“The dominant discourse employs double standards at every level”

On the first reading, it seems that this famous physics professor gets it right. Unfortunately, despite his (what sounds like) logic and conciseness, the piece is still full of contradictions and confusion.

He starts strong with decrying the usual routine of treating the aggressor and the victim equally:

At each new war waged by the West, certain leftist or pacifist movements fall back on a “neither-nor” position. “Neither Milosevic nor NATO”, “Neither Bush nor Saddam”, and, now, rejecting both Israel and Hamas in the same breath.
In all these cases, there is a triple problem.

* We ignore the difference in the relationship of forces.
* The aggressor and the aggressed are treated in the same way.
* And, worst of all, we act as though we were outsiders, above it all, whereas our governments are obviously not.

Good, good. But then somehow it degenerates into a list of ‘double standards’ where he, unfortunately, falls into the same routine he rejected a few paragraphs before:

* Hamas and Hezbollah must be prevented from rearming, while Israel can receive from the United States, even as a gift, all the arms it wants.
* Israel is constantly celebrated as “the only democracy in the Middle East”, but the free elections of the Palestinians are considered invalid.
* The Palestinians must “renounce violence”. Not Israel.

So, are you saying now that, after all, the aggressor and the victim must be treated equally? What the fuck, professor?

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: