It’s Those Jews Again
Who knew? It’s those damn “Jews” (and a few “Evangelicals” as well) who are creating all that stir about Dafur. Whatsamatter with those Hebes anyway? They seemingly just can’t get past the holocaust.
Â
This scoop — unmasking the dark Jewish forces behind last weekend’s Washington protest against genocide in Darfur– comes from the once-respected lefty journal Monthly Review.
As Jeff Weintraub puts it:
I feel almost embarrassed to be paying attention to this idiotic, pernicious, and disgusting pair of articles by editor of the on-line version of Monthly Review (MRZine), one Yoshie Furuhashi–except that the paranoid fantasies being presented here are not an isolated aberration, but instead one more sad sign of the times. Monthly Review is a long-established US Marxist intellectual journal started over a half-century ago by Leo Huberman and Paul Sweezy. Whatever one can say about its errors and flaws over the years (there have been many), it was always an intellectually serious publication. Now one of its editors has published two pieces that combine the defense of a regime engaged in racist genocide with crackpot conspiracy theories in which–you guessed it–Jews play a major role. (The first of these pieces–”‘Save Darfur’: Evangelicals and Establishment Jews“– was also posted on the Engage website, with an appropriate illustration.)
I share Jeff’s dismay and disgust with this garbage from Monthly Review. There was a time in my life when I made sure not to miss an issue of MR. I never shared its always orthodox Marxist perspective, but the mag — in its heyday– could be counted on always to be of the highest intellectual caliber. To this day I still vividly remember pieces I read in MR 25 and 30 years ago (Economist Samir Amin’s circa 1975 essay on Australia and California stands out most boldly).
Â
What a long, long, long, long way down. From a sparkling theoretical journal of the intellectual left, to an agit-prop rag unintentionally (I hope) flirting with anti-semitism and soaked in conspiracy mongering.
Â
I encourage you to read all of the links in Weintraub’s full post to capture the full flavor of this serving.
Â
This ugly episode is nothing but one more crude manifestation of the knee-jerkish “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” axiom. In this case, whatever the Bush administration is for (no matter how half-heartedly or ineffectually) some “anti-imperialists” are totally against — even it means siding with a genocidal dictatorship in Sudan. Man, does this stink.
Â
A hat tip to reader and correspondent Michael Pugliese.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:20 am
I condemn anti-Semitism. Criticizing establishment Jews’ and evangelicals’ mobilization for a US intervention in Sudan (asking Washington, whose invasion created conditions that might result in a sectarian civil war in Iraq, to use force to stop the civil war in Sudan!) doesn’t make one an anti-Semite any more than your opposition to El Gran Paro advocated by such left-wing Mexicans as Nativo Lopez makes you an anti-Mexican. I support neither the government of Sudan nor the rebels. I believe that the African Union is more likely to be able to broker peace than Washington (on its own or through NATO) can.
The questions that I raised in my two pieces on Darfur are ones shared by left-wing Jewish activists, some of whom are involved in the “Save Darfur” campaign, at a blog called Jewschool. The initial posting, which asked a tactical question, was made by David Kelsey, and the discussion he initiated is quite lively and engaging: “Jewish Leadership on Darfur” (Jewschool, 17 April 2006). (I provided a link to this posting in my second Darfur piece.) I quote below a couple of comments on Kelsey’s initial Jewschool blog posting, to give you a flavor of discussion there:
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:44 am
To second Yoshie –
Marc is just being dumb here, in response to being annoyed by my postings of these pieces (and I’m a Jew.) Yoshie has been writing and posting about how Jewish leaders don’t respond to their constituencies. There is nothing Anti-Semitic about that – and to force her to defend herself is a disgusting ritual that I thought even MarcCooper was above
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:11 am
Marc, I’m really sad to see this. I’ve really liked a lot of your work over the years, and liked you personally as well. I’m distressed to watch you evolve into a policeman of the left. I’ve known Yoshie Furuhashi for over a decade, and she’s never written anything remotely anti-Semitic. Deploying that charge is what sleazy warmongers do. You don’t want to be one of those, do you?
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:04 am
Cooper’s post is an appalling piece of McCarthyite slander. I have been reading Yoshie’s posts and articles for years; there is not the slightest hint of anti-Semitism in anything she’s ever written, including her very useful recent pieces on Darfur in MRZine. Cooper owes Yoshie a groveling apology and his readers a full retraction.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:07 am
Ahh, the wonders of leftist debating tactics! One is not a critic, nor an independent thinker nor even simply mistake but rather a policeman! Or a sleazy warmonger! I hope I can luck out and be deemed only the latter. Maybe we can compromise and I can judged only a running dog lackey.
In my posting I said that MR was (I hope) “unintentionally” flirting with anti-semitism. I dont know about you, but that seems at least 3 degress off from stating that the editor IS an anti-semite. I dont claim the latter. Only that the latter is an ideologue that draws her to making statements that offer the unfortunate appearance of such.
The broader point of just what political position this or that lobby, or political organization has takem is certainly a legitimate topic. That some Jewish organizations or pro-Israeli groups have taken a role in opposing the genocide in Darfur is a fact. They should be welcomed and congratulated for making the right choice. Their presence does not taint the underlying moral issue… and the rest of the political theory advanced by Yoshie regarding the role of oil in the US position on Darfur is, I fear, sheer conspiracy theorizing.
Now I will don my policeman’s uniform and return to my usual sleazy warmongering.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:30 am
So – and I am on record with my distaste towards ANSWER – a bunch of folks with serious wrong-headed attitudes are bad for the antiwar movement, but those who are blatant apologists for breaking international law should be “welcomed?”
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:40 am
Jcumming s- Who specifically are you referring to? Serious question. (With “blatant apologissts for breaking int’l law.”)
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:47 am
Groups that are “Pro-Israel” – (not like myself and other Jewish leftists who opine that being Pro-Israel means calling for an end to the occupation) are apologists for the activities of Israel in the Occupied Territories, and the illegal occupation itself – not to say the increasing desire among North American, but not necc. Israeli Zionists to implement “transfer” plans, and even at their best, refuse to criticize Israel, calling such criticism Anti-Semitic. Israel is a serial international lawbreaker. Those of us who are truly Pro-Israel reject the actions of establishment far-right Jewish organizations.
I digress – butyotur question –
If its hypocrisy for those who are Kim Jong Il fans to argue against a war in Iraq, by the same logic, it should be considered hypocrisy to “welcome” apologistts of serial international law breaking into a movement against human rights abuses and genocide.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:57 am
My argument is that a US military intervention in Sudan (on its own or through NATO) is a wrong choice, not in the interest of people in Sudan, not in the interest of Americans, not in the interest of Jews (whether they live in the USA, Israel, Iran, France, or wherever else), despite the fact that some of their “leaders” think it is the right choice. US troops are like magnets for the type of people who ruthlessly killed Nick Berg, Tom Fox, etc. and bombed mosques and markets in Iraq: US or NATO troops going into Sudan can push an already disastrous situation into a catastrophe, just as it has in Iraq, where car bombs go off almost every day. It’s not easy to make Iraq worse than it was under Saddam Hussein and the genocidal UN sanctions, but the US invasion and occupation has done it, and it can in Sudan, too.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:58 am
The comments by Doug Henwood, Jacob Levich, and Jcummings simply astonish me. Did they actually read Furuhashi’s pieces about the “Save Darfur” campaign?
I know absolutely nothing else about Furuhashi, but the plain fact is that the arguments in those pieces were inaccurate, ignorant, and morally reprehensible. Furuhashi also managed to take the extensive grass-roots effort by American Jewish groups to protest the genocidal mass murder of African Muslims in Darfur–an effort which I think should be be a source of pride and hope–and turn it into a basis for a crackpot conspiracy theory with which to smear the “Save Darfur” coalition. Is this an insinuation with anti-semitic undertones? Well, what would you call it?
