The dispute over the Middle East. We're facing a new wave of decolonization

For those who have not dimensioned the meaning of this new stage of the conflict in the Middle East, it is a stage in which the United States is trying to maintain its dominance or hegemony in the Middle East, which is why it rushed to defend Israel as early as October 2023 with other NATO members, notably the United Kingdom (which many in Brazil only understand the term if we mention the country by the name of "England").

We probably are witnessing another wave of decolonization in the World, which always break out in the decline of the power of Empire of some countries, in conflict between these countries and in the change of economic axis to another region or country, in the current case the transition from the US/Western Europe axis to Asia/China.

After World War II with the destruction of Europe several colonies of Europe in Asia and Africa, remnants, began processes of independence and bloody, by repression of the "metropolises", see the Algerian war with its 1 million dead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War), France, the " winner "of the Second World War over Hitler's Nazism (as it is often erroneously portrayed because it lived under collaborationist rule in the Second World War), went to a bloody war to keep Algeria under its" heel " (Dominion).

The same thing happened in several African and Asian countries, the Chinese revolution in 1949 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Revolution).

The Indochina Liberation War (which many only know from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina_Francesa), first from the hand of the French, who as soon as they fell opened space for the Americans to enter to contain the advance of the guerrillas of North Vietnam, who would emerge victorious in 1975 unifying Vietnam into a republic expelling the United States from that country. The Americans remained in South Vietnam, under their rule, at war with the communist guerrillas of North Vietnam.

The Vietnam War is a war of Independence (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_do_Vietn%C3%A3) Mostly.

Wars of independence usually have a revolutionary content, of National Liberation, provoke profound changes in the countries that get rid of the former metropolises.

The same process of the past (there were other waves of decolonization: of the Americas throughout the nineteenth century, after the second war etc.) may be repeating itself in Africa (several countries rose up against French colonial oppression expelling France from their countries) and in the Middle East, see the Palestine conflict (area dominated by Israel anchored in the United States and Western Europe), Lebanon and all the actors involved targets of the North American/European and Israeli consortium, in which the strongest parties (the United States prominently and the United Kingdom and other Europeans in the background) operate to contain the advance of China/Russia and BRICS on the oil and gas reserves of this region of the globe.

I was watching a left channel video (I didn't memorize the name, I'll put it in the comments if I remember) about the situation in Lebanon / Iran and the cia and the question came to mind because someone mentioned something similar there, Breno Altman has been touching on the subject in relation to the US and containment with China (he made a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch.v=bsKn1kUPARw "the United States is committed to a third war. - ANALYSIS OF BRENO ALTMAN" in "BR Portuguese").

an addendum: this text here was written several days ago (since the last 10th or earlier), it was not published before due to lack of revision and some details, because it impresses the convergence (I comment on this at the end with another text from outside).

For those who think that the conflict will "end tomorrow" and the like, and even may (partly, it depends on the escalation with Iran, which is a central actor in the Middle East), we are already inside a conflict of a much larger scale.

The United States will not have much time in a few years to try a military containment of China, since it can no longer contain the Chinese giant through technological, economic, and also targets Russia, which has restored its status as a world power and has a strong alliance with China (they are heads of the BRICS).

Memorize the year "2030", by 2030 China will overtake the US economy ("China's Economy Could Overtake US Economy by 2030", 2022 article, maintained current standardshttps://www.voanews.com/a/chinas-economy-could-overtake-us-economy-by-2030/6380892.html), and already surpassed by the calculation of purchasing power parityhttps://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_pa%C3%ADses_por_PIB_(Paridade_do_Poder_de_Compra)).

That is, the" doors "to the use of the" military route " (by the US) to contain China are closing until 2030, which is why violence and aggression in the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. In the calculation of GDP by purchasing power the "European Union" appears ahead of the United States (one of the reasons why it is also targeted, despite presenting itself as a "partner" of the US in conflicts, the US targets and attacks the whole world).

So certain simplifications that circulate in some right-wing channels about these conflicts in the " Brazilian Youtubesphere "(it had to be) sound like" mirabolante thing"," exotic thing"," denial "and the like (I saw this posture a lot of the so-called" revis "on the subject of the second war, who must have been stunned for a few years not understanding"what world is this that we live in for a decade now"), because of a refractory position of some denying the issue of the expansionist character of Israel's colonial project (Israel's role in the conflict is to consolidate the Zionist project for Palestine and then want to expand in the direction of "Greater Israel", which encompasses several other countries in the region, only without strength for this currently except if the United States endorses and enters the dispute to provide this, which does not mean that it will succeed in the "undertaking", they are already surrounded on all sides since 2023).

