My wife threw out my April Commentary–too long in the bathroom, I think–and so I can’t quote from R.R. Reno’s wonderful piece about working on oil-drilling crews in Wyoming (it’s only abstracted here). A nice contribution to the literature of working men.
But here in full is Norman Podhoretz’s piece on the peace process and it is truly shocking, as evidence of extremism and of good-for-the-Jews selfishness that pervades mainstream American argument.
This guy doesn’t believe at all in the peace process. Invoking at turns legalisms and the veto power of religious extremists inside Israel, he simply nullifies the idea of Bush and Condi’s Annapolis plans:
For even if implementation of such an agreement—which will necessarily involve highly controversial concessions by Israel—is made to wait upon the cessation of terrorism, it will still become the starting point of (so to speak) the “real” final-status negotiations in Phase III [of the Road Map], where Israel will be pressed to make even more, and more dangerous, concessions…. [T]he actual chance that Phase III will be reached in the near future is close to zero. Even on the generous assumption that Mahmoud Abbas really does wish to forswear terrorism, he is far too weak to make that wish come true… Nor could the current Israeli government under Ehud Olmert survive if he were to try implementing an agreement that would, at a minimum, involve ceding East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as the capital of their new state.
Close to zero. A couple of times in the piece Podhoretz refers to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, religious language that is not helpful to anyone. Note too the importance of Arab violence to the fulfillment of Podhoretz’s predictions. The Arabs are always responsible for the violence. Five Arab armies tried to strangle the Israeli state in its cradle, he says; when Ilan Pappe says that the Arab effort was sluggish and followed several months of Jewish violence in ‘47-’48 (sometimes but not always rationalized as "retaliatory") that had successfully "cleansed" (the word that Ben-Gurion’s council often used that Pappe found in Israeli archives) scores of villages, as well as Haifa and Safad and Jaffa, of Palestinians. Nasser is accused by Podhoretz of launching the ‘67 War. No doubt Nasser was belligerent; but again the New Historians and Shlomo Ben-Ami too describe a path of mutual aggression.
Israel has grown through the cycle of violence; and Podhoretz calls for more, against Hamas. When Olmert’s government fails, he says, Netanyahu or Barak will do much "better" for Israel by launching a war against Hamas in Gaza. These are desperate Holocaust-influenced answers. Podhoretz also argues that the colonies (settlements) in the West Bank have been legalized by the U.S. government, as well as an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley. The implication is thatThe United States is legally committed to the idea that Palestinians have no right to self-determination for as long as we can see– presumably unless they get out of Israel.
Podhoretz doesn’t offer his vision of what should happen to them. Presumably they should all move into Jordan, as the American Jewish right has said since Time Immemorial (literally–that was author Joan Peters’s solution in 84, and remains the rightwingers’ dream). This is simply a recipe for more violence, Podhoretz’s World War IV, in which we and Israel smash more Arab cities and towns. Neverending.
Yes, I believe there is a Great Awakening of worldliness taking place today in America, of which Obama is the symptom; and American Jewish opinion is growing less selfish when it comes to Israel/Palestine. For that matter, Podhoretz seems self-marginalized in this article, inasmuch as it flows out of a conversation he is having with rightwing bloggers (who cares about bloggers?). But Podhoretz is not a schlepper, he is the godfather of the neocons. And the questions that arise are: How many American Jews continue to support this program of war? Do Podhoretz’s views represent American Jewish leadership opinion? Certain APN and IPF and the new dovish Jewish lobby oppose these views, and do so vehemently, and god bless them; but how much traction do Podhoretz’s views still have? What is the thinking of Podhoretz’s son-in-law Elliott Abrams, the president’s top adviser on Middle East stuff? (my email: weissphilip@yahoo.com)
If anyone in government shares these ideas, it’s a scandal. As I was stunned by the non-coverage of Sheldon Adelson’s extremism yesterday, I marvel that Podhoretz’s bigoted views are not a political issue. I don’t understand why the liberal Jewish press does not make more of them. Or why the New York Times doesn’t call out the neocons on their repeated obstruction to U.S. policy. As it is, the best journalism about this extremism continues to be done in other places. Now by the astonishing Henry Siegman in the London Review of Books (thank you, Jim Haygood), who argues, based on three Israelis’ books, that the peace process has simply been a cover for relentless expansion by the Jewish state.
