FLAME Out

Deconstructing Zionist Propaganda

Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME) is a public relations organization that publishes information regarding Israel online and in print. FLAME, according to its own ads, purports its "purpose is the research and publication of facts regarding the Middle East and exposing false propaganda that might harm the interests of the United States and its allies in that area of the world." The FLAME ad in question, 'Arabian Fables (I)', published in the back of the January 9/16, 2006 issue of The Nation magazine, repeats a number of times the notion that pro-Arab propagandists attempt to "persuade" and/or "sway" a "misinformed" and/or "uninformed" world away from the truth “by endlessly repeating myths and lies that have no basis in fact.”

However, a critical reading of the ad, a mere glance at the factual claims and logic deployed in this, a typical FLAME infomercial, reveals the claim they are publishing facts and exposing false propaganda is pretty much bullshit. As it turns out, FLAME is publishing factual errors and using flaky and inconsistent logic to push a pro-Israel, or more correctly, a pro-Zionist point of view. FLAME is essentially what they claim to be fighting, namely, liars.

FLAME posits three myths used to bash Israel and "soften up world opinion" for the Arabs' "final assault." Each myth, in the FLAME ad, is surrounded by quote marks, nudging the reader to see irony where he or she may not.

The Palestinians

FLAME claims the Palestinian nation does not exist, in fact, because the "concept of 'Palestinians' is one that did not exist until 1948", that is, not until the onset of the 1948 war. FLAME also states Palestinians do not really exist because they are mere Arabs, no different from Jordanians, Syrians and others.

But all of this is patently irrelevant, even if true, because the fact remains the Palestinian Arabs have lived for hundreds of years in the area that has become Israel. It is their home, whether or not the term used for them was used only in 1948 and whether or not they are ethnically and culturally distinct, in any degree, from the Jordanians and Syrians. I’ll leave those irrelevant questions to Arab specialists. But, however they are answered, they will remain irrelevant to the matter at hand. After all, are Austrians distinct from the Germans who live in Germany and the Germans who live in Switzerland? All three groups might answer yes, but in fact they all are extremely similar, both culturally and ethnically. Does this invalidate Swiss German and Austrian German claims to their homes? Of course not.

The West Bank

Again, FLAME places great importance on the provenance of terminology. The "West Bank" was created both territorially and semantically only when the Jordanians occupied the area during the 1948 war, therefore, ipso facto, implies FLAME, Palestinian claims to the area are invalid. FLAME even goes one step further in the terminology game. They claim the area is really called Judea and Samaria, and was so "since time immemorial" (echoing the title of Joan Peters’ discredited pro-Israel book and Alan Dershowitz plagiary source, From Time Immemorial). 2000 year old place names are no proper claim to territory. If it was, I’d say I want back the Alps of my Celtic forebears, and I want them now! If you don't give it to me, you're just an anti-Celtic racist. But then I'm part English (Germanic) too, so I am so confused. Again, the origin of a term, in this case "West Bank", is irrelevant. Yes, Jordan occupied the area and the area is on the western bank of the Jordan River. That is the extent of the significance here. Perhaps the Jordanians were attempting to permanently hold the territory. But, according to FLAME, they and the Palestinians are indistinct anyway, so why would FLAME, or any other Zionist deploying similar logic, object? Originally, of course, the West Bank had been part of the area given to the Palestinians (the Arabs of Palestine, and indistinct from the Jordanians, say FLAME) by the 1947 U.N. partition plan.  If it was not then called the "West Bank", but only a year later, supposedly, how is that an argument justifying Israeli occupation and the oppression of the Palestinians living there? How is it an argument justifying anything at all? Whatever it was called and whoever called it whatever, again, the fact remains Palestinians (Arabs native to Palestine by whatever name), lived in the region now known as the West Bank for hundreds of years. Tiny little arguments about the terminology do not change this fact.

The Occupied Territories

The dispute over this term seems to be simply that these areas were also occupied (illegally) by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, for some 19 years (between the 1948 and 1967 wars) and nobody seemed to care so why should anyone object to the illegal Israeli occupation of the same areas. Well, if the Jordanians are culturally and ethnically indistinct from the Palestinians, given the assumptions of racist and nationalistic thinking that pervades Zionism, then the Jordanians had a right to occupy the West Bank. As for the Egyptians, presumably the FLAMErs recognize them as distinct from the Palestinians, therefore, they were indeed wrong to occupy the Gaza Strip. But either way, it collapses back on the Zionists. If the related Jordanians and partially-unrelated Egyptians were wrong to occupy the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, how much more so is it wrong for the completely unrelated European Jews to occupy them?

