Two women I've talked to in Gaza have offered me similar reports on both Senator John Kerry, who visited Gaza in February, and President Obama, who is about to come out to Cairo: that these powerful men both "get" the Palestinian issue–i.e., understand that dealing with Palestinian oppression is key to our foreign policy.
The first report is from Felice Gelman, who headed my original delegation to Gaza. She told me she was at a New York fundraiser for Obama a little over a year ago when she elbowed her way up to talk to him. "I said to him, 'I'm here to tell you that there are tens of thousands of Jewish Americans who do not agree with our policy toward Israel and Palestine. We think [and Gelman is married to a Jew, but isn't Jewish herself] it is counterproductive for the U.S. and for the Jews.'"
Gelman says that Obama responded:
"I hear what you're saying. I have studied the situation and I believe I understand it and I promise you, that I will do my best not to pander to AIPAC."
A few weeks later Obama did just that, pander to AIPAC–but Gelman is convinced, and so am I, that he signalled his agreement with her–and that it is a measure of the power of the Israel lobby that in the event he did do his best not to pander, but had no choice politically but to do so.
As for John Kerry, the other day I met Taghreed El-Khodary, the correspondent for the New York Times in Gaza who everybody who is anybody makes it a point to talk to when they come to Gaza City. (In a few days I will give a full report on this remarkable woman.) She told me that she had met Kerry on his visit and explained to him that Palestinians don't want humanitarian assistance, they want a political solution to their disenfranchisement.
"I think Kerry understood," she said. "When he started talking only about the humanitarian aspect, I said, 'To me it is work avoidance… The real issue is political. I think the administration must push toward reconciliation [between Hamas and Fatah] because you cannot endorse a peace process if you are strengthening division among the Palestinians. You have to include everyone even if they do not look like you… It is a political issue."
She said that Kerry nodded and said, "That's why I'm here. To be able to explain that to the Congress."
Two positive signs about our politics, in the Middle East.
I think Obama is proceeding skillfully, that does NOT represent "pandering" to AIPAC in the slightest, but skillfully redefining the underlying logic that constructed the AIPAC message, and in terms that it cannot rationally object to. So long as the US remains supportive of Israel's existence and actual defense, then AIPAC cannot claim that Israel is abandoned. Israel and AIPAC is then forced to incorporate current US policy into its policy. US policy is not and will not be the agenda of either the one-state solution, or any formulation that eliminates Israel as Israel from the map. Any that regard Israel disappearing in less than the sands of time, are living in a fantasy, and in the respect that fantasy applied in politics harms, they end up harming. They end up harming the Palestinian people in delaying their self-governance. They end up harming everyone in the Middle East for retaining a state of war, when that state is unnecessary. I read a post on Norman Finkelstein's blog, presenting a translation of a recent speech by Nasrallah, declaring that ANY acceptance of Israel as Israel cannot be accepted or pursued, and is an affront to the Arab world and the Islamic Umma. There is no mention of democracy, one-person one-vote, even in the oddly "democratic" formula of including descendants of individuals who did or even might have lived in Palestine at some point. There is certainly no mention of modern democracy constructed of CURRENT residents of a community or jurisdiction. Islam as governance, NOT self-governance by any modern definition.
Hamas has said that they will accept Israel based on the Internationally recognized border. They are willing to recognize that Israel "exists" based on the 67 border. The "right to exist" is another issue. Israel has about as much right to exist as the U.S. does. Based on dominance aggression, murder and oppression. Just so happens that Israel is surrounded by nations that are furious about the UN process.
The Obama administration is pandering to AIPAC. Much of it involves what his administration isn't doing, as much as what it does. 1. Obama promised to deliver an "undivided" Jerusalem to Israel after receiving the Democratic nomination; 2. Obama's Federal Election Commission has not investigated bribery allegations by AIPAC backer Haim Saban over the Hillary Clinton super delegate scandal; 3. Obama's Treasury is AIPAC hand picked. Stuart Levey has remained in place to launch financial blockades against Israel's foes, in the US and abroad, while keeping illegal settlement financial flows from the US "off the table." 4. Obama's Justice Department dropped the Rosen and Weissman prosecution despite an abundance of damning evidence, alleged spy Ben-Ami Kadish was let off with a $50,000 fine for billions in damages rendered to the US. 5. Obama has refused to obey the Symington and Glenn Amendments to the Arms Export Control Act, and refuses to admit to the American people what the world knows: Israel possesses an illicit nuclear arsenal. Rule of law and justice are dead as far as Middle East policy goes. If that's the best Obama can do, it's not good enough.
When the two top officials of Aipac who were caught red handed passing U.S. classified intelligence off to Israel and the 9 time delayed trial was dismissed….that confirmed once again the power and influence of Aipac. When Rosen led the drive to take out Charles Freeman while being under indictment for his alleged crimes. That is power and influence. When Jane Harman's 'waddling" on over to interfere in the Aipac investigation and trial is dropped that is power and influence. The message ..perfectly acceptable to access U.S. classified intelligence on Iran or any other country and pass it on to officials from a foreign nation. Well that is if you are passing the classified intelligence on to Israel. TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE
Any that regard Israel disappearing in less than the sands of time, are living in a fantasy, and in the respect that fantasy applied in politics harms, they end up harming. It is really astonishing. I don't have the impression that is the majority view here. So I am really wondering what gives you the impression it is.
I think he had to surrender to pressure to make it. Joe Biden was an early surrender. Remember the "unexperienced meme"? I remember were I read it first. From a "student" leader reporting from the AIPAC conference. I thought this was very, very funny.
This is all true. Not to mention Obama publicly declared his empathy (cf his new US Sup Ct candidate's selective empathy for Latinos and women uber alles) for Jewish parents who watched their children in their sleep, as if Palestinian women didn't do the same, and had more to worry about as a matter of fact, and due to US policy and finance. Is that also the best Obama can do, with his giant mandate for change? No president will ever get more of a mandate. Seems he is wasting it… just going through a few motions, stepping up the marketing campaign for what is basically a status quo approach.
dude. have you seen the disgusting contributions of taghreed al-khodary for the nyt?
67 border…internationally recognized borders. If it is up to Israel the next war stop will be Iran
Apparently she has been complaining bitterly about their editing…
"…while keeping illegal settlement financial flows from the US "off the table…" Excellent point. Also, the promotion and use of US taxpayers money buying State of Israel Bonds always seems to be ignored aswell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Israel_Bond...
When Eric Holder became Obama's AG I think the fix was in. The fact Marc Rich's name never came up and the connections with Carville's friend Libby was never mentioned always seemed strange to me. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va...
The problem is that Palestinian women imagine their children blowing up little Jewish children and their mothers together.
Israel no longer accepts the 1949 'Kicked the collective shit out of the Arabs the first time" borders as fixed. They would like an adjustment based on the "Kicked the collective shit out of the arabs third time" lines. And nothing regarding the Arab desire and fixation on dominance, aggression, murder and oppression will change the minds of the Israelis.