Siegman is a great Jew, he makes me love my people. But this is not about my people, it is about America, the responsibility of Americans to discuss the fact that over the course of the peace process our "democratic" ally has just gotten bigger and bigger, swallowed more and better land, and crushed young Arabs’ hopes for a meaningful life. A young Israeli can dream of a career and prosperity. What can a young Palestinian dream of? Some day soon Obama will ask this question. For this is an American problem. I hang on to the two-state solution, I think it is the only game in town. But is it being quietly nullified, in our country?
Related posts:
{ 37 comments }
"What is the thinking of Podhoretz's son-in-law Elliott Abrams, the president's top adviser on Middle East stuff?"
"According to congressional records, under Abram's watch, the Contras "raped, tortured, and killed unarmed civilians, including children," and that "groups of civilians, including women and children, were burned, dismembered, blinded and beheaded."" Wow what a guy. These are the kind of family values us good Christians look for in our management of national affairs. What would our Neo-cons do without presidential pardons from guys named Bush?
What was it you trying to figure out about this savage's thinking Mr. Weiss?
Why Won't Hugo Chavez Let Us Assassinate Him?
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-wont-hugo-chavez-let-us-assassinate.html
Count Aipacula and the Axis of Weasels
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/02/count-aipacula-and-axis-of-weasels.html
"Podhoretz refers to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, religious language that is not helpful to anyone."
– phil, I hate to be the one to tell you, but yehuda ve shomron is normal radio speak.
Exactly, and that's a big problem. What do you think was the point Phil was making?
I think the point Phil was making was that Podhoretz using these terms was in his eyes somehow eccentric, and it isn't.
I don't understand why a one state solution is not desirable. Isreal has dug itself into a mighty chasm, not just a hole. Maybe they should start with sending the settlers back to Brooklyn. Israel for Jews will have to lose eventually.
I just saw an extended interview with Podhoretz on Youtube, from the University of California.
Contrary to the convention of understanding here, Podhoretz' neo-conservatism IS his assertion of patriotism, of primary loyalty, his rejection of essentially critical identity towards the US.
I don't believe that Phil is characterizing Podhoretz accurately in general.
I disagree with much of his assumption and conclusion. (In the same interview, Podhoretz claimed that one of his big shifts – from radical to neo-conservative, was his necessity of examining the assumptions that made up his radicalism AND what constituted radicalism publicly.
He specified one turning event was the Free Speech movement in Berkeley in 64-5, which he characterized as an effort to shout down free speech, more than an exercise of free speech.
That rings quite true to me. I wasn't there, but I do socialize mostly with those on the left, and publicly present some ideas that conflict with correctness of the left.
Shouting down and calling it "free speech".
Its possible to disagree with assumptions and conclusions without heading an article "Podhoretz Extremist views.. "
Ethics is comprised of noting behavior (not conclusions) that one is repulsed by and not practising those behaviors.
As there are ethics for states (though many rationalize that as irrelevant to the role of a state), there are also ethics in the practise of journalism (though many rationalize that as irrelevant, in the name of free speech usually).
"Now by the astonishing Henry Siegman in the London Review of Books (thank you, Jim Haygood), who argues, based on three Israelis' books, that the peace process has simply been a cover for relentless expansion by the Jewish state."
It takes three Israelis' books to argue that? Gee…
All of us who have watched the Isr-Pal conflict could have told him that.
It's been as plain as the nose on your face…provoke, seize more land, provoke, seize more land, provoke, seize more land.
Talk about peace, build more settlements, talk about peace, build more settlements.
RE Witty: "Ethics is comprised of noting behavior (not conclusions) that one is repulsed by and not practising those behaviors."
Yep. Except actual conduct is a conclusion per se. If not, what is?
Rip van Winkle would suit you better than 'Richard Witty'.
"Conclusions"
Having a conclusion is NOT the same as coercing others, as Podhoretz is accused of.
Content of the argument is whats important.
The arguments that he makes are full of holes. There are other options besides fight or flight.
Focusing on the persons primarily is smoke. But, that is the content of this blog and audiences, the persons NOT the content.
I LIKE that Podhoretz decided that the left was not as humane as it presented to itself, and determined to think freely.
I dislike the lack of creativity, or even the role of creativity, in his selection of options for US policy or for suggestions for Israeli policy.
On Israel issues, I find the left to be a suppressor of free speech as much or more than a liberator of free speech. The left/right even moreso.
But Richard are you not at all concerned that Podhoretz's feverish opposition to a 2-state solution is part of a strong element in the US that is demolishing our government's stated policy there? This seems merely radical to me, and a guarantee of Palestinain frustration and continuing violence..
