Despite the Marianan depths of my cynicism about the man, even I was a little surprised that the first thing Barry O. did after clinching the Donk conference championship was go up to AIPAC and bark like a neutered toy poodle defending its master's yard from the paperboy.
But, as such internetsian luminaries as Dennis P. and Jonathan S. (plus cobloggers) have long noted, Liberal America has always been indifferent at best to the fate of the Palestinians. How many conversations have I had in which nice, Reform-Jewish Democrats, who love the Blacks and the Gays and Feminism and Social Democracy, solemnly note that when Israelis began ejecting Palestinians . . . the Arab countries refused to take them in, as if this failure on the part of the Umma, or whomever, somehow justified the long twilight of Palestianian pseudo-peoplehood. This argument, I point out, is not unlike justifying the Third Reich on the basis of Roosevelt and Hull's refusal of The Saint Louis. Besides, I note, a substantial majority of Palestinians ejected, for example, from West Jerusalem in 1948-1949 were Christian, and in any event Palestinians were not widely considered culturally Arab in any event. To no avail.
So. Obama's first foreign policy address of the championship round of our political playoffs was dedicated to assuring one of the most war-hungry gangs in America that, far from repudiating the policies of the current administration, he will solidify and expand them (perhaps adding some of that much-bruited "competence"). This was not unpredictable. Whatever his private feelings, the Empire makes certain demands on a man. "Search your feelings, Father, you can't do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate." "It is too late for me, son. The Emperor will show you the true nature of the Force. He is your master now."
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The True Nature of the Force
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Given Obama's declaration today that the DNC would no longer accept PAC money - "he has that power?", I wondered - do you think this was a last minute, under-the-wire grab? As in, "the DNC will no longer accept PAC money, starting ... (shuffle, shuffle, shuffle) ... NOW."
And...where was Barry when he was delivered the news that Hill was finally going to throw in the towel?
Why entering a fundraiser with Big Dem Donors of course!
A man's got to do what a man's got to do, but a wannabe Preznit has to bow and scrape before the hand that feeds him.
Mike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eZBevXohCI
At least when it's not your time anymore, you can have a little bit of fun before you die.
The flaw in your Force/Darth Vader analogy, of course, is that the young newbie resisted the temptation at the end of that story. In real life, I'm not so sure (like you) that the story hasn't already ended, with the opposite resolution.
I think it's more like The Matrix, only the seven previous incarnations of The Matrix before Keanu Reeves showed up: the sum total of resistance and protest, gathered by a few milligrams among each of the tens of millions of sleeping drones, produces an upstart Anomaly like clockwork on a regular basis, somebody all the drones believe in, as a substitute for taking personal action. Empowered by the drones, he fights his way to the heart of the Matrix mainframe... only to find that the robots hold all the cards. Whereupon he makes the eminently practical decision to join in with their plan. (Referring again, to Neo's predecessors.) Then the cycle starts anew, after an enormous winnowing costing many lives. The cycle could well go on forever. The only long-shot chance that might end the cycle is if we happen to get somebody in there who's willing to sacrifice their own life/{political career} and fight for freedom rather than the safe mathematics of money and sure bets. But who knows if that could take ten elections, or ten thousand.
um, just as an aside, i think your opening point is, if not wrong outright, at least not so clear-cut as you seem to want it to be. it's been my experience that american liberals are not at all indifferent to the fate of the palestinians, but rather tend to take their side over the israelis on almost every occasion in which the subject has come up in my presence. the most obvious example being, of course, rachel corrie, who died under an israeli bulldozer.
i dunno, maybe shit's different in pittsburgh, but out here on the west coast, it pretty much goes without saying that if someone tells you they're liberal, they support the palestinians pretty much unconditionally. i've found myself in the position of defending israel on many occasions, not so much out of any sort of unhesitating support for the jewish state, but because the lefties i deal with have such an un-nuanced view of the israeli-palestinian conflict.
and, while i'm at it, since when is aipac considered liberal?
"it pretty much goes without saying that if someone tells you they're liberal, they support the palestinians pretty much unconditionally."
Um, how many of these people voted for Bill Clinton and will now vote for Barack Obama. Jesus Christ, who's the fucking nihilists here? I mean, if you believe in democracy, which presumably these liberals do, and you constantly give your political assent and approbation to the rabid defenders of an Israeli political order opposed rabidly to any viable Palestinian statehood, then all your claims of sympathy amount to . . . what?
A big pile of nothing.
" not so much out of any sort of unhesitating support for the jewish state, but because the lefties i deal with have such an un-nuanced view of the israeli-palestinian conflict."
So adopting Zionism is part of the white guilt syndrome now? Fuck me, now I gotta pretend to care about Israeli thugs AND Rwandan refugees? There's only so many hours in the day, dude.
PS the old "nuanced view of the IP conflict" thing is a crock, bro. There's not a whole lot of nuance involved in "Bunch of refugees are given a state due to guilt over the Holocaust, then proceed to become the biggest fascists on the planet as a response to having acts of terror and war perpetrated against it by its neighbors, then reduce the refugees THEY pushed out to get their place in the sun to conditions little better than slavery".
But if Israel didn't show it's strength by bulldozing Palestinians' homes, enclosing Palestinians in walled ghettos, and occasionally staging unilateral military incursions into their neighboring countries' sovereign territory, then Ahmadinejad would wipe them from the map.....
"But if Israel didn't show it's strength by bulldozing Palestinians' homes, enclosing Palestinians in walled ghettos, and occasionally staging unilateral military incursions into their neighboring countries' sovereign territory, then Ahmadinejad would wipe them from the map....."
Ah yes, the Phantom Menace. They have no nukes, they don't even have the ingredients for nukes, and they've never once threatened to wipe Israel off the map, but by gum, you just KNOW they would if they could! How can ou NOT want to bomb them into the Stone Age given that?
