I wondered what Bill Clinton said at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s annual convention last weekend. Kabobfest has a good report:
Most conflict in the world, [Clinton said], is driven by identity, even though divisions are blind to the fact that we all share 99.5% genetic commonalities. Therefore, we can be proud if our identities and celebrate our diversity, but not let pride in identity turn to hate: “You teach your children their ethnic heritage; their religious heritage; their cultural heritage with no negative reference to anyone else because it’s the only shot we’ve got to make the most of our interdependent world....
Sounds reasonable and bland enough, right? If taken out of context, the insult is missed.
First, the focus on identity trivializes the material bases of our positions and politics. We are not angry at U.S. foreign policy and Israel because of identity differences, but because of invasions, occupations and displacements. While he acknowledges the inequality of the world system, he does not consider that our resentment may come from being on the receiving end of oppression. Talking about identity while ignoring this crucial context is in line with analysis that considers Arab resistance to American and Israeli agenda as ‘civilizational’ or ‘cultural,’ or based on ancient hatreds.
Second, I felt he belittled our concerns with the fate of the Palestinians when he mildly encouraged the Arab-American community’s efforts on it after talking about the big issues such as the prospects of environmental apocalypse. So silly was his analysis, he compared the outcome to a mad max road warrior movie – then he excoriated the crowd for laughing? “It’s not funny.” I think his juxtaposition was intended to suggest we are over-concerned with this problem. He was trying to shift our agenda to care about nebulous problems, while discrediting our issues — all implicitly, meaning without direct intents.
Why is Bill Clinton lecturing Arabs and Muslims about identity politics? I can't imagine him lecturing the Jewish ADL or AIPAC about identity politics. And why isn't he lecturing all those Jewish Zionist Dems in Congress (around 10% of Dems in the House and 20% of Dems in the Senate) about their identity politicking? I guess he's just another left-liberal Judeophile Zionist who believes there should be two standards: one for Jews and their elitist, suitably “secular” (aka Zionist-friendly) left-liberal ruling coalition partners (Muslims, Arabs and non-Judeophile Christians need not apply) and another for everyone else. And man, he must really think these Arabs he’s lecturing are stupid. I mean, a child can see that their fidelity to Jewish Zionism lies behind the Dems’ newfound professed revulsion for identity politics. Up until yesterday, identity politics is how they’ve always gotten elected. Or may its just that now that the Dems are in power, they don’t want to have to actually follow through on their “inclusive” rhetoric. It’s too much trouble to their power-centralizing, elitist-liberal enterprise.
I agree with this analysis. What he calls "identity" is what others call their community, religion, or civilization, and for many it is worth dying for. Amorphous elites like Clinton have none of these things, and only understand identity as arbitrary self-identification (are you a PC or a Mac user?), or a means to divide a mass populace into poltically useful units.
Bill is absolutely right about identity politics, but he was addressing the wrong audience. Were Zionists not so concerned about who is or isn't Jewish, there never would have been a conflict to begin with.
The environment is a real concern, and as it has no borders, is an opportunity for linkage, for breaking identity orientation. "We CARE for the land", as a common definition of ownership, rather than "We CONTROL the land" as an exclusive definition of ownership.
Devoting his speech to green issues so much–in front of an Arab Anti-Discrimination entity's audience; then blathering on about diversity and "identity politics" and making a joke about Flying While Arab only to immediately chastise the audience for laughing…. Can you imagine Bill skirting so in front of the ADL or AIPAC? He suggested he couldn't say anything substantive, meaning, of interest to the audience, unless it was within his wife's talking points, so why couldn't he talk about the Obama's administration’s Cairo-declared opposition to the settlements in relation to his pompous lecture analysis of identity? As Kabobfest asks: " Does anyone deny interdependence and exhibit negative identity more than the Israeli settler movement?"
I assume Bill is talking about those genes which make us human because we share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees and 60% with bananas. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats. Given Bill's reasoning why isn't he for a one state solution?
Well Bill did pontificate about identity politics; you know, the Israelis view Pals as cockroaches, while the Pals view Israelis as monkeys? They both quote Goebbels without giving him credit. And the American sheeple just keep paying, as their betters ordain.
When I read that he had spoken at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s convention, I had some trouble believing that his attitude had substantially changed from the quite racist one he displayed towards the Palestinians during his presidency and after. I see now that my skepticism was justified.