Ah, well, as long as he was *consciously* saying untrue things in order to accomplish a political objective, we should be more forgiving. For a moment there it seemed like the elected prime minister of a regional power was suffering from delusions, finally falling victim to the nonsense cooked up by various spinmeisters either in his employ or working toward the same goals.
But now we can rest assured, he wasn't confused, just lying! And who could find that problematic, when his noble goal is just to tar modern palestinians with nazi guilt by tenuous association? I mean, it may be a lie, but it's a politically useful one, since after all, we don't like them and we don't want others to like them. Isn't that, like, the best time to tell massive lies on a global scale?
A few weeks ago I wrote a post which argued, among other things, that the way we "teach" students to propagandize and accept propaganda from "our side" in the context of Zionist history promised to damage our students' commitment to values like intellectual honesty or critical thinking, if we succeed, or their trust in us as educators, if those values outlive our attempts to bypass them.
What does it say when some of us "defend" untruths by explaining they're lies, not delusions, and after all, politically expedient ones?