It is also worth reading, the texts and videos converge towards the same point: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-ten-middle-east-conflicts-are-converging-into-one-big-war ("How Ten Middle East Conflicts are Converging Into one Big War. The U.S. is embroiled in wars among foreign players in Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen")
("as the conflicts of the Middle East are converging into one major war, the US is immersed in wars with disparate players in Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen").

text published on October 15, 2024 (later it will be replaced in the correct order, so as not to disturb the viewing of posts about the Middle East).

Text written by Roberto Lucena. No fix (Testing the AI tools).

Arendt on Trial. New Book About Eichmann Trial Challenges Hannah Arendt's Criticism of Jewish Council

Arendt on Trial
Michelle SieffMarch 14, 2011Image: Nextbook/Schoken

The Eichmann Trial
By Deborah Lipstadt
Nextbook/Schocken, 272 pages, $24.95

In 1961, the young state of Israel tried and executed the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Hannah Arendt covered the trial for the New Yorker, an account that was published in 1963 as “Eichmann in Jerusalem.” Arendt did not set out to write a journalistic trial narrative. Instead, she articulated a series of provocative and critical judgments about the trial, the wartime role of Europe’s Jewish Councils (the infamous Judenrats) and Eichmann’s motives. The book ignited a firestorm of controversy that, 50 years later, still crackles. Her book remains the lens through which people view the Eichmann trial.
Challenging Arendt: Deborah Lipstadt, the author of ?The Eichmann Trial.?

Image: Nextbook/Schoken

Challenging Arendt: Deborah Lipstadt, the author of ?The Eichmann Trial.?

With her new book, “The Eichmann Trial,” historian Deborah Lipstadt attempts to refute Arendt’s main arguments. On the cover is an iconic image of Arendt — pearl-bedecked and pensive, a cigarette dangling from her fingers — and an entire chapter of the book discusses her arguments. Although other scholars have re-examined the Eichmann trial — most notably the Israeli historian Hannah Yablonka, in a book published in English in 2004 as “The State of Israel vs. Adolf Eichmann” — Lipstadt aims to reach a wider audience.

Especially when compared to Arendt, who was more concerned with the whys and wherefores than the whats, Lipstadt has written a reliable guide to the basic facts of the trial. Lipstadt succinctly describes the key events in chronological order: Israel’s abduction of Eichmann in Argentina; the selection of the prosecutor, defense attorney and judges; the media response to the trial; the prosecutor’s chilling opening statement; the testimony of the survivor witnesses; Eichmann’s testimony; the judgment and the impassioned debate over the death sentence.

Arendt bitterly criticized the Jewish Councils for helping the Nazis compile lists of Jews to be deported. This observation was the one that sparked the violent outrage in American Jewish circles because of her insinuation that the Nazi authorities and Jewish Councils were equally culpable. Lipstadt vehemently challenges Arendt’s argument, noting that the Einsatzgruppen murdered thousands of Jews in the Soviet territories, which had no Jewish Councils. In her mind, this proves that Arendt exaggerated the importance of the Jewish Councils.

True. But Lipstadt has the advantage of 50 years of historical research, much of which was spurred by Arendt’s provocative argument. And, ironically, Lipstadt’s narrative ultimately persuades me that Arendt’s spotlight on the actions of the Jewish Councils was justified at the time. Lipstadt vividly describes how, during the testimony of a Hungarian Jewish Council member, Pinchas Freudinger, a spectator began shouting and accused Freudinger of being responsible for the death of his family. It was a Holocaust victim in the courtroom who accused the Jewish Councils of moral culpability. Arendt’s contribution was to analyze a complicated moral issue — raised by a Holocaust victim at the trial — with her characteristic erudition, seriousness and fearlessness.

Arendt’s book is most notorious for its portrait of Eichmann’s motives. Based on her analysis of his statements and testimony, Arendt contended that Eichmann was not motivated by a fanatical hatred of Jews. Other than a desire to advance his career and obey his superiors, he had no real motives at all, she maintained. Arendt concluded that Eichmann’s “sheer thoughtlessness” revealed the “banality of evil.”