Does anyone claim that any conceivable west bank & gaza states could be more than bantustans?
Re: the two state solution is the only game in town.
Finally Phil, you've found the metaphor.
The Israel-Palestinian conflict isn't any old regulation game, though. It's much more like a game of H-O-R-S-E, but played by the Harlem Globetrotters against the visiting Washington Generals.
For those who aren't familiar with these games–so whenever our zionist Globetrotters http://tinyurl.com/44o58j sink an amazing trick shot, like the triple bank shot Balfour Declaration, the Palestinians http://tinyurl.com/3o86bc, must then show equal capacity, and if they do not, their country's name loses a letter.
Don't look now, but the globetrotters have hit a full-courter–even called "nothing but net" before!–sinking unconditional U.S. government and media support for ethnic cleansing by allowing the euphemisms "two state solution" and "peace process" to continue to provide verbal cover for the next many years of murder, dispossession, and colonization. (Israel can legally resort to violence, and may conduct diplomacy, but the Palestinian side will have to choose one, and have the means to really do neither.)
Now it's the Palestinians' turn to see if they can equal that. Let's see. If you're cheering for their team in this game, you better hope they've got someone like this kid http://tinyurl.com/6zb3h9.
I just read the whole Poddy screed and I didn't find anything of interest in it except this:
"Nor could the current Israeli government under Ehud Olmert survive if he were to try implementing an agreement that would, at a minimum, involve ceding East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as the capital of their new state."
In my opinion this is also why the Barak govt. fell after the 2000 Camp David summit, but Poddy can't say that.
.
"[Podhoretz] doesn't believe at all in the peace process … Podhoretz's feverish opposition to a 2-state solution …"
You and I must be reading two different documents, Phil. Podhoretz affirms his ironclad support for a "peace process" which is designed never to reach a conclusion. He knows that if the 6% annual growth rate of settlements can be sustained, their population will double every 12 years.
So Potz's game plan is to maintain this desirable status quo, whose known price is continuing low-level terrorism. Given his assertion that the "Fourth Pillar" (making a Palestianian state contingent upon dismantlement of terrorism) remains in effect, he's confident that this is a flawless formula for decades more of stalemate.
As evidence to buttress his position, Potz cites with approval the escalating extremism of Bush's public statements. Potz correctly discerns their radical departures from established U.S. policy:
1. June 24, 2002 — Bush's notorious "with us or against us" speech, which casts the I/P conflict as "terrorists seeking the destruction of Israel." Potz applauds the one-sided formulation, even as he shows no embarrassment about quoting Bush's prewar reference to "regimes that promote terror, like Iraq," which has been completely discredited except among cave dwellers such as Cheney and Potz.
2. April 14, 2004 — Bush's letter to Sharon states that "it is unrealistic to expect … a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Potz claps his flippers and trumpets "ork, ork, ork," never conceiving that any such concession must come from the Palestinians, not Bush.
3. January 10, 2008 — in a speech, Bush introduces a new code phrase — "defensible borders" — which Potz reads as "endorsing continued Israeli control over the Jordan Valley." Again, this is a concession for the Palestinians to make, if they so choose — not Bush.
Potz concludes by upping the ante even further: "Bush’s statements of June 24, 2002, April 14, 2004, and January 10, 2008 constitute a solemn commitment that has been made to the state of Israel not by a passing administration but by the United States of America. … The next President may very well have no choice but to abide by it."
Nonsense. No future president is bound by Bush's inchoate malapropisms. But Potz lays out the Lobby's Road Map for the next presidency, in which oft-repeated sophistry can transform personal into state commitments, like water into wine.
In the extremism department, Bush is a piker compared to Potz's roaring phillippic: "With no Jews left to protect in Gaza, [Sharon] would have felt free —- and totally justified from both a military and a moral point of view —- to hit back with overwhelming force the minute the Kassams started flying." Potz falls firmly into the camp of General Curtis Lemay, who wrote in regard to Vietnam that "my solution to the problem would be to tell them frankly that they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age." [Nota bene: another example of a "two-state solution" imploding.]
Lemay was widely regarded as a dangerous kook. But in the tilted little sandbox of today's MSM, Potz impersonates a mainstream commentator of the right. He's already outed himself in Commentary. Let's hoist this raving zionoid by his own blood-drenched petard.
.
"I can't quote from R.R. Reno's wonderful piece about working on oil-drilling crews in Wyoming (it's only abstracted here). A nice contribution to the literature of working men." – Phil W.
Well, I can, from the stub: "Bruce had drifted over to the other side of the loud, crowded barroom. I caught his eye and motioned to see if he wanted another one. He smiled and shook his head no. I scanned the room for signs of Bob, but he was nowhere to be found. Probably out in the back parking lot smoking pot with somebody. Bob was predictable. I ordered myself another beer.
"I managed to find a seat at the bar along with the other long-haired and ill-shaven guys wearing Carhartts, the Okie-from-Muskogee- goes-to-Haight-Ashbury look that Willie Nelson perfected."
DUDE. This is pretty androgynous, metrosexual stuff to be praised by an acknowledged homophobe [wink]. The only thing missing is an explicit linkage to the unarticulated myth of black sexual prowess which entrances Obama's camp followers of both sexes. Oh, yeah.
You and me and Barack need to get blazed and thrash this out with some early Merle Haggard on the jukebox.
http://tinyurl.com/57f8ch
Oh, jeez, country matters. I don't think Shakespeare was ever a grunt.
Israeli intentions (largely along Podhz's lines)were spelled out very clearly by Dov Weisglass, Sharon's personal adviser, in his 2004-interview with Ari Shavit.
The idea was to give up Gaza to freeze the political process and to guarantee the status quo as far as the other settlements were concerned.
Shavit:
"So you have carried out the maneuver of the century? And all of it with authority and permission?
"When you say `maneuver,' it doesn't sound nice. It sounds like you said one thing and something else came out. But that's the whole point. After all, what have I been shouting for the past year? That I found a device, in cooperation with the management of the world, to ensure that there will be no stopwatch here. That there will be no timetable to implement the settlers' nightmare. I have postponed that nightmare indefinitely. Because what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did. The significance is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. What more could have been anticipated? What more could have been given to the settlers?"
I return to my previous question: In return for ceding Gaza, you obtained status quo in Judea and Samaria?
"You keep insisting on the wrong definition. The right definition is that we created a status quo vis-a-vis the Palestinians. There was a very difficult package of commitments that Israel was expected to accept. That package is called a political process. It included elements we will never agree to accept and elements we cannot accept at this time. But we succeeded in taking that package and sending it beyond the hills of time. With the proper management we succeeded in removing the issue of the political process from the agenda. And we educated the world to understand that there is no one to talk to. And we received a no-one-to-talk-to certificate. That certificate says: (1) There is no one to talk to. (2) As long as there is no one to talk to, the geographic status quo remains intact. (3) The certificate will be revoked only when this-and-this happens – when Palestine becomes Finland. (4) See you then, and shalom."
To the Finland Station.
Friday May 4, 2001
Stalin didn't target Jews at first, says Guggenheim fellow at Cal
JOE ESKENAZI
Bulletin Staff
The words "Stalin" and "friend of the Jews" aren't often lumped together. But, according to a U.C. Berkeley historian, during the dictator's period of "Great Terror" in 1937 and 38, Jews were one of the few ethnic groups to be largely passed over.
"Some other nationalities suffered much higher rates, Jews were not targeted as Jews. Those who perished in the terror were not targeted because of their ethical or religious backgrounds, but their positions," said Yuri Slezkine, a professor of Russian history at Cal. "Those who were targeted were, basically, everyone who was related to a neighboring state: Poles and Germans and Latvians. The claim was they were sympathetic to their countries of origin."
Slezkine's research on the lives — and often violent deaths — of the early Soviet governmental elites residing in Moscow's mammoth "House on the Embankment" recently won him a Guggenheim Fellowship in the field of Russian history.
He was one of two local Jewish-connected academics to win a fellowship, the other being Janice Ross of Stanford. Established in 1925, the Guggenheim Foundation offers fellowships to authors and scholars. This year, 183 fellowships totaling almost $6.6 million were awarded in the United States and Canada.
Slezkine, a descendant of Yiddish-speaking, Jewish grandparents, found that many Jews, downtrodden in Czarist Russia, were ardent early supporters of the Soviet state.
"Jews were seen by the regime as trustworthy and were not compromised by previous association with the Czarist regime," he said. "And they had the highest literacy rate among ethnic groups. Many were keen to take up opportunities, and that resulted in the fact that some did very well."
tee, hee… Jim, I thought I detected a false note with that "nice contribution to the literature of working men," but you have neatly skewered it.
