The Royal Road to Neconservatism

by on October 24, 2008 3
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

Earlier today I said that Marty Peretz abandoned the New Left after the October '73 war between Israel and Egypt and Syria. Wrong. Scott McConnell–who announced today that he will endorse Obama, points out: "Peretz's
disaffection from the left came after the 'New Politics' conference in
'67 or '68, where there was a lot of black powerish, probably not very
polite or reasonable, anti-Zionism. He wrote about it for Commentary.
He actually had been one of the big funders of the conference." From Peretz's piece: "Where the Middle East is concerned, the doctrine which has won so quick
an acceptance–in the sectarian press of the Left, in discussions among
movement activists, and in the resolutions adopted at the disastrous
convention of the National Conference for New Politics–is that Israel
and Israel alone must bear the blame for the past and the
responsibility for the future."  A good reminder that just as Freud said dreams are the royal road to the unconscious, Podhoretz and Peretz and Kristol and now Lieberman will all tell you that Israel is the royal road to neoconservatism. Hey I'm a lefty–maybe there's hope for me too! Sorry, Mr. Peretz.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, Israel/Palestine, Neocons, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 3 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. otto says:
    October 25, 2008 at 6:30 am

    "Where South Africa is concerned, the doctrine which has won so quick an acceptance–in the sectarian press of the Left, in discussions among movement activists, and in the resolutions adopted at conventions … –is that the Africkaaners alone must bear the blame for the past and the responsibility for the future."

  2. J. Otto Pohl says:
    October 25, 2008 at 7:36 am

    I do not think that actually either the original quotation or the rif on it by the other Otto are actually true. First, Israel has always had and still does have a very large number of supporters that describe themselves as being leftists. This was particularly true in the late 1940s when its main backer was the USSR under Stalin. I am guessing that in 1968, the elements of an anti-Zionist left in the US were pretty small.

    Second, I am pretty sure that these few anti-Zionist leftist did not attribute all problems in the Middle East to Israel. Certainly, the continued British colonial occupation of Aden which ended in 1969 had nothing to do with Israel. So I am pretty sure this is a strawman by Podhoretz. I think he was angry that they classified the Palestinians as an oppressed people engaged in a national liberation struggle. This was a position the Zionists had reserved for themselves in Palestine.

    Finally, on the other Otto's rif. I think by the time the world started placing serious sanctions against the RSA it was not just Afrikanners alone that bore responsibility for apartheid. It was all Whites in South Africa including English speaking liberals and Jews. They too benefited from the exclusivist White regime and in some ways provided it was backing that the Afrikaaners alone could not. Does anybody honestly think that the Jewish community in South Africa had nothing to do with the close relations between the aparthied regime and Israel?

  3. anon says:
    October 25, 2008 at 10:34 am

    What is the basis of the United States as a continuity?

    I submit it is not ethnic or religious in orientation.

    Identity politics of such molds spells the doom of the USA.

    It was a grand idea while it lasted.

    The founding fathers and their slow incompassing of all groups under their stated Constitututional protections is a thing of the past, a road bump in the usual tribal rivalries.

    What's left are good principles turned against themselves in actual implementation.

Leave a Reply