But let’s even leave that aside. There have been a whole range of outraged and astonished responses to Furuhashi’s ignorant and irresponsible ravings by progressives involved in Darfur-related activism, pointing out that she gets absolutely everything completely wrong. If Doug Henwood, Jacob Levich, and Jcummings want to defend here actual “arguments” (rather than tossing out red herrings), they should do so. Good luck.
It is a sign of how completely over the edge Furuhashi has gone on Darfur that even the often appalling Al Sharpton, in his speech at the rally, got the point more accurately. He ended his speech by saying: “We are not anti-Muslim, we are anti-murder. We are not anti-Arab, we are anti-annihilation.” If Doug Henwood, Jacob Levich, and Jcummings can think of good reasons why we should be pro-murder and pro-annihilation, they should trot them out.
I would also advise them to read the very good speech delivered at the rally by James Zogby, head of the Arab American Institute, and try to explain why he is acting as part of a plot by “Establishment Jews” to drag the US into another unnecessary war. Sorry to be blunt, but what kind of drivel is this?
–Jeff Weintraub
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:14 am
So an alleged socialist thinks someone has to be either “for” or “against” something. By your logic, since you presumably oppose, say, Putin’s colonial war in Chechnya, then you endorse Beslan.
This is not an allegation of a plot. The coalition of people who want to help Darfurians is clearly heterogenous, but some are more clean-handed than others.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:17 am
I.E. not all of those who rallied are calling for war. On James Zogby – well – I doubt he’s for war – but when was the last time a mainstream Jewish leader made speeches at a rally for Palestinians?
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:20 am
Oh, and this from Weintraub who posts a piece by the drunk Hitchens that relies on private communication by Juan Cole (see juancole.com)
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:20 am
I’m sorry Marc, are you serious? You didn’t accuse Furuhashi of anti-Semitism? You were “about 3 degrees away”? Anyone who reads your disgusting article, with all its talk of “dark Jewish forces” and “those damn ‘Jews’” would certainly get the opposite impression.
One can take issue with the article’s views on intervention in Darfur without resorting to slander or a smear. I guess you’re past that these days. Pinochet would be proud.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:25 am
PB.. you need a humor transplant. You read the second sentence of my post and did NOT detect that I was being sarcastic? “Dark forces” was satirical. Take a few minutes off from fighting imperialism and focus a bit better on the text before you.
Apart from the aberrant underlying political argument, that same argument led Yoshie to use some very unfortunate and what I clearly stated as unintentionally caustic language.
Sorry if you think that is out of bounds for discussion.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:25 am
P.S. Assuming that people like Jcummings, Jacob Levich, and Doug Henwood are actually interested in the substantive issues concerning the Darfur atrocity and what to do about it (with Yoshie Furuhashi clearly is not) …
Among the various progressive responses to Furuhashi’s MRZine pieces, one of the more detailed and systematic factual critiques of Furuhashi’s ravings is one by the Portland-area Darfur activist Chris Lowe being circulated by the “portside” list. Unfortunately, that one doesn’t seem to be readily internet-accessible. However, I notice that back in 2004 Lowe responded to some of the same pseudo-progressive pseudo-arguments by someone else, so this might be a place to start reading: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2004/2004-August/019004.html
–Jeff Weintraub
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:57 am
Not wanting to get in the middle of this argument, I would say only the following speaking of course only for myself (and as a Jew who is not the slightest bit self-hating): The sooner that Jewish groups acknowledge that genocide can mean people other than Jews are being slaugthered, the better as far as I am concerned. There is a long history of Jewish leaders wanting to keep this term restricted to the Holocaust and no other situation. Once this door is opened, it might actually be EASIER for progressive Jews as well as others to make the point that Israeli leaders engaged in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during and after the 1948 war–which they most definitely and documentably did and are still doing.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:18 am
Balter – there’s also a long history of “selective” genocide complaints on the part of the established Jewish community. IE, while I agree that its better that some establishment types are acknowledging others besides Jews as victims – at the same time…. To this day the Israeli holocaust museum doesn’t acknowledge the Turkish genocide of Armenians, for their dip. relationship with Turkey. The Jewish establishment looked the other way while open Neo-Nazis came ot power in Croatia and comitted the worst ethnic cleansing of the Balkan Wars, yet were vocal about Bosnia. Many neocons talk of Iraqi Kurds, while looking the other way at Turkish assaults on Kurds. While some liberal Jewish groups raised awareness of genocide comitted againt Mayans in the 80s, Israel sided with the killers and sent organizations to shut up the left. They did the same thing with Apartheid (Israel sided with South Africa til the end) – My own synagogue growing up – and this was my first memory of disilusionment with my community -was asked to rescind an invitation to Desmond Tutu.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:18 am
I would say only the following speaking of course only for myself (and as a Jew who is not the slightest bit self-hating): The sooner that Jewish groups acknowledge that genocide can mean people other than Jews are being slaugthered, the better as far as I am concerned. Uh, great. We’re there. Jewish groups far and wide are acknowledging exactly that, have acknowledged exactly that, and will continue to acknowledge exactly that. Hence, for instance, the whole Darfur involvement thing. You may have heard something about it.
Speaking of straw men. I’m sorry Marc, are you serious? You didn’t accuse Furuhashi of anti-Semitism? It is surprising to me to see that people consistently are incapable of distinguishing criticism of an argument — in the real world, we call this debate — with criticism of the person making the argument.
Marc doesn’t know nor claim to know, nor claim to judge, the author. He claims to judge the arguments on their merits. He responds with his own arguments. A torrent of voices here seek to silence him by, rather than responding to his arguments, attempting to position them as beyond the pale, illegitimate, or out of bounds.
Sad. Still, here’s a suggestion: instead of mustering outrage and how-dare-you-criticise and generally attacking Marc’s right to speak, simply respond with argumetns of your own. It’s really not that hard.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:34 am
I welcome the point made by Michael Balter, which should be obvious–but apparently is not obvious to some of the people involved in this exchange. (I should add, by the way, that American Jews also got very upset by the mass murder of European Muslims in Bosnia, as well as other recent atrocities, so it would be wrong to suggest that they have cared only about Jewish suffering.) If American Jews decide to protest the genocidal mass murder of African Muslims in Darfur–and, by the way, this has been a broadly-based grass-roots response, contrary to Furuhashi’s absurd insinuations–then this should be applauded. To suggest, instead, that Jewish support for the “Save Darfur” coalition is a reason to smear it as an imperialist tool is, to put it generously, perverse.
=> With regard to some of the remarks by Jcummings …
It is probably a mistake to assume that you meant these comments to be taken seriously, but just in case …
> 1. Jcummings Says:
> May 3rd, 2006 at 9:17 am
>
> I.E. not all of those who rallied are calling for war. On James Zogby – well – I doubt he’s for war – but when was the last time a mainstream Jewish leader made speeches at a rally for Palestinians?
>
If you are actually interested in the substance of the issues about Darfur and the “Save Darfur” rally (unlike, e.g., Yoshie Furuhashi) … I advise you to read James Zogby’s speech and explain how its message differed in any significant way from the message of the other main speakers at the rally–who included Muslims, Christians, Jews, Democrats, (a few) Republicans, a Rwandan, a Bosnian, and several Darfuris, among others.
Also, if you really believe that the Bush administration is panting to send troops to Sudan, then you are living on a diferent planet from the one I’m on.
> On James Zogby – well – I doubt he’s for war – but when was the last time a mainstream Jewish leader made speeches at a rally for Palestinians?
And the relevance of this point to any of the actual issues involved here is … ? I’m glad to see that you have a well-stocked supply of irrelevant clichés, but please spare me. I’ve heard them before.
> 1. Jcummings Says:
> May 3rd, 2006 at 9:14 am
>
> So an alleged socialist thinks someone has to be either “for†or “against†something. By your logic, since you presumably oppose, say, Putin’s colonial war in Chechnya, then you endorse Beslan.
>
OK, I realize that this was not meant as a serious question, just as a cheap debating point, but as long as you ask ….
Thursday, September 9, 2004 The Beslan massacre (Normblog) [http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2004/09/meaning-of-terrorism-normblog.html]
> 1.
>
> This is not an allegation of a plot. The coalition of people who want to help Darfurians is clearly heterogenous, but some are more clean-handed than others.
>
I see from these remarks that you haven’t actually read Furuhashi’s pieces on this subject. Frankly, you’re fortunate. But before you start defending her, you should at least take the trouble to read what she said. It should then be clear to you that Marc Cooper was right on target.
Cheers,
Jeff Weintraub
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:36 am
This is one of those posts that you don’t wanna go anyway near… not even with a 10′ pole. Not unless you’re particularly skilled at tap-dancing around in a minefield.
I’ll just say this. My main concern about the Darfur movement is not who is behind it, but the simple fact that there aren’t any good options for putting a halt to the genocide… and yes, genocide is precisely what it is.
Where exactly on the African continent (let’s leave other areas and interventions aside for the moment) has military “interventionism” “worked”? And by “worked” I mean actually alleviated conflict and suffering.
Somalia? Angola? Congo? Senegal? Namibia? Liberia? Is there even one example of such an “intervention” in Africa whose end result hasn’t been more bloodshed, more displacement and more suffering?
Leaving the question of organizers aside, I don’t think that the vast majority of Darfur activists harbor any ulterior motives, other than wanting to put a stop to what’s going on. I just don’t believe that “Out of Iraq, Into Darfur” is going to acheive the desired result. Just the opposite, in fact.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:53 am
What’s creepy about this article is that it treats Jews who oppose the genocide in Sudan and who seek intervention as part of the same faction of Jews who are part of the neocon movement. Instead of a monolith, I see very different factions and a much more liberal constituency inciting this kind of action. Furuhashi’s incomprehensible belief that intervention is wrong (anti-imperialism over human rights) blinds her to the fact that the American Jewish World Service isn’t anything like the Project for the New American Century.
As to whether it’s mere stuptidity or something more insidious, I can’t really tell; although, I sure as hell don’t like this sentence:
“The fact that the aggressors in Darfur ar Arab Muslims — though it should be said that the victims are also mostly Muslim — and are supported by a regime in Khartoum that is backed by the Arab Leage has made some people question the true motives of some of the Jewish organizations involved in the rally.”
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:04 am
Mavis Beacon wrote:
That is not my sentence — that’s a quotation from an article in the Jerusalem Post (Gal Beckerman, “US Jews Leading Darfur Rally Planning,” 27 April 2006) that I cited in my piece.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:05 am
I’m not gonna argue with Weintraub. I read Yoshie’s pieces – and actually (and I feel bad about htis) was the one who posted them here. My point about clean vs. dirty hands was to contrast the clearly grassroots majority of the marchers, and the political convenience of the rally to the powers that be, Jewish establishment and otherwise. My point about a Jew speaking at a Pro-Palestinian rally underscores that Mainstream Arab Americans are comfortable criticizing overseas actions by Arabs, yet establishment Jewish groups won’t criticize overseas action by Jews.
My point about Beslan was misunderstood – it was simply a critique of Weintraub’s manichean logic that if one criticizes and opposes some elements of the Darfur movement than ipso-facto, one is pro-genocide. In reality ,things are more complex than that – and I see that Weintraub is comfortable opposing both Putin and Chechen terrorism, rendering his logic syllogistic and stupid.
To add to Abbas’s statement – humanitarian intervention has worked twice in history ,and only by nations that didn’t have imperial pretensions. One was Vietnam’s overthrow of the Khmer Rouge, the other was India’s help to Bangladesh. The United States, going back to their Auschwitz ignoring actions in WW2, has no desire to help anyone.
And Mavis should not be disturbed by the questioning of motivations of those who apologize for Israel anymore than someone should be disturbed by questioning of motivations of antiwar activists who have some questionable positions.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:19 am
Jcummings: ugh! Implying that this coalition of pro-Israel and not so pro-Israel Jews all deserve their motivations questioned because they are Jewish and therefore may want to see Muslim Africans killed, even as they profess the opposite, is a disgusting perspective.
And plenty of Jewish groups criticize Isreal; I’m sorry they aren’t Establishment enough for you. What a convenient standard you employ.
Yoshie, I’m sorry for implying those were your words, though my sense is, that like Cummings, you count yourself among those who would question the motives of Jews who support intervention. I see that as getting very, very close to anti-semitism.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:25 am
I can’t speak for Yoshie, but I presume she would feel the same way as I: to question the motivation of those who have pre-existing sympathies towards human-rights abusing states is elementary to politics. As a Jew, I feel I have the right ot criticize other Jews. As to nonJews doing so, I am (mostly) OK with it – after all, criticizing Christians or Muslims’ motivation on this issue or that is never deemed offensive. I nver implied what Mavis inferred re wanting to see Muslim Africans killed.
We both know that the Jewish establishment does not criticize Israel and marginilizes those who do. If you think, say, AIPAC and Brit Tzedek have the same power and the same access to power, then you don’t understand what I’m saying.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 am
As I mentioned yesterday in another thread, my daughter went to the rally with her school, was moved and educated by it. Both my kids go to Orthodox Jewish high schools and both have heard presentations on Darfur at their schools. From what they’ve reported, the emphasis has been simply on the prevention of genocide and the special obligation for Jews to respond proactively in this situation. There was no emphasis (and I asked them about this) on the fact that Arabs were involved, that this was an opportunity to portray Arabs in a bad light, to score political PR points etc etc. As Jeff Weintraub points out, Jewish organizations were also vocal on preventing mass killing in the Balkans.
Anyone who knows anything about Ruth Messinger, knows she’s an exceedingly decent woman (too decent for her own good when she ran for mayor of NY). Her organization seeks to involve Jews in helping others throughout the world and has no other, darker agenda.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:43 am
I forgot to note that Ruth Messingers organization coordinated the rally.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:52 am
Mavis Bacon wrote: “Yoshie, I’m sorry for implying those were your words, though my sense is, that like Cummings, you count yourself among those who would question the motives of Jews who support intervention. I see that as getting very, very close to anti-semitism.”
I question the motives of all — evangelicals, establishment Jews, the Bush administration, Sudanese exiles, Democratic politicians, James Zogby, etc. — who are promoting a US intervention in Sudan.
At the same time, my writing was motivated by two kinds of astonishment:
(1) Washington is already engaged in two shooting wars and trying hard to create an international consensus for sanctions or a war on Iran; Washington is getting short on troops; and gas prices are up, which may eventually go up to the point that really damages the world as well as US economy, if Washington keeps getting directly involved in more and more conflicts at the present rate; given all these facts and trends, how can anyone — even Bush — think we need or can afford ONE MORE WAR?
(2) Why don’t Jewish leaders — especially liberal ones — realize that a US intervention in yet another predominantly Muslim country is likely to increase terrorism, especially against Jews, thus clearly against interests of Jews?
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
evets: “As I mentioned yesterday in another thread, my daughter went to the rally with her school, was moved and educated by it.”
Yeah, my sister and two of my co-workers attended the really. All three were also deeply moved by what they saw and heard.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Ah, nuts. “really” should be “rally” in the above post.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Yeh Haw!
http://technorati.com/search/marccooper.com%2Fits-those-jews-again%2F
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/marc-cooper-darfur-and-the-jews/
>…He got a head’s up on Yoshie’s articles from a character named Michael Pugliese who doesn’t have the guts to join the FBI outright but prefers to snoop on people as an unpaid volunteer.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I am sure, then, you will question the motives of these groups with equal gusto: http://www.savedarfur.org/about/signatories
I look forward to your takedown of The Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. Make ‘em scream.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:47 pm
What Marc, Jeff, Michael B. and Mavis said. Frankly, I’m appalled at what I’m reading here!
Look, just to be clear, I don’t think Mearsheimer and Walt went quite far enough. So that’s where I stand on that subject.
But the Big L Leftest demand for purity of intention, rather than EVER getting anything FUCKING accomplished is beyond rational comprehension. Grow the fuck up.
