|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thursday, April 11, 2002
WWW.JEWISHQUESTION.COM
A student from the University of Illinois writes:
What a badass website man. You are a beacon of knowledge in these grim times. So to you I pose a question, a rather in depth one: Here at U of I there are always campaigns, and people with posters and what not, pro-and anti-Israel. and pro-and anti-Palestine. Obviously there is no one specific group that can be totally blamed, and these feud extends for centuries, but what is your take on the situation? Who is more to blame?
This question goes far deeper than the immediate time and is more philosophical than the mainstream media tends to make it. What is at the root of the question however, is the purpose of the state of Israel itself. Should there be a state for the Jews? This has been a question asked since the Jews were forced from Palestine in the Diaspora. I entitled this piece www.jewishquestion.com" as a modern take on Karl Marx's essay "The Jewish Question," in which he ponders what to do with a people that are both part of society, yet separate as well. I criticism of Israel comes mainly from the left. Much of their argument is based on biology. "Jews and Arabs are both humans and it is their personal ignorant biases that are stopping them from living together." This is absolutely true. They shouldn't hate each other and as long as they let one another alone to practice whatever lifestyle they choose, things would be fine. This is way too idealistic and shows a lack of understanding of the past and of the future.
I think one of the goals for mankind, in this century and the next, is to positively deal with globalization. No matter how hard the far left and the far right want to avert it, the world is going to unite economically and most likely politically. For the best evidence of this, look at Iran. It is a fundamentalist Islamic country run by reactionaries who restrict the rights of its citizens and tries to create a country based on virtue and Islamic law. Yet when you see pictures of the average people, you see men wearing Western clothes and drinking soft drinks. In the coming years the rulers of Iran will have to face a serious issue of how to deal with a younger generation that grew up after the Shah was deposed, who want there natural rights: life, liberty and property/pursuit of happiness. Through economics and knowledge, which are now available because of technology, the different peoples of the world will naturally and inevitably come together. Now, however, the time is not right.
Before attempting an age of internationalism, the world must complete the age of nationalism, which began at the end of the 18th century and reached its peak during the time of WWI. It is precisely here where the utopians have it wrong. Since the time when the Jews were forced from their homeland after the second revolt against Rome, they have never been fully accepted in any society where they have lived. One must remember that the term "ghetto" originally described the Jewish quarter of a European city. Throughout this time period, the Jews were exiled and butchered in many countries. In Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella were as famous for expelling the Jews from the country as they were for their roles in Columbus' voyage. From the Spanish Inquisition to the bigoted trial of Alfred Dreyfus, people wondered what to do with the Jews, many of these solutions ended in more suffering for the people in question. In the 1930's one man came up with a solution; humanity and the world will never fully recover from it. That is why it is necessary for a Jewish state without the "right to return."
The so-called "Arab Street" does not accept this. That is why the Jews must fight this war. Critics of Israel from all over the world, demand that the Palestinians be given a separate, independent state. Israel has agreed to this. A little over a year ago, Prime Minister Barak offered them 95% of what they wanted. Yasser Arafat refused to accept this deal and the bloodshed began soon after (with some added provocation by current PM Ariel Sharon.) This treaty would have created a Palestinian state that could have used diplomacy and peaceful resolutions to try and achieve the remaining 5%, but instead they resorted to violence.
Where we are left now, is how do we stop the violence. One of the reasons why people side with the Palestinians is that they are against the harsh attacks of the Sharon government, which they see as soldiers hurting civilians. These are pure means and should be acknowledged and praised for the good principles that they are based on. Once again, however, they are too utopian. As three of the greatest democratic leaders of all time, Roosevelt, Churchill and Truman, have taught us, sometimes force and other vile means are necessary to come to a better end. Who today looks upon Neville Chamberlain or Henry Wallace as great leaders? Today they are remembered as losers with good intentions, as will the pacifists of today. The psychological theory of classical conditioning tells us that when a behavior is not negatively reinforced (in this case, unanswered terrorism), the party who commits the bad deed will continue to do so. As Truman Doctrine showed us, fighting is not fun or easy, but sometimes it is necessary to preserve our beliefs.
One of our beliefs that is worth saving, and this was indeed the base of American foreign policy for the 20th century, is democracy. One of the most important reasons why we must support Israel is they are a liberal-democracy. Yasser Arafat was never elected and does not speak for his people. He was placed in power by a group of Arab leaders who were, in many cases, not democratically elected themselves. Most of the American students who support Arafat do not support Saddam Hussein, Qudaffi or Mugabe, why do they support someone even more illegitimate than these dictators? The Palestinian state that is in question most certainly would not be a democracy. How many Middle-Eastern states are democracies now? Two: Turkey and Israel. One of the important policies that the United States must pursue and fulfill is helping the Arab people overthrow the despots that rule them now, and allow them to rule themselves. The fight is more than a struggle for a tiny area of land. It is part of the ever going battle between the many and the few. In this case as in all cases, the many are right. Israel must be supported to the end.
8:57 PM
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
I would like to thank the new viewers back in SLC for their support: Chris Hill and Ian Axland. Thanks for following guys. Write to Chris on AOL Instant Messenger at Chill1511.