So long as the US remains supportive of Israel's existence and actual defense, then AIPAC cannot claim that Israel is abandoned. Israel has had the amount of its dole increased under the Obama administration. AIPAC doesn't have a leg to stand on to say we are not supporting Israel's existence. We are doing so at great cost to our own nation. AIPAC leadership knows this very well. They want political and financial subsidization and a complete lack of accountability for it. The former will continue, the latter will not. US policy is not and will not be the agenda of either the one-state solution, or any formulation that eliminates Israel as Israel from the map. That is true now, but a solution to the I/P conflict is a vital US interest. The United States will eventually solve the problem, one way or the other. Don't think for a second US support for a two-state solution is going to continue if it becomes blindingly apparent that it is no longer possible, especially if the cause is Israeli intransigence on removal of colonies from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Personally, I think any realistic chance for a two-state solution died a long, long time ago. There is neither the desire nor the will amongst Israeli leadership, from any party, necessary to undertake the herculean task of decolonization. The ball is in their court, and they are snorting coke on the sidelines. … a recent speech by Nasrallah, declaring that ANY acceptance of Israel as Israel cannot be accepted or pursued … Even if it's true, so what? Nasrallah is not a Palestinian. Lebanese Muslims are predominantly Shiite, and Palestinians are Sunni and Christian. Nasrallah has nothing to do with Israeli colonization of Palestinian land. Israel's conflict with Lebanon is a completely separate issue, and can in no way hinder an agreement with Palestinians. Conflation of the two conflicts is merely another attempt to stall good-faith negotiations with them. Indeed, creation of a Palestinian state and an end to Israeli aggression would put pressure on Hezbollah to lower its rhetoric. It has never been an offensive threat to Israel, and was created, and continues to exist, solely to protect Lebanon from Israel invasion and occupation. There is no mention of democracy, … So what? What do you think negotiations are going to be about? Obviously the structure of a future Palestinian state will be front and center. Your objections are more stalling.
You seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension. Kathleen specifically said "67 border", not 1949. Anyway, if Israel wants to set itself up against the world as the new South Africa, they can do that. It didn't work out too well for South Africa, though, so it seems like a pretty stupid thing to do.
Not really, but it's easy to understand why a racist like you would think so. You have to demonize the Other (i.e. you have to delude yourself) in order to maintain your bizarre world view.
Standard boilerplate Hasbara. Any suggestion of compromise, any little concession, must only be from people who want to barbeque all the Jews. That way, they never have to think. Instead, they think about the ovens, and the ziocaine starts to flow. Whoopee! Gimme another toke!
So why not stop writing for them altogether?
You seem to have a problem with reality. The pre-67 war borders, what Kathleen specifically intends, are the 1949 lines. The post-67 war lines, established in 1967, include Judea, Samaria, the Golan, the Sinai (Which has already been given back to Egpyt) and Gaza (Which has already been turned over to the Arab dictators of Hamastan)
The 67 "kick the shit out of the arab, phase one" border is not a border, it is only a cease fire line. After the Arab saber rattling of pre-june 67, leading to the third "kick the shit out of the arabs" war, erased those lines.
Amazing how high mooser gets when he shoves the pipe up his ass.
Zionist censorship at colleges and universities U of Ottawa, Canada; U of Cal at Santa Barbara; De Paul Univ, Chicago; Bard College, NY State; Clark U, Worcester, Mass by http://www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2009-05-12.htm target=”_blank”>http://site.http://www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2009-05-12.htm
They above address is not correct. The correct address is: http://www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/s/01.htm target=”_blank”>http://site.http://www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/s/01.htm
It looks like you have to just cut and paste it into your browser..
Not really? Boy, are you one ignorant ULF. Phil loves gulible people like you.
Palestine’s Island Paradise, Now With a Word from its Creator http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/270-p...
Obama is a two-stater, Abbas is a two-stater, American policy is for the two state solution, and those who profess to support Obama and the Palestinians should take that into consideration. Unfortunately, this issue has become a microcosm for Leftists One-Worldism, and the hard Left intends to exploit US support for Jim Crow Israel to advance its own agenda and point up Western hypocrisy in supporting Israel. Pointing up Western hypocrisy is perfectly legitimate, but I beleive that the Left actually wants to drag this issue out as long as possible so they can use that hypocrisy as a punching bag in order to advance their agenda in other areas. They are dragging it out by insisting upon a One State solution that they know is unattainable. In cynically dragging out the “peace process,” the Left is actually mirroring the hyper-Capitalist Right, which also doesn’t want to see this issue put to bed because it is financially profitable for Statist-Right war profiteering cronies and Plutocrats. Both Statist Left and Statist Right are cynical to the core and the enemy of civilized human beings.
Taghreed El-Khodary ! She is bitterly and rightly criticized by Angry Arab. Her reports on Gaza in NYT are quite disgusting. But she changes tune when she is contributing outside NYT. And Philip. You are being too naive when you say both Obama and Kerry get it. I mean what else you would expect when both these opportunistic cowardly politicians talk to two women who are either Palestinians or Pro palestinians. That is standard response to anyone from those two politicos. It's their action that matters. Not what they said in Campaign Trail. And Obama has already betrayed so many promises made in campaign trail It is a wonder people still takes seriously what he said a year or two ago.
Good point, though it might be she thinks that even heavily NYT-ified reports from her is preferable to the NYT filling the space with some correspondent in Sderot moaning about gas chambers… It's probably not the easiest of dilemmas. One could note that her NYT position seems to have given her the opportunity to write pieces with less editorial interference elsewhere (e.g., the CJR). Her reports for the NYT, like most things in the Pravda-like US mainstream media, are probably better evaluated against previous NYT reporting, rather than actual facts on the ground. It's depressing, but until she's independently famous, that's probably the best way of measuring her contribution… I don't envy her her position.
And should be easier to read than IntenseDebate's mangled version, I was going to add – but wasn't allowed to. Sigh.
Thanks, Ed, for pointing out that we have traitors on BOTH sides of the aisle.
Which is why the focus of U.S. activism on this should be rights and international law, not the specifics of the solution (http://www.endtheoccupation.org). We spend a lot of time bickering about one-state or two-state, while the situation on the ground could much more accurately be described as no-state/apartheid state. We need to focus our attention on U.S. support of and complicity in human rights violations and violations of international law, rather than deciding for the Palestinians and Israelis what the best "solution" is
I don't think they're really getting it.
Taghred Al Khodary's reports in the NYT do not encourage me to see her as remarkable at all. On the contrary, she comes across as quite the Aunt Tomasina. If her actual views are different from what is indicated in the NYT, then that is also disappointing as it seems she is lacking in integrity.
Obama is working within a system in which voters elect representatives (although I'm beginning to understand how out of balance that representation is) and if he doesn't have the support of the electorate, he's not going to get far, or last long. Which is why I still am intent upon the need both for campaigning to get those 33 Senate seats filled with advocates of equal rights AND for public expressions of support for a one state solution, or at the least, equal rights within the two states. Not two states with unequal distribution of territory, and no actual authority vested in the Palestinian state.
Craig, what is referred to as the "1967 border" is the 1949 armistice line that is the internationally recognized boundary of Israel. Of course, beginning with ben Gurion Israel has refused to declare its borders for reasons which ben Gurion made clear by his actions and words, and which Israel has made clear by its actions.
"I promise you, that I will do my best not to pander to AIPAC." " First, I have trouble believing that Obama actually said anything that explicit. Second, he not only pandered to AIPAC, he out-pandered any previous panderer. In fact, he went so far overboard in his pandering that he was later forced to retract some of his panders. In brief, I do not share your optimistic view of Obama at all.
Oh, boo hoo! If she had any real integrity she wouldn't write for them if what they are publishing is not consistent with her intention.
it seems my OBAMA fans american side of the family ,has cooled its enthusiasm.I stopped listening to his lectures.The way he's going ,I"ll give him the gwbush treatement.
Richard, you are into Islam bashing? Other cultures are not lacking in capability because they don't look like ours. Your definition of modern is a bit odd.
Keep saying, loud and clear, what you do want to see. He seems to be listening for input from the public. (Yes, it is optimistic, but there are reasons for believing so. " Nothing ventured, nothing gained." I figure, especially while he's on a tight-rope, waiting to see if this year's elections are going to send him the old variety or a new assortment of AIPAC'ers. The only thing more powerful than money is unified public support)
And Jewish women imagine their children dropping bombs on whole Palestinian families wiping them out completely. If you're going to talk bs, at least be original.
This is a phenomenon, I haven't noticed before. The software interferes much more heavily with this link than with others I watched. It must have to do with the address. Since he left they may have changed the system. This is the basic address Salzmann uses, but there is no Salzmann listed anymore: http://www.physics.umb.edu/faculty.htm So the problem must start the moment you use Faculty/Salzmann: http://www.physics.umb.edu/faculty.htm Salzmann is listed here as retired http://www.physics.umb.edu/faculty.htm
Another one attracted to the main pseudo-analytical tool in conspiracy circles, the so-called Heglian dialectics. The great one-size-fits-all theory. It clearly forms the basis of Ed's argument. If only the devious characters on left and right didn't secretly work towards the essentially same ends, all would be copacetic. And obviously beyond their satanic tricks they always have secret and hidden bad intentions. Beyond these two seemingly opposite camps and their secret deals all benevolent Americans would naturally fall into line and agree with Ed the Sage. He will guarantee the return to Christian ethics. Christian's are simply the only human beings that do not cheat, and make secret deals behind closed doors. And they never disagree with each other or have different intentions. They also basically do not need to confess since they are a completely angle like and peaceful group of people. Confessions are a Catholic relict completely un-American. David, you shouldn't make a period behind a link, I'll paste for interested people one tentacle of the grand conspiracy Ed describes above: http://www.endtheoccupation.org
First, I have trouble believing that Obama actually said anything that explicit. I was wondering about that. But imagine for a second that he wouldn't need to explicitly state it in a context, were Felice Gelmann started the dialog with allusions to "the AIPAC view" on the issue. He then surely could have answered "I promise you, that I will do my best not to pander to AIPAC. "Do my best", sounds like a politician and a realist. Remember at the time he may have been aware of the anti-Obama-propaganda forces. I agree with Margret's comment above see e.g. Dan Fleshler. This is deeply a part of party politics, I do not think this is surprising: http://www.realisticdove.org/ “Tough love” for Israel will be tough on the pro-Israel peace camp A new Zogby International poll shows that 71 percent of Obama backers think the United States should “get tough with Israel” in order to stop settlement expansion, while 26 percent of McCain supporters feel that way. 80 percent of likely Obama voters also agreed with the statement, “It’s time for the United States to get tough with Israel,” in contrast to most McCain supporters. But that would mean, AIPAC is only a part of anti-Obama-forces. And somehow that sounds realistic to me.
The Umma is not a democratic institution. To regard the Umma as of any significance in governance, the dissenting community would have to ADOPT Islam as its criteria of justice.
Most Palestinian mothers desire that their children be healthy, happy, educated, successful, raise a family, give them grandchildren, help them in their old age, be good people. Same as most Jewish mothers.
David, the US has violated international law too. The point is, the US has the power to ignore it, this is what Israel firmly rests on, as it shapes it's outlook. It rests on the support of all US Americans who think that there shouldn't be a UN or similar matters, that might is right. In this scenario Israel is the crown jewell, it symbolizes that American power is always for the utter good. America saved European Jews from complete exemption. But it is of course only the lefties who cause trouble. Ask Richard Witty, he agrees but from the absolutely opposite side. ************************************************************************************************** How do you suggest to deal with a problem were the first question is always: What do you suggest? What's your aim? (Richard Witty) without bickering about solutions? Only in a dictatorship or in Ed's Christian Utopia you won't find the most complex forces, ideas, solutions on the left and surely also on the right.
