memory additions

continuing on. Fiction vs. reality. The crux of the point below, is that often your own experience is not reflective of society as a whole. So to justify the dictatorship because the 'economy was good' is infactual. One could possibly say ' i benefited from it, but the majority of people did not, - so then it is ok'. is quite different. How do people reconcile this factual error when they study the massive amounts of debt that the dictatorship created? This is what i do not understand. I believe it is both ignorance and denial. if facts don't support your justifications... what do you do? Another reason for denial: feeling guilty - what if you found out when your child turned five years old that she had been stolen from a murdered pregnant woman? (common practice during the Argentine dictatorship) Could you honestly say this was a good thing? Although many wives were presented with children with full knowledge of where they came from. (The theory being that activists pass on poison ideas to their children, so two generations must be dealt with)

As Susana Kaiser discusses - the culture of fear stifles communication, discussion and dissent. even people that nostalgically remember the 'good ole days' do not want their children involved in activism or even community events because of fear they will be killed. So even they recognize it was 'dangerous' all the while speaking out of the other side of their mouth to claim that really, it was quite safe. That silence in fact speaks quite loud. What people don't discuss, is just as important as what they do -in analyzing the grip that terror has on a society even after twenty years.

Another tactic is discussing the violence without placing it within a historical context. The guerrilla insurgency is always exaggerated, their grievances are never discussed. A common theme is that the war was between the government and the guerrillas (rather than an all out war waged on civilian activists). As if opposition to state policies are caused for no reason. I still read articles on Colombia claiming 'Communist FARC' is trying to take over the government. The Montoneros in Argentina arose from anger about economic inequality. Along these same lines - an article i read yesterday on Hamas - how absurd the idea is that a relatively weak 'terrorist' organization is a realistic threat to nuclear armed Israel with the fourth most powerful military in the world. and so civilian annihilation is justified - to save the nation from a made up threat. (although a real threat to economic policies) Also importantly, is that civilian dissent is always lumped in with 'subversives' or guerrillas. This is especially true in Colombia to the point where even US human rights groups, the most moderate of all of them are called 'collaborators'. However this tactic is not new, in fact it seems to be the norm rather than the exception to demonize and criminalize dissent.

I have come to the conclusion that only through ignorance can most people support policies of violence, torture and massive inequality. I still fail to understand the mindset of higher levels of responsibility - those that orchestrate the policies. They are not ignorant. Those who intentionally deceive and manipulate public opinion because they know that the average citizen could not follow their ideas unless they are tricked. War for profit and power. There is a connection between most wars i read about - iraq, vietnam, state violence in latin america, etc. All of them depend on lies to fuel the conflict. This mass destruction will continue as long as ordinary society continues to cede power to these types of individuals. If you don't know what your government is doing - its most likely because they don't want you to know.

Ongoing thoughts concerning Israel's occupation:
1. To what extent should historical validity play in drawing the borders
2. If you follow the logic that Israeli's have historical ties to the land, how far back do you go? What about ancient Gaza and Egyptian rule? Is it relevant if the bloodline is diluted, or even nonexistent? (e.g is Palestinian an ethnic group, or rather more related to geographical location with a constant influx of relatively recent migration. also - european jews vs. arab jews? who has more legitimacy if they want different things)
3., how can biblical justification for land be used in the creation of a nation state considering the nation state is a recent phenomena?
4. last but not least, to effectively use this argument would that not entail the re-carving up of the Middle East (if not the world)