9:35 PM
Excellent Day For Middle East Press:
Today was a very good day in the press concerning our reasons for supporting Israel against the Palestinians.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.nationalreview.com
All of the Post columnists had great points about Arafat’s trustworthiness and the necessity of Sharon’s use of force. Charles Krauthammer has a realistic and clever argumentative point when he says:
“Syria could not withstand such an Israeli attack conventionally. It might then launch its missiles equipped with chemical weapons into Israeli cities. And that could trigger Armageddon. Israel was established so that never again would the gassing of Jews be permitted.”
As usual, Victor Davis Hanson has gold in his column. He addresses the need for democracy in the Arab states. He shows that in many cases in this war, the Republicans have been the liberals, while the Democrats have been the ones who want to work with the despots ruling in the Middle East. After reading this column, I think I know who the great progressive, Woodrow Wilson would be standing with in this conflict:
“Realists, of course, would only shake their heads at all this. They sigh that should democracies sprout up in the Middle East, the situation would only worsen, given the furor of the Arab street. They believe that we would only see something like the reign of terror in Iran — as Hitler-like fundamentalists or autocrats like Arafat captured one election, then dismantled democracy.
Perhaps. But at least we could say that we are not involved in subsidizing the machinery of autocracy, if only indirectly. Moreover, what the irresponsible Arab mob does in the street may not be the same when it is asked to conduct campaigns and take the reins to vote for its own leaders, whose policies for good or evil become its own problem. We should note that governments that hate us, and over whom we have no authority — Iraq and Iran — may well have restless populations that are at least as friendly to us as are those under our erstwhile friendly monarchies and dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Being hated by autocrats is not a bad thing.”
Check them out for a better understanding of America’s role in the world.
3:04 PM
Tuesday, April 09, 2002
Was I Right, Or Was I Right?
Check out the new poll results for the French election.
http://www.sabcnews.com/world/europe/0,1009,31935,00.html
Sometimes the South African Broadcasting Corp. is not functioning correctly, so try it a couple of times.
8:38 PM
Monday, April 08, 2002
Side Tracked?
A bunch of the Neoconservatives have the administration’s Middle-East policy wrong. In many of their statements and publications, journalists like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have been saying that the President is giving in to “a few days of heckling from the European Union and The New York Times,” because he was asking for restraint from the Sharon cabinet. This statement came out before President Bush and Prime Minister Blair called for a withdrawal from the West Bank, so we should expect even more virulent attacks on the administration this coming week. The only one who is seeing through the dust cloud is Fred Barnes, who says Bush is trying to “keep other important American interests in mind, including the desire for allies when military action is taken against Iraq, probably later this year.”
The Bush team is too smart to get sucked into this mess without getting something in return, as Barnes sees, and will use this for the greater goal of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. The only reason they Bushies are prodding Israel to withdraw is to make the Arabs feel as if we are working with them, so they will give us a launching point for our invasion of Iraq. The thing that surprises me is that the neocons aren’t seeing this. Weren’t they the one’s who left the Democratic Party for thinking too short sightedly in the Cold War? I’m glad Fred Barnes picks up on the utilitarian value of this move. Once the U.S. has toppled the region’s most aggressive regime and puts pressure on the second, Iran, then the Palestinian crisis will be much easier to handle. In the mean time, wait for more neocon criticism of the President’s move.
11:59 PM
Happy Birthday to Ajay Virkar!! My best friend! Write him and tell him so at ajayv8@hotmail.com. You've come along way baby! 2 cool 2 be 4 gotten.
8:59 PM
French Nader?
Now that I’ve looked further in to the French election, I think I have to give the advantage to President Chirac. When I follow recent poll numbers, it looks as if the hard core Trotskyists are going to protest the final runoff (unless they overcome the odds and actually beat the Socialists, which is extremely unlikely) election in early may which could take some of the Socialist vote away. Although the right has more candidates, several of who hate Mr. Chirac and have threatened to keep their voters home on the day the Gaullists need their support, in the past these voters have returned to the center and helped the Gaullists in the final tally.
Much of the Trotskyist resurgence has come from voters on the left who are tired of the corrupt politics of the members of the Socialist Party, and I think only a small few hold the Trotskyist principles dear enough to sacrifice the election to the Gaullists. It will come down to the wire on May 5th after the extremists are out of the race. So far Arlette Laguiller, the Trotskyist candidate, has stuck true to her communist principles and said she will not endorse a candidate in the runoff and will encourage “protest voters.”
Ms. Laguiller has stayed true to the Trotskyist doctrine through many tough votes that hurt her political base. She has voted with the right on many economic issues in order to spur on the end of capitalism, which she believes is inevitable and could happen soon. I have been very impressed with her ability to see through many of the ethnocentric and nationalist tendencies that made Trotsky seem hypocritical and hurt his cause in the 1930’s. However, I think she will suffer the fate that has hurt all Marxists; the workers will sell out to the social democratic party.
In my own views, this is good. Some of her voters will be unenthusiastic with the candidates available on May 5th and will protest (or care too little about) the vote. Through this, Jacques Chirac should be able to pull through and bring back some of the “liberty” into the French political belief. The French political parties, as Matt Welch mentioned, are far to the left of those in the United States and a Gaullist victory would give the Fourth Republic a need boost back to the center. When the national-liberal leader has the backing of many of the labor unions, the rest of society should learn to free up the economy and allow those who wish to work to do so.
8:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