"But Richard are you not at all concerned that Podhoretz's feverish opposition to a 2-state solution is part of a strong element in the US that is demolishing our government's stated policy there? This seems merely radical to me, and a guarantee of Palestinain frustration and continuing violence.."
Yes, which is why I regret that character assassination and loudmouthing is used to confront the arguments RATHER than clear and candid criticism of the logic and range of options.
Games. I remember as a kid, I had a primary childhood friend that was extremely competitive, malevolently so. Rather than become motivated to win at all costs and rather than upsetting him tremendously if I won a single game, I lied low.
This kid was primary in my life. We were best friends, in the sense of spending our time together. The lessons of passivity that I learned from hanging with him, haunted me until later in life. Even in career, my tendency was to lie low.
There were great things about that, and self-defeating.
Norman Podhoretz reminds me of my old childhood friend. I DON'T believe that he represents the integrity of comprehensive backbone that I seek.
In his books (which I only heard referenced, I haven't read), he describes his pugnaciousness as his primary character trait, learned on the street as a strategy to solve a particular personal or social problem. That personal trait never questioned deeply.
I like his story that he changed, that he questioned his assumptions.
I wish that he would continue to, rather than repeat them, rather than promote and organize them.
He regards the idea of an elite intelligentsia as desirable, regrets that there aren't elite salons in the world anymore, academia is all thats left.
I prefer that MANY learned (by working HARD) the characteristics that constituted the strength of the elite, and became substantatively proficient, engaged.
I dislike the dumbing down implied in rancorous agitation, groupthink, unwillingness to question assumptions.
I'm like Podhoretz in that early learned traits remain a fundament of my politics. I like the "new game" mode, rather than the "old game" beat them down shared political practise of each of fascism, Stalinism, American neo-fascism, radical left.
I like his stated approach of using his own personal life as if it was a case study of political events occurring.
His own emotions as informing.
For Jews that is real. The fear that we feel at Israel being attacked by terrorists or by Hezbollah shelling is information (even if there was a background "plan" to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon).
I expect that Podhoretz does question whether his personal case-study is shared. And when it is, he takes that as "evidence" that his personal case study is authoritative, when in fact it is still subject to question.
Not all that different from the left, or right/left for whom prejudicial conclusions and limited range of strategic options remain.
Limited range resulting from oversimplification, as distressing as that is to observe even in "insightful" intelligentsia like Mearsheimer's responses to Q & A that I saw on youtube. (posted by a proponent)
your attempt to blame 'the left' for the supposed imperfections of 'the right' is truly immoral. You, sir, are a hate merchant.
can someone tell me who "richard witty" actually is, please.
You don't have a clue what I'm saying.
The left is careless in its expression. It often expresses similar level of reactionism to the neo-conservatives, but with different targets.
They are VERY similar in psychological construction, which explains how among the neo-conservatives are so many former radical leftists.
Neither the radical left nor the neo-conservatives are dominated by ethical humanists, more by political and ideological references.
That is DIFFERENT than what I endeavor to personally, and the politics that I hold.
I conclude similarly to much policy critique of the left (not all), but am appalled by the math that is demonstrated.
Do you understand my reference to the "right/left"?
Who is Richard Witty?
Why don't you ask Phil, with whom I spent a few summers as a teenager. (His mother was my aunt's best friend, and they both had summer homes on Cape Cod).
When Phil was pursuing a conventional success in freelance journalism, I was an activist journalist, and later an unconventional progressive CPA. The carelessly condemnatory tone, utter ignorance of Israel/Palestine history, on the part of the left soured my blind association.
I ran an audio lending library from 1992 – 1996 called Green Island Spoken Audio Cooperative Library, including a few hundred hours of lectures by Chomsky and many other progressives/radicals. I listened to a LOT of it. I both appreciate and criticize his conclusions and highly selective referencing (to the level of propaganda).
What was worst for me, was seeing the fawning reaction of his followers, FAILING to read on their own, but digesting and regurgitating his conclusions, routinely shouting down contrasting views, even views that ended up with the same political conclusions.
.
"We received a no-one-to-talk-to certificate. That certificate says: (1) There is no one to talk to. (2) As long as there is no one to talk to, the geographic status quo remains intact. (3) The certificate will be revoked only when this-and-this happens – when Palestine becomes Finland. (4) See you then, and shalom." – Dov Weisglas, via Arie Brand
BINGO! Dov Weisglas supplies the conclusion which can only be inferred from Potz's obscure mumbling about the "Fourth Pillar," which I first mistook for a reference to phallic worship.