Yoshi, admittedly I don’t know your writing past this one piece, so I’ll take everyone’s word for it that you do much good with your work. Moreover it’s admirable that you showed up here, knowing that you’d take some punches. But, to a brand new reader the piece did skate perilously close to a bias that, shall we say, isn’t very attractive.
Abbas, of course, makes a good point. This thing is anything but easy. But to believe that nothing can be done is immoral and absurd. By the way JC, of course Vietnam had self-serving, quasi imperialistic intentions, but we’re bloody thankful they threw out the Khmer Rouge anyway.
Some kind of wise but immediate intervention is needed in Darfur. Period. Dithering about who has the right credentials to say so is a luxury that only the comfortably distant…. and the dead…can afford.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I meant that it is a GOOD thing that Vietnam knocked out the Khmer Rouge. I hope that was obvious. I was contrasting true humanitarian intervention (Vietnam vs. Khmer Rouge, India vs. Genocidal Pakistan in Bangladesh) with American style humanitarian intervention (Somalia?)
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
OK IF WE BELIEVE THEY ARE INNOCENT WHAT ABOUT THE ROW OVER IRAN’S ENRICHING URANIUM.ONE NEEDS TO BE AN IDIOT TO THINK OTHERWISE AFTER ANNOUNCEMENTS OF ISRAELI LEADERS.WHY THE WORLD KEEPS SILENT OVER ISRAELI MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS?
TO LEARN MORE PLEASE VISIT
http://wakeup.to/computer
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Yoshie, there was no clue in your post that you wished to distance yourself in the slightest from the sentence you now bravely point out you didn’t write.
Generally: the perspective taken by Yoshie and her defenders here makes sense if you accept as the ultimate truth of politics that the US is always the biggest problem in any situation, and watching out for any eventuality that may further the interests of the US as you imagine them to be is almost the sole calling of the politically-minded.
I’m not like that.
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:45 pm
rosedog -
I know we discussed the Walt and Mearsheimer thing in a bygone thread, but since you just mentioned it, I thought I’d draw your attention to this article about them in Salon which I thought was on the money.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/18/lobby/index.html
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Paul wrote: “Yoshie, there was no clue in your post that you wished to distance yourself in the slightest from the sentence you now bravely point out you didn’t write.”
Right after the Jerusalem Post article, I say, “Should we laugh or should we cry?” And in the second piece, I add:
Like many Jewish and non-Jewish leftists, I’ve spent quite a bit of time arguing against the myth that Jewish communities rooted for the Iraq War, by promulgating poll results that show higher levels of Jewish opposition to the Iraq War than the US average. Here’s a new development: establishment Jews (who aren’t neo-cons or other sorts of right-wing fringes of the communities) standing side by side with many Christians and only a few Muslims, taking central leadership for a new US military intervention (on its own or through NATO) in a predominantly Muslim country.
It boggled my mind (in a way predictable evangelical involvement didn’t): how could the Jewish leaders involved in this believe that this is good for Jewish communities? ?? ???
Later again, I looked into the speakers list and learned of a heavily
Democrat lineup — Pelosi, Obama, Sharpton, etc. — and it made some “sense” in a narrow electoral sense; and I thought of Israel’s stance toward Sudan, the way the Darfur conflict has been framed by the media, and other factors that may have led to this new development and make “sense” psychologically; but over all I still don’t think that the Jewish leaders’ initiative and central leadership in this campaign squares with material interests of ordinary Jews. If Washington does send its troops to Sudan in response to this campaign, do you think Muslims in Sudan and elsewhere will be grateful to Jews? If you believe that, you are still living the fantasy of Iraqi liberation — US troops being greeted with rice and flowers.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
All of these familiar names, all this sweetness and light brings me back to the good ol’ days of Doug’s LBO-list when Internet trollery was but in its infancy.
Yes Sudan has oil and is Muslim and Israel is sorta nearby. However, the evidence is plain that people are trying to stop the genocide just to stop it, not to further U.S. imperialism. I have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise. In fact I’m pretty sure NATO will do nothing because of the West’s callousness. Who gives a shit about Africa, anyhow? I doubt the U.S. will attack Iran either. As the November elections will demonstrate, Americans have grown tired of Iraq and helping out the wider world.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Rosedog, you write some good stuff, but you’re not reading carefully the actual responses of Yoshie to Marc’s lame criticisms. Reread them, their a helluva lot stronger in content than Marc’s avoidance of actual arguments. Doug H is right on this one, Marc just rides the wave without even thinking about his sources or actual content of arguments.
Little of Yoshie’s arguments look anti-semitic, nor is there really any serious case to be made that Monthly Review has ‘fallen’ as Marc claims. I mean come on, this is the same guy who claimed that MR had blown it by publishing an interview with someone who promoted the immigrant workers’ boycott.
Well, we know who turned out right in that debate now. Yoshie’s more than carefully refuted Cooper’s attacks. It’s Cooper who has not taken seriously debate with the left. Hell, he’ll probably kick off people from the blog comments board for not agreeing with him that Yoshie’s arguments are anti-semitic….
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Evets…. I’d missed the Salon piece on the Walt and Mearsheimer paper. Thanks for flagging it. It’s thoughtful, nuanced and generally excellent.
(Although I’m so outraged at the mendacious Alan Dershowitz I’m loath to see him quoted in any positive context. But I don’t pretend that’s an entirely healthy outlook.)
JC, I understood you were praising Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia but, again: No. Their motive was not primarily humanitarian at all. It was strategic. Nevertheless, it accomplished a desperately needed humanitarian goal of getting the murderous Pol Pot and company out.
Here’s the short form: The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese government had originally been allies. But then the KR started talking about annexing Vietnamese land they considered to traditionally belong to Cambodia. When the Vietnamese weren’t pleased, the KR started massacring ethnic Vietnamese (among others). Meanwhile, China was backing the KR in an effort to keep Vietnam in line, and to shore up its own hegemony in the region. Feeling itself in a vice between China-leaning Cambodia, and China itself, the Vietnamese turned to the Russians, who saw a pain-free opportunity to fight the Chinese by proxy. Hence they backed the Vietnamese, who easily swept Pol Pot and the KR to the boarder.
At that point, in America, we were still stinging over our own defeat in Vietnam and, in a fit of morally reprehensible pique, refused to allow humanitarian supplies to be trucked or flown into Cambodia to rescue the starving populace simply because the country’s new government was still being pretty much controlled by Vietnam. Many Cambodians died as result.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:26 pm
It’s also good to remember that many “establishment” Jews argued for stopping the genocide against the Muslims of Bosnia even though there wasn’t any oil in the former Yugoslavia. Were the Muslims there grateful?
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Aaron, I appreciate your comment. And I agree that Yoshi’s comments here have been thoughtful and measured. But the original piece still strikes me as desperately wrong-headed and destructively politicized.
As Peter K said, “… the evidence is plain that people are trying to stop the genocide just to stop it, not to further U.S. imperialism. …”
And, okay, yeah, sure, certainly some of the groups have agendas, but in the end that just doesn’t hold the highest card. Our fellow humans are being slaughtered in great numbers right this minute. Active genocide is the one clear time when military intervention in a sovereign nation is called for.
Assuredly, it’s a tricky business. And frankly, US troops are the last folks who should go in. We should, instead, provide equipment and technical assistance. There are many who believe only African troops should go in, while others worry that they might be the most easily paid off. But people of good will put aside their personal politics for a second or two, I believe they can choose the best out of a lot of imperfect choices, and go for it.
And what’s all this nonsense about gratitude????Who gives a damn if the mothers and children in Darfur are grateful. At least they’ll be alive.
Okay, I’m outa here. Back to work.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
This will be brief because I am working. Which is precisley my first point. I operate this blog for the enjoyment of all. Its not my job and it aint gonna become my job either. So I neither have tjhe time nor even less the inclination to respond to every challenge. I’m hardly ducking. I’m working.