Lipstadt argues that, to the contrary, Eichmann was a committed anti-Semite. Sometimes Lipstadt’s prose has the whiff of a dogmatic rant; but she also marshals some compelling evidence, some of which was not part of the trial and hence not available to Arendt. She points to Eichmann’s speech to his men, in which he declared he would go to his grave fulfilled because he had murdered millions of Jews. Lipstadt also invokes as evidence a memoir written by Eichmann during the trial, which was sealed in Israel’s archives but released to assist Lipstadt in her own trial in 2000 against Holocaust denier David Irving.

Though she doesn’t provide details, Lipstadt contends that the memoir proves that Arendt “was just plain wrong about Eichmann.” In a fascinating description of Judge Benjamin Halevi’s questioning of Eichmann, she also recounts how Eichmann compromised his defense that he was just following orders by admitting he exempted several Jews from deportation.

Even if Lipstadt is correct about Eichmann — and in his 2004 biography of Eichmann, historian David Cesarani precisely documented Eichmann’s anti-Semitism — Arendt was still onto an important idea. The bloody post-Holocaust history of genocides provides ample evidence of the “banality of evil.” Some very chilling evidence appears in the book “Machete Season,” by French journalist Jean Hatzfeld. Hatzfeld conducted extended interviews with a group of imprisoned Rwandan genocidaires. Throughout the book, they speak of the killing as a business and a job, without any reference to moral considerations.

In her conclusion, Lipstadt argues that the decision by the prosecutor, Attorney General Gideon Hausner, to include survivor testimonies, despite no direct legal need for it, was the most important aspect of the trial. Drawing on the empirical work of other scholars, she argues that, by allowing victims to tell their stories publicly, the trial changed the perception and status of Holocaust victims in Israeli society. In Lipstadt’s mind, this was the trial’s greatest legacy. Her conclusion also challenges an Arendtian judgment. Arendt had criticized Hausner for injecting political goals into the trial. She specifically criticized the focus on Jewish suffering and the victim testimonies: “For this case was built on what the Jews had suffered, not on what Eichmann had done,” she lamented.

Arendt’s view was based on a doctrine — which she made explicit — about the purpose of trials, even trials of war criminals. “The purpose of a trial is to render justice, and nothing else,” she maintained. By defending the trial on the grounds that it integrated victims into Israeli society, Lipstadt assumes that war crimes trials can and should further more expansive goals, such as the political objective of nation-building. Since the Eichmann trial, in the wake of the bloody conflicts of the 1990s, war crimes trials have proliferated. Modern human rights groups have defended these trials on the grounds that they further classic political goals, such as peace and democratic consolidation.

Our contemporary discussions about what law scholar Ruti Teitel named “transitional justice” are often muddled, because there is little explicit philosophical debate — let alone consensus — about the appropriate goals and standards by which such trials should be assessed. This conceptual miasma might be one reason there are so few empirical studies on the impact of war crimes trials. This is a shame, since these trials are a tremendous experiment in virtuous politics. Arendt criticized the Eichmann trial because it injected politics into law. By defending the trial because of its political consequences, Lipstadt lays out an alternative doctrine. Who’s right? For anyone concerned about the legacy of Eichmann and the future of war crimes trials, it’s an essential question.

Michelle Sieff is a research fellow at the Yale Initiative for the Study of Antisemitism.

Source: Forward/Haaretz
http://forward.com/culture/136127/arendt-on-trial/
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/new-book-about-eichmann-trial-challenges-hannah-arendt-s-criticism-of-jewish-council-1.349203

Top Holocaust Scholar Blasts 'Holocaust-abuse' by U.S., Israeli Politicians

Deborah Lipstadt lambasts 'unhealthy and embarrassing' pandering of Republican presidential candidates; says U.S. envoy Gutman’s comments on Muslim anti-Semitism were 'stupid.'
Chemi Shalev Dec 16, 2011 1:03 PM

Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, Jan 11, 2000.AP

Full Interview with Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt
Hilary Swank to star as Deborah Lipstadt in biopic about Holocaust denier's trial

Renowned Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt says that American and Israeli politicians who invoke the Holocaust for contemporary political purposes are engaging in “Holocaust abuse”, which is similar to “soft-core denial” of the Holocaust.