Also, while on the one hand FLAME wants to dispute European decision-making vis-a-vis the Middle East when it comes to the inclusion of the West Bank in the original territory of Transjordan (the British Mandate), at the same time it cites European decision-making as validating when it comes to the very existence of Israel on traditional Arab land (the Balfour Declaration). Only in the realm of dogma, not facts and logic, do such logical contortions pass muster.

The Zionist invasion and occupation of Palestine is the moral and intellectual equivalent of kicking Austrians out of Austria so the Celts (Irish, Welsh and Scots) can return to their ancestral homeland. The Celts, who now live only in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and a tiny sliver of western France, once dominated the entirety of central and western Europe. The original homeland, some 3,000 years ago, was in present-day Austria and Switzerland, both now homelands of Germanic groups. By Zionist logic, the Celts have the right (of return) to migrate as a people back to Austria, kick out the Austrians (since they are just Germans and can go back to Germany to live with the other Germans) and reestablish their ancestral homeland. What would we think if that were attempted? We would have no problem understanding the Celts were in the wrong. The Celts don’t dominate those areas anymore. That’s not the fault of the people living there now, even if they are the descendants of the ones who dispossessed the Celts. However, when it comes to Zionist Israel, and when our heads are filled with pro-Zionist propaganda, crazy sounds sane and wrong seems right. Propaganda like FLAME's, "by endlessly repeating myths and lies that have no basis in fact", serves to sway the world away from reality and "soften it up" for G-d knows what (or here).

In closing, as a peace gesture, I offer that FLAME consider a name change. Neat names, the acronyms of which spell out cool words, are not easy to find. Towards this end, I offer the following possibilities: Myths and Lies Invented by Colonialist Europeans (MALICE); Several Myths Offered Kindly to Everyone (SMOKE); Myths Invented Righteously and Reverently Over Rocks (MIRROR); Facts Inverted, Richly Embellished (FIRE). Feel free, FLAME, to use any one of them.

Comments

[Hame]

Well said! Looking forward to more great rebutalls.

[Mark Parker]

Brilliant... simply brilliant.

"Zionism", like it's twin brother "Nazism", is coming to an end.

At last!

[Ron Leighton]

Hello Hame and Mark,

Thanks Hame. I'll do my best. I hope to do some further work on the FLAME stuff. Frankly, though, I was a bit surprised at how easy it was to take apart.

Thanks also to you, Mark. I agree that Zionism is in many ways eqivalent to Nazism. If a satirist were authoring recent history, he might not venture so far as to make his Nazism an Zionism so similar! Said satirist would think he'd be pushing his luck. But here we are with the satire-exceeding reality, aren't we?!

[Peter]

Good post, Ron.

When you've got your foot on
a guy's neck, and people ask,
naturally you're gonna have
to come up with a justifi-
cation for it. Slave owners
did it in the Americas and
the zionists are doing it
in Israel.

Apart from the personal
friends I had or currently
have that are Jewish, I
count a number of people
of Jewish origin as
historically important:
Einstein, Dr. Feynman,
Dylan (Zimmerman) to name
a few. SO STOP WITH THE
ANTI-SEMITE CRAP!!

It always struck me as odd
that the open, democratic
and secular United States
spent so much energy
defending the exclusive,
religious state of Israel.
Well this irony is being
worked out by turning the
U.S. into a Christian
nation! (Now the alliance
of Iaraeli Jews and funda-
mentalist Christians in the
U.S. makes perfect sense!)

It won't work as you can't
keep your foot on a guy's
neck forever.

Anyway, some thoughts....

[Ron Leighton]

Hello again Peter,

The alliance between the Zionist fascists and the American Christian fundamentalists is an odd one. A marriage made in hell. They feed off one another's illusions. Fundamentalist Christians hate Jews, but they love Israel! The religious fanatics in Israel, distinct from the Zionist fascists to some extent, aren't crazy about Christians either, but they love the support for Israel that is forthcoming from American Christian Fundamentalists (and especially the support squeezed out of the American tax payer). The Zionist fascists are just glad for the whole, sordid love affair.

Later,