One irony aboUt this debate… The same redder than though revolutionaries who argue that the move to stop the murder in Darfur is polluted by Zionists, imperilists and “sleazy warmongers” are the very same people who see ,,,,no problem in allying the peace movement with either the maoists of the RCP or with the cultist prO North korean worshippers in ANSWeWr. Rather curious.
Anyway I second the nitid remarks of Peter K and Rosedog.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
What Rosedog said about gratitude! As if prominent Jews must always be concerned about the “material interests of ordinary Jews.” Please. What about moral interests/convictions? Many, many Jews are opposed to all genocide for some pretty obvious reasons. Anyone who cannot instantaneously understand Jewish opposition to genocide truly misunderstands what it means to be Jewish.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Mavis Beacon: “Many, many Jews are opposed to all genocide for some pretty obvious reasons.”
Yeah, well the problem is that along with Marc Cooper, the blogger who is making this biggest stink about this is one Jeff Weintraub whose comments you can read above. On his own blog, he has a lengthy article by Israeli historian Benny Morris defending the Israeli army against charges that it is brutal. You may recall that Morris said these words to Ha’aretz:
“The desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. [...] Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.”
So, this concern about Darfur might certainly strike one as rather selective. Cruel acts seem to be okay when they benefit the Israeli state.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Hi Rosedog,
you said, “As Peter K said, “… the evidence is plain that people are trying to stop the genocide just to stop it, not to further U.S. imperialism. …—
This is the same Peter K who supported the invasion of Iraq for the same ‘reasons’ and made similar arguments about war hypers like Hitchens as only interested in helping Iraqis…That’s not a terribly helpful source in this man’s opinion.
Marc Cooper tells us, “So I neither have tjhe time nor even less the inclination to respond to every challenge. I’m hardly ducking. I’m working.”
I frankly don’t buy that copout for avoiding real debate. Yoshie also is working. I work full time. Probably Jordi Cumings does too. You do duck real arguments, including Yoshie’s thoughtful and sharp responses correcting your claims about her piece. It’s too bad, instead of serious debate, innuendo based on other source rules the day.
By the way folks, read this analysis of the Ohio loss by Kerry and tell me Monthly Review as Marc Cooper claims has fallen dramatically? Tell me where else you would find this level of analysis of why Kerry lost?
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0106straub.htm
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:46 pm
I too was perplexed by the statement about the “material interests of ordinary Jews.†Is this merely disingenuous, or does Yoshie really espouse a politics where competing groups look out for their immediate self-interest, where such behavior is valued.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Rosedog wrote: “And frankly, US troops are the last folks who should go in.”
At least we agree on that. But not everyone at the “Save Darfur” rally appeared to think so. There was one speaker — a Southern Baptist, I recall — who said that Washington should go in on its own if other countries failed to respond. And there was applause. That opinion may not be widely shared among organizers. But Bush being Bush, giving him any excuse whatsoever to start up a new campaign is extremely dangerous. Otherwise, organizers are being naïve.
Rosedog also wrote: “Aaron, I appreciate your comment. And I agree that Yoshi’s comments here have been thoughtful and measured. But the original piece still strikes me as desperately wrong-headed and destructively politicized.”
When I wrote the two pieces that generated controversy, I was frankly astonished by the idea of a rally calling for a US intervention in Sudan now (as I said in the first paragraph of the first piece). Step out of your shoes for one moment and try to picture that from the POV of a person — especially a Muslim — in another country. Here we are, into the third year in the Iraq War and the fourth year in the Afghan campaign, with rumors of Bush planning nuke strikes on Iran (whether or not they are just leaks intended for psychological warfare against Tehran or for pressures on Beijing and Moscow) circulating. What would that foreigner think of thousands of Americans rallying in DC demanding one more intervention in a predominantly Muslim country on top of all others, televised all over the place (unlike the anti-war rally in NYC the day before). She or he must think (if she or he hadn’t thought already) that America has no limits to its appetite for war. The rally organizers’ argument that it’s just a natural response to genocide in Sudan won’t convince her or him.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Funny–we’ve come full circle on the purity argument, as evidence by two comments (Marc and JCummings) which say the exact same thing, but with the variables reversed!
“bunch of folks with serious wrong-headed attitudes are bad for the antiwar movement, but those who are blatant apologists for breaking international law should be “welcomed?—
“The same redder than though revolutionaries who argue that the move to stop the murder in Darfur is polluted by Zionists, imperilists and “sleazy warmongers†are the very same people who see ,,,,no problem in allying the peace movement with either the maoists of the RCP or with the cultist prO North korean worshippers in ANSWeWr”
Translation:
So A is okay, but you have no problem with B?
vs.
So B is okay, but you have no problem with A?
Whereby A= impure anti-war groups
Whereby B= impure Zionist groups
Hey folks, you can’t have it both ways. It can’t be “protecting the movement from being hijacked by bad folk” when you do it, and “being ridiculously purist” when others do it.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/03/1357228
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2005
Bush Administration Allied With Sudan Despite Role in Darfur Genocide
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read
The Los Angeles Times has revealed that the U.S. has quietly forged a
close intelligence partnership with Sudan despite the government’s
role in the mass killings in Darfur. We speak with Ken Silverstein,
the reporter who broke the story, Salih Booker, the director of Africa
Action as well as Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ). [includes rush transcript]
http://www.sudanreeves.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=100
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:55 pm
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/000971.php
>…But under the blood-soaked sands of Darfur is oil , and Powell is
no longer secretary of state. You don’t see the Blair and Bush
governments plotting to justify a humanitarian military intervention
in that situation. No, we’re playing footsie with Sudan’s genocidal
regime, as Ken Silverstein of the Los Angeles Times reported from
Sudan in late April:
The Bush administration has forged a close intelligence
partnership with the Islamic regime that once welcomed Osama bin Laden
here, even though Sudan continues to come under harsh U.S. and
international criticism for human rights violations.
The Sudanese government, an unlikely ally in the U.S. fight
against terror, remains on the most recent U.S. list of state sponsors
of terrorism. At the same time, however, it has been providing access
to terrorism suspects and sharing intelligence data with the United
States.
[In late April], the CIA sent an executive jet to ferry the
chief of Sudan’s intelligence agency to Washington for secret meetings
sealing Khartoum’s sensitive and previously veiled partnership with
the administration, U.S. government officials confirmed.
…Federico Bordonaro, a Sorbonne scholar, captures that landscape
perfectly in “The Darfur Question at a Time of Increasing U.S.-China
Competition,” a new piece for the Power and Interest News Report:
Today’s American and Western attention for the Darfur question
has much to do with Khartoum’s new commercial and political ties with
Iran and—especially— China. Beijing’s attempt to gain influence in
Africa is in fact one of our age’s geopolitical novelties. Its main
goal is to acquire African oil and gas at favorable conditions, in
regions where Western oil majors must still compete for total control.
Beijing’s new African policy has been focused on Gabon, Nigeria, and
Sudan. It must be said, for the sake of accuracy, that Sino-Sudanese
relations are not entirely new, for the arms trade between the two
countries has been in place since the late ’60s.
Control over oil reserves is at the top of China’s wishes—and
Sudanese diffidence for the U.S. seems to be a good set-up for Chinese
penetration as a power broker. In 2003, China’s National Petroleum
Corp. planned to invest $1 billion to create Sudan’s largest oil
refinery. Moreover, as recent declarations from Sudanese Minister of
Energy and Mining Awad Ahmed Al-Jazz confirmed, a newly discovered oil
field expected to produce 500,000 barrels per day of crude oil is
located in the Darfur region. This latter is also the way to Chad, a
country well-known for its natural gas reserves.
Keep this in mind when you read about World Bank president Paul
Wolfowitz’s sudden concern for Africa. On the other hand, “sober and
tough-minded” is what I’d call Bordonaro’s shrewd estimate of the oil
politics being played in Africa:
At a time of growing strategic partnership between U.S.
geopolitical adversaries such as Iran and China, Sudan’s importance is
understandable in light of its energy assets and strategic position to
securitize the “Greater Middle East.”