Don't know where all those Palestinian-sympathizing liberals hang out--I know there are some, but if they go beyond the token expression of concern for the poor Palestinians, they are generally labeled "leftists" and told that they need to take a more nuanced view. "Nuance" means you are allowed to act sympathetic, so long as you don't start acting like Palestinians should be treated the same as the Israelis.
Liberalism has always had a two-tiered approach to human rights in other places. Due mostly to the fact that the anti-monarchical groups supporting it in the eighteenth century were making their fortunes in the colonies. They needed suffrage at home to take power, but extending those rights in overseas possessions was not useful. The post-WWII lip service to human rights has been hollow/instrumental from the start, and the Fanons of the world haven't had the juice to put any substance to it.
Israel is a true child of the European Enlightenment, and until that social movement collapses or moves in another direction (which it shows every evidence of being in the process of doing) the Palestinians will just have to suck on it.
As for Obama, a guy can look at it two ways. Either he is cannily using the rhetoric of the dominant elites to subvert them and bring about revolutionary change, or they've got his nards in a vice. You make the call!
Don't Palestinians speak Arabic? I know there's a significant divide between them and Bedouins, but I thought they were still considered Arab.
The fact that we turned away refugees during the Holocaust at least shows we didn't fight the war to Save the Jews and plays a role in the WW2 revisionism of Buchanan, Baker and Moldbug.
I think ethnic cleansing has an undeservedly bad reputation. You don't hear about a "German refugee problem" after WW2. That's because they all got booted out and that was that (if it had happened earlier there wouldn't have been a WW2). It's the normal course of affairs. And rather than just blaming Arab countries we can also blame the U.N.
"I think ethnic cleansing has an undeservedly bad reputation."
I watched westerns when I was a kid, and never thought it was so bad. Of course, little did I know that by the latter half of the nineteenth century most of the slaughter had already taken place much earlier.
...if someone tells you they're liberal, they support the palestinians pretty much unconditionally.
kinda like how they man-up in support of the tibetans by putting cute little bumper stickers on their autovoitures?
Israelis-Arabs...
liberals-nihilists...
can't we all just get along?
Ronald
p.s. jyd-dewd: "autovoitures"?
is that french or something?
Let's face it. The place elected to hold the Rapture has got to be doing something right.
Boy I sure hope "aaron" was doing a satire. That's some seriously Digby-esque bullshit in that post at 9:13 pm.
Remember, Israel gets to nuke Palestine because... well... because... uh... because... errr... ahhh... because...
because of the Holocaust!!
"...un-nuanced view of the israeli-palestinian conflict."
Nuance, here in the world of IOZ? riiiight...
Obviously as gleaned from the post and the comments it is black and white, no shade of grey whatsoever - Israel BAD, Palistinians GOOD.
Oh yay, Ash is back to show everyone his complete lack of reading comprehension! Welcome back, you fucking moron!
I mean, if you believe in democracy, which presumably these liberals do, and you constantly give your political assent and approbation to the rabid defenders of an Israeli political order opposed rabidly to any viable Palestinian statehood, then all your claims of sympathy amount to . . . what? -ioz
jack shit, obviously. that wasn't the point i was making, and i would expect someone of your obvious intelligence to be able to see that. what i said was that all the fucking tree-huggers i know and meet are filled with great sympathy about the injustice of the plight of the palestinians (and it is unjust, fucking tragically so). that it doesn't do anybody any good at all has nothing to do with it. you said that liberals heart israel, a point with which i disagreed, albeit anecdotally. that barack obama or any figure on the national political stage has to kowtow to aipac and the israel lobby is just a recognition of their influence and power. maybe if the palestinians could muster up some cash and a nice letterhead, they could get barack and john to come kiss their asses, too. geez.
PS the old "nuanced view of the IP conflict" thing is a crock, bro. There's not a whole lot of nuance involved in "Bunch of refugees are given a state due to guilt over the Holocaust, then proceed to become the biggest fascists on the planet as a response to having acts of terror and war perpetrated against it by its neighbors, then reduce the refugees THEY pushed out to get their place in the sun to conditions little better than slavery". -anonymous
yup, those israelis sure are fuckers. there is absolutely no doubt about that. where the nuance comes in is when you come to terms with the fact that the palestinians are also fuckers. or maybe you'd like to make the case that since the israelis are such dicks, the palestinians are morally justified in lobbing mortar shells at civilians and blowing up buses and nightclubs with suicide bombs. if so, make it, but i don't think you'd much care for the company that'd put you in.
also, i can't help but notice that the bulk of this thread seems to be comprised of liberal folks who despise israel and are kneejerk supporters of the palestinians, which is the point i was initially making.
just sayin'.
But then, the Indians were fuckers too. That didn't justify the Europeans coming in and slaughtering them. There's no question, really, as to who started the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: it was the Zionists, who falsely claimed that Palestine was a land without a people.
So, yes, the Palestinians have committed a lot of crimes in trying to drive out the people who invaded their land. Many prominent critics of Israel, such as Noam Chomsky and Edward Said to name two of the most vilified, have condemned Palestinian terrorism -- but they can do that because they also condemn Israeli terrorism.
It's hard to figure out what point you were initially making, though. Are you under the impression that Rachel Corrie was a Palestinian? I also am not sure what constitutes "supporting the Palestinians unconditionally." Would that mean, say, giving them military aid equal to what we give the Israelis? Allowing them to have the same number of nuclear weapons Israel has? Trying to strangle off Israel when we don't like their elected government, just as the US has done to the Palestinians? It's hard not to suspect that you see any support at all for the Palestinians as "unconditional."
Post a Comment