I would sure appreciate a link to the 2004 interview if available, Arie Brand. This bit sounds as if it were translated from Hebrew "kitchen table talk" (i.e., "just among ourselves") which was never expected to see the light of English-language exposure:
"Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. What more could have been anticipated? What more could have been given to the settlers?"
Amazing. Can't we get an Israel-skeptic representative to read this into the Congressional Record? Oh wait, there aren't any!
Phil – if you want to achieve some serious results, then I suggest you attack the most sensitive point, which is this : the cadres of jewish converts to right-wing christianity, who write the ideology for the evangelical christians.
.
"Games. I remember as a kid, I had a primary childhood friend that was extremely competitive, malevolently so. Rather than become motivated to win at all costs and rather than upsetting him tremendously if I won a single game, I lied low. The lessons of passivity that I learned from hanging with him, haunted me until later in life. Even in career, my tendency was to lie low." – Richard Witty
Oh, my, what a can of worms we have here1 That ogre of a "friend" molded you into a classic passive-aggressive personality, Richard. As a result, instead of meeting an argument head on, you resort to the squid defense: extrude a vast black-ink cloud of sematic confusion. Then (while expressing your goodwill) deplore the illegibility, tendentiousness, even incomprehensibility, of your opponent's words. Blinded by the linguistic chaos, it's impossible to grope toward any conclusion, or even meaning. That's passive aggression, writ large.
By the way, I sure hope it wasn't Phil who done this to you. In that case, your participation here would indicate a whole 'nother level of masochistic psychopathology which is way beyond Dr. Sigmund Haygood's pay grade.
Only one way out: get in touch with that verboten emotion that you've been suppressing for lo, these many decades. You know what I'm talkin' about: R-A-G-E. With a primal scream on your lips, slam your fist through the wall … and BREAK ON THROUGH TO THE OTHER SIDE. Untold riches lie there.
p.s. Is "Richard Witty" a conscious allusion to "Walter Mitty"?
Jim,
I've already broken through. It was the overly simplistic and the willingness to demonize that was the brainwashing.
I'm a humanist. I seek to humanize the other. I want to hear what others have experienced, not what their rhetoric is. And, I want to humanize my own. I don't hold the view of Jewish collective guilt, thankfully.
I definitely must live with a lot of ambiguity. What I do personally, and still walk tall (not a lot that I am ashamed of frankly). What my local community does (also not a lot that I'm particularly ashamed of, though I wish we lived more simply). What the Jewish people do. What the US does in my name, and still proudly call myself an American (even as I am only one of 300 million).
I'm a relativist. I wish to improve things. I've broken through the fantasy of seeking perfection, or political injustice-freeness. There is no such thing.
Politics is too dialectical in nature.
hmmmm
you got a point on chomsky – he obviously knows nothing about Zack de la Rocha and cares less – this, which Zack intended as an 'interview,' turned out as embarrassing ass-licking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GORdDogxyuE
'his rejection of essentially critical identity towards the US.'
Maybe you'd better start posting in Hebrew and we can get some translation; this is getting ridiculous. What are you saying? That Poddy's neoconnery is his way of loving the US?!
'I disagree with much of his assumption and conclusion.'
Of course you do, of course. The good cop lobby needs that distance from the bad to be effective. Your next step is zoom away from the Middle East, where Poddy's evil imperatives (and your silent but crucial support for them) are located, to where? Berkeley in '65 of course! It would be hugely amusing if it wasn't so bloody frustrating.
'There are other options besides fight or flight.'
Like split hairs and obfuscate piously as if it were going out of fashion.
'I dislike the dumbing down implied in rancorous agitation, groupthink, unwillingness to question assumptions.'
Pot, kettle Ricard. It may be true many of us haven't applied the intellectual blowtorch to our 'assumptions' but you haven't questioned a single one of yours since day one on this blog, so far as I can see. We're all still deluded, and what's more, polemical to boot, while you sail along, safely righteous in your endearing fog of bold platitudes and poor constructions.
Do you get my point about the similarities in construction between the stubborn neo-conservatives and the stubborn left? (and the more stubborn – worse than stubborn right/left)?
Re: "Pot, kettle Ricard (Witty). It may be true many of us haven't applied the intellectual blowtorch to our 'assumptions' but you haven't questioned a single one of yours since day one on this blog, so far as I can see–Glenn Condell
Amen.
Comments on this entry are closed.