Posted by Harkavy at 09:28 AM, June 02, 2005
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Peter K>…In fact I’m pretty sure NATO will do nothing because of the West’s callousness.
http://www.sudanreeves.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=100
>…THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND NATO
The Washington Post recently reported on what the Bush administration would evidently have Americans believe is US policy going forward:
“The Bush administration has settled on the idea of sending up to several hundred NATO advisers to help bolster African Union peacekeeping troops in their efforts to shield villagers in Sudan’s Darfur region from fighting between government-backed Arab militias and rebel groups, administration officials said. The move would include some US troops and mark a significant expansion of US and allied involvement in the conflict. So far, NATO’s role has been limited to airlifting African Union forces to the region and providing a few military specialists to help the peacekeeping contingent.â€
“The proposal, which still faces uncertain approval within NATO because of concerns that it could be a distraction from operations in Afghanistan, falls well short of more aggressive measures that some have advocated, such as sending ground combat troops or providing air patrols to protect peacekeepers and prevent the bombing of villages. These options have been ruled out as unnecessary at this time, an administration official said. [ ] Plans under consideration envision fewer than 500 NATO advisers.†(Washington Post, April 10, 2006)
“These [robust] options [to protect peacekeepers and prevent the bombing of villages] have been ruled out as unnecessary at this time‗such assessment of “necessity†represents unfathomable cynicism.
And “fewer than 500 NATO advisors†is a proposal aptly characterized subsequently by the Washington Post editorial pages:
“Back in 2004, the Bush administration described the killing in Darfur as genocide, then failed to stop it. Then in February of this year, the president spoke of deploying NATO troops to that region of Sudan; now this idea seems in danger of fizzling. According to the [Washington] Post’s Bradley Graham and Colum Lynch, the administration has in mind adding fewer than 500 NATO advisers to the existing 6,000-strong African Union peacekeeping contingent. The advisers would be assigned to the African Union headquarters and would not participate directly in field operations. A serious peacekeeping force would require 20,000 or so troops. Unless the administration supplements these proposed advisers with a more serious deployment, it will have capitulated.†(“A President’s Promise: Mr. Bush must not walk away from Darfur,†April 11, 2006)
As true as this assessment is, it must be understood in the context of the broader failure of the Bush administration to secure at least general agreement from Brussels before expediently leaking its “proposal.†For the “proposal†reported on April 10 by the Washington Post was greeted that same afternoon in Brussels with a peremptory dismissal:
“NATO spokeswoman, Carmen Romero, declined to comment on a report by the Washington Post newspaper that said the US backed a proposal to send several hundred NATO advisers to support an African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. ‘We are not talking of a NATO force in Darfur, this is out of the question,’ she said, adding any personnel would be involved only in logistical support or training.†(Reuters [dateline: Brussels], April 10, 2006)
“NATO officials gave a cautious response Monday to a [Washington Post] report that the US will propose sending several hundred alliance advisers to beef up an African peacekeeping mission in Sudan’s violence-wracked Darfur region. NATO military planners are drawing up options for boost the alliance’s support for the AU force in response to a request last month from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.â€
“However, officials at alliance headquarters said the US would struggle to persuade allies to commit so many troops. One official said the military planners were looking at dozens rather than hundreds of NATO experts to support the AU.†(Associated Press [dateline: Brussels], April 10, 2006
“Planners were looking at dozens rather than hundreds of NATO experts to support the AU.†This is the response of the Europeans countries in NATO to an already transparently inadequate US proposal; this is how Europe would respond to the urgent security needs of civilians in Darfur and eastern Chad, as well as the humanitarians providing a critical but highly tenuous lifeline.
Blame here must certainly be shared: the Bush administration for clearly doing no advance work to secure agreement for a proposal on Darfur, even a grossly inadequate proposal; and the Europeans countries in NATO for shamefully expressing a willing to commit only “dozens†of advisors to stop massive genocidal destruction and to stem the growing insecurity that threatens a wholesale collapse of humanitarian operations in a vast region, including large swathes of eastern Chad, that now far exceeds the size of France.
This response comes as all reports from Abuja, Nigeria suggest that there has been no diplomatic progress between the Darfur insurgency movements and Khartoum on the outstanding issues of power-sharing, wealth-sharing, and security issues. A deadline of April 30th—a little over two weeks from now—has been set by the African Union and endorsed by the UN Security Council. But these talks, extending back to November 2005, have reached a point where negotiations will proceed only with difficult political decisions by the two parties, decisions that have clearly not been made. Moreover, it cannot be emphasized often enough that the National Islamic Front—the only meaningful Sudanese diplomatic representation in Abuja—has never abided by a single agreement with any Sudanese party…not one, not ever. Recent assessments of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (January 2005) between that NIF and the southern Sudan People’s Liberation Movement offer considerable evidence of the multiple and manifest ways in which the NIF is yet again reneging on a signed commitment.
[See “The Impact of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the New Government of National Unity on Southern Sudan,†Human Rights Watch, March 2006; “Sudan: Policy Focus,†the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Winter 2006; and see especially “Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement: The Long Road Ahead,†International Crisis Group, March 31, 2006, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4055
In short, there is no evidence of diplomatic progress in Abuja; southern Sudan gives more evidence of NIF bad faith; and the actions by Khartoum in both Chad/Darfur and eastern Sudan give strong evidence that the regime may already be calculating that the costs of further reneging, and ongoing genocide as a domestic security policy, are simply not of sufficient significance---and that the international community will back down before the facile threats of genocidaires (such as President Beshir’s declaration that Darfur will become a “graveyard†for any intervening force).
THE BROADER INTERNATIONAL COWARDICE
Elsewhere, other actors within the international community are also abjectly failing Darfur. A Reuters dispatch from the UN in New York offers the blunt assessment of a number of observers:
“Efforts to stop atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region are unraveling, with a new peacekeeping force uncertain, relief aid under attack and UN sanctions stymied, UN officials and analysts say.†(Reuters, April 9, 2006)
The same dispatch reports on the continuing, shamefully prideful actions on the part of the African Union in refusing to recognize the need for urgent and broadly international humanitarian intervention in Darfur:
“AU Commission Chairman Alpha Oumar Konare recently presented options to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Among them was a UN peacekeeping mission. But Konare also suggested that the AU take command or at least work side by side with UN troops. Such solutions would doom a unified operation, said a top UN official, speaking on condition of anonymity.â€
Within the UN, Kofi Annan’s special representative for Sudan, Jan Pronk, continues to demonstrate a foolishness and perversity of instinct that has consistently undermined UN policy on Darfur:
“Jan Pronk, the UN envoy for Sudan, warned that any mention of NATO was a red flag to Muslims. ‘Western diplomacy is indeed extremely foolish at the moment,’ Pronk said.†(Reuters, April 9, 2006)
Presumably Pronk doesn’t mean here the Muslims being slaughtered in Darfur because of their ethnicity. They have made abundantly clear in a host of ways that they would eagerly welcome NATO or other international troops to protect them, their families, and the possibility of their resuming meaningful lives. Pronk himself has recently called for a force of 20,000 troops: where does he propose that they come from? And does he imagine that countries other than those within NATO can provide the kind of sophisticated military presence, transport capacity, intelligence, and tactical air support that Secretary-General Annan has explicitly called for? It is Pronk who is the fool, a status he has confirmed repeatedly over the past two years.
It was Pronk who was responsible for negotiating away in August 2004 the only meaningful UN Security Council “demand†that has yet been made of Khartoum, viz. that the regime disarm the Janjaweed and bring its leaders to justice. In place of this singularly important “demand†Pronk negotiated instead (also in August 2004) a plan for “safe areas†in Darfur, one that proved as ill-conceived as the “safe areas†plan for Bosnia (it was quietly abandoned by the UN shortly afterwards when it became clear that “the plan†did nothing but offer Khartoum diplomatic cover for its expanding military offensive along the Tawilla/Gereida corridor).