“I think it is dangerous, just plain dangerous. It’s a distortion of what Israel is all about, what Zionism is all about,” said Lipstadt, who has just published a retrospective book “The Eichmann Trial” on the 1961 Jerusalem trial of the infamous Nazi criminal.

“When you take these terrible moments in our history, and you use it for contemporary purposes, in order to fulfill your political objectives, you mangle history, you trample on it,” she said.

In a hard-hitting interview with Haaretz, Lipstadt also lashed out at the "over-the-top pandering" of Republican presidential candidates, describing their fawning support for Israel as "embarrassing" and "unhealthy." Of last week’s appearance of the top Republican candidates at a Washington forum organized by the Republican Jewish Committee, she said: “It was unbelievable. It made me cringe. I couldn’t watch it.”

“You listen to Newt Gingrich talking about the Palestinians as an ‘invented people’ – it’s out-Aipacking AIPAC, it’s out-Israeling Israel,” she said. .”There’s something about it that’s so discomforting. It’s not healthy. It’s a distortion,” she said.

She also used the word “despicable” to describe settlers who use the term “Nazi” against IDF soldiers. “And it’s so inaccurate. And it’s such an abuse of history. The people who started it know it’s not true, but the kids, the yeshiva kids, and the high school kids – they don’t know it’s not true. And so when real Nazism comes around - no one will recognize it.”

Lipstadt, who is the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Atlanta’s Emory University, became a hero of American Jewry after she singlehandedly inflicted a devastating blow on Holocaust-denial in the West in her famous London courtroom victory in 2000 over master-denier David Irving, who had sued Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, for libel. The London Times said of Lipstadt's victory: "History has had its day in court and scored a crushing victory."

Lipstadt described US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman’s controversial comments about the causal connection between the Arab-Israeli conflict and Muslim anti-Semitism as “stupid”, adding that “he sounded as if he was rationalizing anti-Semitism.” But, she said, the reaction to his statements had also been “over the top."

Lipstadt decried the “hysteria” and “neuroses” of many Jews and Israelis who compare the current situation in Europe and in the Middle East to the Holocaust era. “People go nuts here, they go nuts. There’s no nuance, there’s no middle ground, it’s taking any shade of grey and stomping on it. There are no voices of calm, there are no voices of reason, not in this country, not in Israel. "

“This is the kind of thing that scares me,” she said. “Jews have always been neurotic – I mean everyone’s neurotic, we just recognize it more – but we’ve raised our neuroses to a level that’s not healthy. We should eschew hysteria, but we don’t. Hysteria is never useful."

The New York-born Lipstadt said that President Barack Obama’s “flatfooted” handling of Israel at the beginning of his term “gave an opening to Republicans in America and to ‘Republicans’ in Israel.” She said that “more and more Jews are scared and here’s someone [the Republicans, CS] who is going to protect them. It’s so over-the-top irrational.”

Lipstadt rebuffed suggestions that what she describes as the “unhealthy neuroses” of the Jews in 2011 is a direct outgrowth of the legacy of the Eichmann trial. “The Eichmann trial was a pivotal moment in the history of Israel, in the history of Zionism. It personalized the Shoah, and it was the beginning of change in the Israeli attitude toward Shoah survivors.”

One of the more controversial chapters in Lipstadt’s new book deals with Hannah Arendt, whose own book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil was immensely popular in the West in the years following the trial but was roundly condemned by Jews and Israelis. Though Lipstadt demolishes Arendt’s main theses that Eichmann was but a bureaucratic cog in the Nazi machine and denounces here criticism of the Judenrats in Nazi-occupied Europe - she does find some positive points in Arendt’s coverage of the trial, including her observation that “for the first time since the year 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, Jews were able to sit in judgment on crimes committed against their own people."

Arendt, says Lipstadt, “was mean and cruel, but she captured something very essential about the trial.”

Read the full transcript of the interview here.

Follow me on Twitter @ChemiShalev
$m.stack.teaserArticleAuthorImage.content.alt

Chemi Shalev
Haaretz Correspondent

Source: Haaretz (Israel)
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/top-holocaust-scholar-blasts-holocaust-abuse-by-u-s-israeli-politicians-1.401821