baker Boys: Stay Half the Course: Iraq Study Group or Saudi Protection
League?” Greg Palast, 7 December 2006.
[2] Kim Petersen, “The
Inalienable Right to Self Defense: Balancing the Power,” Dissident
Voice, 27
February 2006.
[3] Jeffrey Blankfort, “A
War for Israel” Left Curve, January 2004.
[4] Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud (Gibson
Square Books, 2004). Unger describes the gambling, drinking, and carousing
of the Sauds that deviates from tenets of Wahhabism.
Other Recent
Articles by Kim Petersen
*
Platitudes
Are No Defense Against Zionist Terrorism
* Principles
Over Realism: The Zero-State Solution
* Let’s Not
Support Lesser Evilism: Much Ado About Nothing Election Results
* The
Reciprocity Principle: Questions That Need to be Asked
* Genocide in
Iraq
* Going
Nuclear: Northern Korea’s Ace
* An
Unacceptable Nuclear Gamble
* Canada: The
Honest Broker?
*
Progressive Duty is to Speak Out Against Oppressors Not Excoriate Their
Resisting Victims
* Subtle
Loyalties to Zionism
* Inside the
Madhouse
* A Higher
Standard
* Whither
Elementary Morality?
* Optimistic
Progressivism
* The
Analytical Skewer
* Inequality
Matters
* There is No
“Israel Lobby”
* South
American Paradigms: Revolutionary Change Through Mass Social Movements
*
"Insurgents": Hermeneutics Are Not a Substitute for Clarity!
* The
Inalienable Right to Self Defense: Balancing the Power
*
This Is Not
Progressivism
* Europe's
Free Speech Paradox
*
Remembering
with Shame and Horror
* Before
Columbus: Revisionism and Enlightenment
*
Desperately Seeking Victory in a War Already Lost
*
Progressivism, Skepticism, and Historical Revisionism
* Resisting
Capitalist-Imperialist Assimilation: Interview with Stewart Steinhauer
* The
Morbid Symbolism of the Yasukuni Shrine
*
Elementary Morality and Torture
* Darkness
Over Empire
*
Anti-Israel?
* Syria in
the Imperialist Crosshairs
*
The
Struggle to Restore the Dignity of Labor
* Gizen:
Perverted Principle in Japan
* The Need
to Speak Out: Canada’s Governor Generalship
*
Antithetical Heroism
*
Progressives and the Imperialist Line
HOME
|