Pronk has also at various points perversely refused to accept the overwhelming evidence that Khartoum has recruited, supplied, and consistently militarily coordinated with the Janjaweed---evidence that was most authoritatively assembled by Human Rights Watch in December 2005 (“Entrenching Impunity: Government Responsibility for International Crimes in Darfurâ€). And it is Pronk who has also proved adept at angering many within the UN community working in Sudan by insisting on assuming responsibilities that are neither his nor within his competence (an excellent example is Pronk’s highly unjustified insistence on taking a leading role for himself in the critical Assessment and Evaluation Commission for the north/south peace agreement; see International Crisis Group, “Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement: The Long Road Ahead,†page 27).
In speaking so foolishly and in such cowardly fashion about the need for robust humanitarian intervention, including use of NATO forces---precisely what has been called for by the UN Secretary-General---Pronk ensures only that the chances of deploying any force, even of the sort he himself has vaguely called for, are increasingly remote.
In another foolish comment by a usually sensible UN official, Juan Mendez, special advisor on the prevention of genocide, has said of Darfur: “Left unattended, the situation may degenerate into genocide†(Deutsche Presse Agentur, April 7, 2006).
This remark has a ghastly irony on the occasion of the 12th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide---though Mendez had the honesty to declare that “debates about troop strength on the ground and about mandate were very eerily reminiscent of what happened in Rwanda.â€
In fact, all evidence points, unambiguously, to current genocide in Darfur---to deliberate, ethnically-targeted human destruction that has already claimed in excess of 400,000 lives. Khartoum’s regular military forces and Janjaweed proxy militia have deliberately destroyed not only the people of the African tribal groups of Darfur, they have “deliberately inflicted on the [African tribal groups] conditions of life calculated to bring about [their] physical destruction in whole or in part†(1948 UN Genocide Convention, Article 2, clause [c]). The evidence here is simply overwhelming (see especially “Darfur: Assault on Survival,†Physicians for Human Rights, January 2006, at http://www.phrusa.org/research/sudan/news_2006-01-11.html).
Here again, perversely, comments from a UN official (one responsible for “genocide preventionâ€) only diminish the chances of humanitarian intervention to stop ongoing genocide. Precisely because genocide is already occurring, and because all NATO countries are contracting parties to the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, a forthright genocide determination must at the very least bring powerful moral pressure to bear on countries that have so far committed only “dozens†of advisors to stop the vast and accelerating human destruction in Da
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:12 pm
A real rightist ‘sez…
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060434&s=kaplan040224
IRAQ, DARFUR, AND AMERICAN POWER.
Crisis Intervention
by Lawrence F. Kaplan
Only at TNR Online | Post date 04.24.06
>…Then again, the use of unilateral U.S. military power isn’t the solution most Darfur activists have in mind. Even as western Sudan burns, Darfur advocates such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argue that the United States must employ its military power only on behalf of–and, more important, in concert with–international organizations such as the United Nations. The Save Darfur Coalition, a leading umbrella group for organizations bent on action, intends to save Darfur not by urging the Bush administration to launch air strikes against Sudan’s murderous militias but by petitioning the White House to bolster funding for African Union peacekeepers and to lobby the United Nations.
But will the African Union put a halt to the killings in Darfur? Absolutely not. Its Arab members have stymied the force at every turn. Will the United Nations solve the crisis? That seems extremely unlikely as well. The organization amounts first and foremost to a collection of sovereign states, many of them adamantly opposed to violating Sudan’s own sovereignty. Can NATO save the day? Not really, given the fears of entanglement expressed by its European members. As in Bosnia before it, the victims of Darfur can be saved by one thing and one thing alone: American power.
Unfortunately for the victims of Darfur, too many of their advocates have come to view that power as tainted, marred by self-interest and by its misapplication in Iraq. Hence, the contradiction at the heart of the Darfur debate, which pits the imperative to halt the persecution of innocents (Darfur activists have enshrined as their motto the biblical admonition not to “stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor”) against a reflexive opposition to the only power that can actually do so.
With the latter sentiment in vogue as a result of the Iraq war, it is as if nothing has been learned and nothing remembered from the decade that went before. Never mind Bosnia. Never mind Kosovo. And, as long as Darfur activists like number two Senate Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois cling to the mantra that the United States must be what he calls a “defensive nation,” well, never mind Darfur either.
There are a few “progressive” Darfur activists who are willing to contemplate a military solution, but they face a thorny moral dilemma. The most vocal among them argue at once for Darfur’s rescue and Iraq’s abandonment, as if this counts as evidence of heightened moral awareness. But their willingness to exchange one moral catastrophe for another–a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, after all, would spark a humanitarian crisis and bloodbath of exactly the same magnitude that activists mean to halt in Darfur–is really proof of the reverse. Yet that doesn’t seem to have occurred to those like New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, one of the most persistent advocates for launching an intervention in Darfur and also for winding down an intervention in Iraq.
Nor does the contradiction seem to have made an impression on organizations from Americans for Democratic Action to the National Council of Churches, which insist that we act in Darfur even as they insist that we evacuate Iraq without condition and regardless of consequence. In moral and humanitarian terms–that is, the very terms used to justify halting the slaughter in Darfur–their position is simply incoherent.
So, yes, march on Washington. Comfort your sensibilities. Testify to your virtue and good intentions. Offer assurance that your call to action is not a call for the unilateral or unprovoked exercise of American power. But don’t pretend that Darfur will be saved by anything else.
This column originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
http://www.tnr.com/doc_posts.mhtml?i=w060434&s=kaplan040224
Kaplan’s argument does not withstand serious scrutiny (7 of 112)
posted by mattwilshire on 2006-04-24 10:03:13 [warn tnr] [respond]
Kaplan’s theory – essentially that you can’t be sincere in your desire to stop the genocide in Darfur unless you’re willing to support unilateral American military action and indefinite occupation in Iraq – rests on several flawed assumptions.
The first is that the progressive activists he attacks cannot reasonably believe that multilateral action is possible in Iraq. Kaplan clearly believes that the UN/NATO will not do anything, notwithstanding NATO’s intervention in Bosnia. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion. But aren’t the protesters entitled to believe that they might influence these international institutions to do something? Again, they have in the past (Bosnia), and there have been rumblings that a UN force may be deployed to Darfur sometime in the near future. I think it is embarrassing that the UN hasn’t taken action yet, but that doesn’t mean that it will never do so in the future. In any event, even if you think that calling for multilateral action is futile, that does not establish that those who disagree with you are not trying to stop the genocide in Darfur in good faith.
Another mistake made by Kaplan is his glib assumption that it is clear that unilateral action by the U.S. will permanently end the genocide. To his credit, Kaplan concedes that we can’t have a large number of troops on the ground in Iraq and Sudan. (Many hawks refuse to even concede this basic fact.) Instead, he proposes airstrikes against the Sudanese militias. Given the vast expanse of territory in the Darfur region, the difficulty inherent in locating third world militias, and the nature of the conflict, the chance of a bombing campaign ending the genocide seems very low to me. Moreover, even if such a campaign could halt the genocide, actually solving the humanitarian crisis in Darfur requires troops on the ground to stabalize the situtation. And it might take years before it stabalizes. Progressives who want to save Darfur without a unilateral bombing campaign have probably reached the same conclusion. Again, they’re not acting out of bad faith in their opposition to this option.
Finally, Kaplan posits that those who argue for a reduction in troops in Iraw and a redeployment of them to Darfur aren’t morally serious because, in his mind, it is obvious that any withdrawal of US troops will lead to a bloodbath (as opposed to what it is now, apparently) in Iraq at least equivalent to what we’re seeing (or are likely to see) in Darfur. But, of course, many people, including Kaplan’s collegue Spencer Ackerman, reasonably believe that a withdrawal of US troops will lead to greater long term stability in Iraq, and fewer deaths. If Kristoff, for example, believes that reducing troop levels in Iraq would save lives there, then there’s no moral contradiction in his call for a redeployment to Darfur.
Kaplan seems to be arguing that if you don’t accept his views on what troop withdrawal would mean for Iraq and on the possibility for sucessful multilateral action in Darfur, then you must be morally inferior to him. That’s a cheap way to win an argument.