Neither is Zionism a democratic institution….in fact there is no justice in the Zionist ideology…
The way I see it is that it does not matter whether Kerry and Obama "get it" because for change to happen the brainwashed by Zionism Jewish American community. followed by the Israeli Jewish people have to be getting it, otherwise nothing will change….. .It is too bad that those like Kerry and Obama cannot seem to realize the same applies to the Arab and Muslim American communities, and the Arab and Muslim world's people, which they appear to believe like most misguided U.S. politicians that the Arab's can be forced into accepting a western backed Zionist occupying state in the Middle East region that has caused great suffering for the Palestinian people and its Arab neighbors, and that they can somehow be forced into understanding the West's hypocritical alliances, on behalf of Israel and oil interests, with the Arab world's, so-called moderate by the West, oppressive dictators….
Israeli Scholar Disputes Founding Myth EXCERPT: "…The Zionist Narrative Sand, himself a European Jew born in 1946 to Holocaust survivors in Austria, argues that until little more than a century ago, Jews thought of themselves as Jews because they shared a common religion, not because they possessed a direct lineage to the ancient tribes of Israel. However, at the turn of the 20th Century, Sand asserts, Zionist Jews began assembling a national history to justify creation of a Jewish state by inventing the idea that Jews existed as a people separate from their religion and that they had primogeniture over the territory that had become known as Palestine. The Zionists also invented the idea that Jews living in exile were obligated to return to the Promised Land, a concept that had been foreign to Judaism, Sand states. Like almost everything in the Middle East, this new scholarship is fraught with powerful religious, historical and political implications. If Sand’s thesis is correct, it would suggest that many of the Palestinian Arabs have a far more substantial claim to the lands of Israel than do many European Jews who arrived there asserting a God-given claim. Indeed, Sand theorizes that many Jews, who remained in Judea after Roman legions crushed the last uprising in 136 A.D., eventually converted to Christianity or Islam, meaning that the Palestinians who have been crowded into Gaza or concentrated in the West Bank might be direct descendants of Jews from the Roman era. Despite the political implications of Sand’s book, it has not faced what might be expected: a withering assault from right-wing Israelis….." http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/041109b.html
There certainly is justice in the Israeli fundamental laws, including the guarantee of equal rights regardless of origination, nationality, language, and equal due process under the law. It definitely needs reform, but is FAR better than the ethnic exclusion that is enacted in law in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran.
You should move to a country which you feel has a right to exist.
Have you read Uri Avnery's recent piece Richard: “Racists for Democracy” http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avne... Please do tell us about the so-called Democratic Zionist Israel's lack of enacting a constitution after 60+ years of existence Richard before you point the finger at the alleged ethnic exclusion of other states in the region to take the focus off from the exclusionary Zionist state of Israel ….
Bingo! Palestinians are people, too. Who would have thought? It's so much easier to think of them as vicious animals. You know, sort of the way Gentiles have thought of Jews in some times and places. God forbid we should learn anything from history.
Seems to me, LeaNder22, you simplify what Ed has said, over and over. Ed's narrative usually assumes we don't need to be reminded of the evils of "the right" but that we do need to be reminded of the evils of "the left." He has a point here in the USA since our children are all taught about Nazi Germany, which is the model here for ultimate evil, especially Hitler. In contrast, very few natural USA citizens know anything about the Bolsheviks. Heck, Solzinitzen's last book is yet to be published in English; what, he isn't a significant writer? It's a fact that both the Democrats and Republicans have done nothing for decades to seriously affect the status quo of the I-P situation. Otherwise, each party in our essential two-party system works for their respective domestic constituencies, that is, at core, public welfare versus corporate welfare. The main transfer of wealth goes either way accordingly, with the exception that the banking/Wall Street crowd are kept privileged and immune by both parties. Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader deviate from the mutually agreed playing field and respective team colors, if you will, as does Pat B in cable news. Shrub brought us eight years of one cup of tea, and now Obama is trying to bring us eight years of the other tea. There is a deep tension over here and the opposing ideology assumptions, bi-polar as they are, are doing nothing to instigate real change–Hegel would be lost as there is no synthesis in sight. No Third Way, as some use to call it in Europe.
