As a progressive, my plans for Syria do not include bombing the hell out of them. It's a pity this thread hasn't included a more closely-read critique of the author's extremely UNprogressive analysis. This includes her ludicrous estimation of rebel force composition, and somewhat slippery implication that if you object to heart-eating Jihadis you are playing into Assad's hands (my anti-islamist credentials are impeccable, by the way, and honestly acquired, going to back to my support for the Soviet Union's defence of the Afghan revolution - an admirable endeavour, long ago drowned in blood by the CIA and their Jihadi mercenaries, for which the author would have had, I suspect, scant relish). Her bizarre insistence that the slogan "Hands Off Syria" somehow mischaracterizes the nature of the struggle, and her blasé attitude to the immeasurable suffering an American attack would engender, indicate both a sneaking regard for U.S. imperialism and make her professed concern for the Syrian people somewhat suspect. What particularly sets my teeth on edge, however, is the insufferably prescriptive tone of the piece, and her insistence (expressed on twitter) that people who disagree with her should keep silent, and thus do obeisance to her self-declared monopoly on discourse: having been raised in Chicago and educated in Georgetown may have something to do with this arrogance.
Ireland enjoys a grim history, both distant and recent, of occupation, imprisonment without trial, torture, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing: hence the hypocrisy and the irony pointed out by Max. The difference between the Irish and Palestinian situations most relevant to Koch, it would seem, was that in one case the victims were Irish, and in the other, Palestinian. Some may characterize this difference as being of sufficient weight so as to prompt them to adopt contrasting positions on questions touching upon fundamental human justice. These people are known as racists.
Longliveisrael, thanks for proving my point. you anti-semite. Your ancestors were vigorous opponents of tyranny, who spilled their blood on the battlefields of Jarama and Kursk to defend the principles of humanism that were not only part of their heritage, but an endowment to which they had contributed to all mankind. That you gleefully spit on their memory, and the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto, should come as no surprise. Your idea of the "new Jew," with whom you pathetically identify, is that of the tyrant, the torturer, the ethnic cleanser, and the murderer. Plus, he's very buff and tanned, of course. Yum!
We should thank "longliveisrael" for a such a succinct illustration of why zionism is such an anti-semitic ideology, feeding off of Jewish self-hatred. Clearly, by his lights, the "old Jew" was one who "took crap," and was insufficiently enamored of The State and the militarism associated therewith. He was a puny, effeminate intellectual, not to be trusted by the real nation-builders, right loveliveisrael? What did the "old Jew" ever produce of value - besides, of course, monuments of world literature through the medium of the Yiddish language that the zionists helped to kill, earth-changing theories such as those of Marx and Freud, and antifascist fighters from Madrid to Stalingrad. Not to mention the Marx Brothers. Whereas the "New Jew," the macho, muscled, bronzed übermentsch has brought us - Zohan! It's kind of sad, actually.