I had seen repeated sites (some extremely disreputable, others much more reputable) which claimed that the subject of the interview was actually Ariel Sharon, the current prime minister of Israel. The description Amos Oz had given of his subject seemed to closely match Ariel Sharon in a number of ways. The attitudes expressed also actually made a lot of sense in understanding his apparently directionless policy in occupied Palestine, the insanity of his claims about security when his actions were clearly making things worse. It seemed to explain his willingness to put bloody retribution above not only human rights, but even basic security for Israel.
I spent several minutes while putting the article together trying to find any documents which denied the attribution to Sharon and couldn’t find any. However, Dean has done my work for me here: he found letters by journalists Mathias Broeckers and Holger Jensen stating that the attribution, while understandable, was mistaken, and that the subject of the interview was actually another Israel soldier whose identity Oz has declined to reveal.
I have removed the quote ("Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us …") that I wrongly attributed to Sharon from the caption of Sharon’s photo above. I apologize to my readers for my error.
]]>I sympathize with you position. However, I also try to live by truth, if at all possible. Ref. your article, “Irony Is Dead.” In the right hand side bar, under a picture of A. Sharon, you quote from a supposed 1982 interview in the Israeli daily, Davar. Much to my chagrin, I, too, have used that ‘interview’ with Sharon. That is, until I viewed the following: http://www.broeckers.com/jensen.htm
Better a friend bring this to your attention than an enemy.
I wish you well,
Dean
]]>While I agree with you that the IMC must be taken with more than a grain of salt, in times of crisis it’s also an invaluable resource because it acts to compile on the ground, eyewitness accounts. The lack of filtering is precisely what makes it valuable when the mainstream media is basically reporting Bush administration and IDF press releases, interspersed with occasional belligerent outbursts from Sharon (they’d be putting in belligerent outbursts from Arafat, but the IDF keeps cutting off Arafat’s phone calls with the outside world).
Concerning the specific claims made, Palestine Red Crescent (http://www.palestinercs.org/), a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, confirms numerous incidents of harassment and detention of their crews, including IDF tanks used to block ambulances and arrest the emergency crew. Journalists and international civilian activists have both directly confirmed being attacked by IDF forces.
I have to say that I’m a bit puzzled by your comments about “America’s views of terrorist activity after 9/11.” As far as I can tell, the American media and government have given a more or less complete green light to grevious human rights abuses as long as they are committed, as the IDF is committing them, with the excuse of counter-terrorism. Sharon has been very scrupulous over the past week in his efforts to directly crib from Bush administration “War on Terror” rhetoric, so as to put himself in a position where DC cannot criticize him without looking like major hypocrites. Indeed, I think the Bush administration knows that it is being hoisted by its own rhetorical petard; no wonder the administration’s response has been so directionless and half-hearted.
]]>Think about it.
]]>