Both LeaNder and Mooser are prone to stereotyping their opponents — to no less a degree than those whose ethics and morals they profess to hate on the hard Right. Because I believe on a level playing field in which the monopolistic, coercive, warmongering hand of State is removed from the equation, Christianity will prosper, well, according them I'm some Christian authoritarian (as if Christianity is monolithic) or some "Christian Utopianist." This shows Leftists will always negatively stereotype the Christian ethos no matter how modest the appeal — just like authoritarian Jews. [cont'd]
Did I ever say no other religions should be allowed to make their own case for hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas? But Statists don't want to have to actually go out and work for a living, they just want resources extracted from taxpayers at gun point and used as perpetual welfare to subsidize their dysfunctional ideology and lifestyle…why, just like the Zionists. Funny how elitist, racist Jews can't be bothered with proselytizing, either. I guess elitist, self-satisfied Leftists have a lot in common with the elitist, self-satisfied Jews that comprise Zionism after all. Also note, they all share a common Jewish authoritarian Socialist lineage. PS to Citizen re "Hegel would be lost as there is no synthesis in sight" The Statist Left and Statist Right have sythesized. It's just that their respective useful idiots haven't yet realized it.
I could say much about Hegel, dialectical materialism, etc., but I think I'll attempt to spare you most of it… I would point out, however, that the 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' triad isn't Hegel, but rather Fichte. I do think Hegel's point of (historical) movement is actually quite valuable, and used in an ateleological, non-Utopian way serves as a useful warning against any static conceptualisation of history, etc. In a sense, Hegel's philosophy serves as a warning against precisely this mechanistic 'one-size-fits-all theory'. I do, broadly speaking, agree with Marx's 'anti-Hegelian dialectics', though, seeing the material base as preceding the idea… (While I ultimately reject Adorno's 'negative dialectics' (I don't really agree that the social world is radically evil), I am sympathetic to it, and I think Lydia Goehr made an important point when she recently summarised Adorno's imperative as 'the musical movement of philosophy'. Aren't you falling for Popper's rather impoverished idea of 'historicism' here? Though I agree with your critique of Ed insofar it is a critique of a Utopian mode of historical thought – I just wouldn't blame Hegel (or, implicitly, Marx).)
Though I don't think I agree with most of what Ed is saying, I think I must reluctantly agree with you that his arguments become slightly too quickly stereotyped here. I must disagree with you, however, concerning the US and the popular consciousness of the evils of 'the Left'. Surely you have noticed how words like 'Communist' and 'Socialist' are used here? And the crimes of the Soviet Union are rehearsed in public with almost the same frequency as the Nazis' – for that matter, it seems a popular pastime on the American right to portray Hitler as a man of the left. '[E]ach party in our essential two-party system works for their respective domestic constituencies, that is, at core, public welfare versus corporate welfare', you say, but I think that's just a common – and false – stereotype. While the Democrats lean slightly more in the direction of the anti-authoritarian left that the Republicans do, that's only in relative terms. In no way can they be described as a party dedicated to 'public welfare'. In international terms both parties are practically indistinguishable parties on the highly authoritarian far right. The 'beauty' of the American system is that it provides the semblance of genuine democratic choice and real political differences, while in actuality rather seamlessly maintaining the interests of the ruling class. One of the ways it does this, of course, is through having two parties with genuine enough differences – which provide for the construction of the grand right-left divide you sketch, and which do motivate a large enough portion of the populace to actually join the fight, and to actually go out and vote. In essence, you've already got the Third Way – because what (most notably) New Labour did in the UK was to bring about a situation quite similar to the American one. Fortunately for the UK it might appear that the people, somewhat less used to this state of affairs, is now rebelling: if you haven't noticed, the country has been in an ongoing constitutional crisis for weeks now, which might lead to some of the most significant constitutional (and democratic) changes in more than a century. Fingers crossed…
Should have said the response referred to at the Jordan conference was about 41 minutes in.