Considering its obvious flaws, this article confirms for me what I’ve long suspected about certain liberal hawks that keep harraunging us to “do something” in Darfur: they don’t actually care about Darfur so much as want to use it as an excuse to bash liberals for not not supporting the Iraq misadventure. If Kaplan really cared about what was happening in Sudan, you would expect him to be pleased that so many people are honestly trying to stop the genocide, even if he believes that some of their solutions are misguided. Instead, he can’t help but sneer at these people. And for no other reason than the fact that they were right about Iraq (and still are), and he was wrong (and still is).
(8
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:56 pm
As I was saying, Pugliese is a troll.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Michael appears to have either not read or not understood articles like this one
http://zena.secureforum.com/znet/zmag/articles/april96shalom.htm
Neither wing of the foreign policy establishment is concerned about the fate of people faced with genocide in Africa, much less elsewhere in the world. To believe they are is to delude oneself in a liberal fantasy.
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:22 pm
“The room burst into applause, however, when AJCommittee board member Edith Everett asked Mehlman to “take a message†to President Bush to stop linking Israel and Iran.
“It does not help Israel and it does not help American Jews to appear to be stimulators of any action against Iran,†Everett said.
”
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=2450
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:54 pm
“As I was saying, Pugliese is a troll.”
Seems to me he made some solid points – though may be a touch overzealous with the cutting and pasting.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Marc–of course you were being sarcastic. But the effect was still to smear Yoshie as an anti-Semite. The fact that the smear is tongue-in-cheek doesn’t make it any less ugly. At least you’re trying to justify this–it gives me hope that leftism can’t die in someone that quickly. Give it a few months and you won’t even need sarcasm.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Michael, Puh….liese. Preface your reports with summaries. My scrolling finger hurts.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
“Here we are, into the third year in the Iraq War and the fourth year in the Afghan campaign, with rumors of Bush planning nuke strikes on Iran….. What would that foreigner think of thousands of Americans rallying in DC demanding one more intervention in a predominantly Muslim country on top of all others, She or he must think America has no limits to its appetite for war.”
Actually Yoshie. Many would think Muslim countries seem to have no limits to the havoc
they creates in an otherwise civilized world. You appear to be willing to let them do it, including genocide, if it means the big satan must do the intervening.
We all have our list of evils in rank order, don’t we.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Really? I didn’t know of a Muslim country that has invaded another country recently on transparently fake premises in order to show that it, well, could.
Egypt? Indonesia [save its illegal and US supported occupation of Timor...ok]? Malaysia? Turkey [ok, save the Kurds they occupy and eat for breakfast each morning with US support]. Saudi Arabia [ok, so they're a US ally, don't count].
I’m sure our intervention will be greatly successful in bringing peace to the world, no less than the Iraq adventure has? And, hey, I thought Mexico was our big enemy to hear the nativists tell it? Gosh, I need a scorecard to keep track of our enemies. Go get ‘em Jimbo. Flex that macho muscle, only 2,407 dead in that weakling country of Iraq so far…and 15,000 injured.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Jim says: “Many would think Muslim countries seem to have no limits to the havoc they creates in an otherwise civilized world. You appear to be willing to let them do it, including genocide, if it means the big satan must do the intervening.”
If you believe that Washington can do in Sudan what it can’t do in Iraq (e.g., bring law and order, at the very minimum), well, you can believe just about anything without evidence. You might as well believe that Bush is a Santa Claus. :-0
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Well Aaron, shall we start with the ones Yoshie listed first. Afghanistan attacked the big satan itself, Iraq attacked Kuwait and Israel, and Iran threatens to attack Israel while working on peaceful nuclear projects in case it runs low on oil
The left will forever be dragged kicking and screaming, like spoiled children, along the difficult road to adulthood by adults.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Yoshie gets credit for coming in here and tenaciously and seriously defending her position. That earns what we call respect. Beyind our differences, I thank you for your contributions and efforts today to explain and argue your case.
After reading through all this I stick to my original position, thanks very much. This is not an issue about what’s good for the Jews or what’s good for Bush, but rather what if anything can be done to stop the mass murder in Darfur. The protests of last week were organized by a mixed bag with conflicting agendas, but that’s what politics is about — the art of coalition. Currently the Net Neutrality movement, for example, is supported by KOS and by the pro-machine gun Gun Owners of America. Im sure the GOA has an agenda far beyond the net access issue, but OK. Ditto for the support for the 4th amendment and against more noxious aspects of Patriot Act coming from Bob Barr and Dick Armey. I say welcome, my brothers.
What continues to bug me in terms of Yoshie’s arguments is her notion of some specifity about Jews. I know her intention is not anti-semitic, but intentions… well, you know the rest. I find this sort of reasoning not only inherently perilous but particularly rare coming from a Marxist, from someone who ought to be rejecting the notion that different religious persuasions have some sort of disparate interests beyond, say, their class and social interests.
What on earth does she mean by this or that foreign policy being more or less in the interest of American Jews? Or estabishment Jews? Is there some US foreign policy that more or less favors American Catholics or Presbyterians? Sorry, this is where I get lost… and a bit spooked.
Im not stupid about this and I understand the deeper implications about pro-Israeli lobbies, for example. But that’s what they are: pro-Israeli lobbies — not “establishment Jews.”
The latter is language that requires, I think, some real clarification and some very thoughtful deployment, if at all.
Beyond the Jewish issue per se, I continue to think that Yoshie is plain wrong. And focused on the wrong issue. If ONLY the Bush admin was as far along the pro-intervention in Darfur continuum that she fears! While I would be reticent to support a full-blown US intervention, I also fear that too little is and will be done.
Anyway, kudos to Yoshie for taking the heat and responding to all comers.
I also want to respond to Comrade J Cummings: Don’t get an inflated view of urself. I’m not a big fan of ur comments and tend not to read them very intently. The story of Darfur and MR came to me not by you but rather from Micahel Pugliese– not a “troll” as you brand him, but someone Ive been in regular contact with for years. You did, however, provide today’s only comic relief by claiming the Vietbamese intervened into Cambodia for humanitarian reasons. Wow… can u possibly believe that? If true, why didn’t they intervene in Hanoi to liberate the Vietnamese from a totalitarian one-party dictatorship?
Some other posters today have made a vivid display of why so many people are completely turned off by the methods and manners of the Left. The guilt-by-association tactic– of deriding a rival’s argument by claiming that he or she “runs with” this or that heretic, or that one is a policeman, or a sleazy mongerer because one dissents, is really, really nauseating. It always tells us much more about the slinger rather than the target.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
“Afghanistan attacked the big satan itself, I”
Yeah, sure it did, and so did Moosowee also I guess. You guys havnen’t got a clue who attacked you, thus your belief you’ve accomplished something macho with the attack on Iraq. Iraq’s attacks on Kuwait…hmmm…that had nothing to do with US support for so may years as a belligerent state…we didn’t push them in that direction at all, eh? And Iraq a Muslim state? It used to be pretty secular as I remember, awful relations with the fundies, no? Pretty good relations with your man Rummy though.
And,
Marc Cooper, you make a good argument for the US’s reneging on its promise to provide reparations to Vietnam after its years of bombing and massacring Vietnameses!
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:19 pm
And yes, Yoshie did a fine job defending her arguments….a very good job.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:45 pm
I second what Marc said, Yoshi. Your willingness to seriously and intelligently engage with those who disagreed with you is indeed worthy of respect.
As for the issue that started it all, I grant you, it’s a complicated situation. And, it’s true that the AIPAC & neocon types are pushing suspiciously hard for intervention in Darfur, making it hard not to recoil in reaction.
(And—just to play devil’s advocate to everything I’ve written here today—-if we were really serious about stopping the most catastrophic slaughter in Africa, we should all be taking to the streets and demanding that the US and the rest of the world community start coughing up billions of dollars for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, plus leaning on the drug companies to make such mass treatments within reach.)
May 4th, 2006 at 12:50 am
greetings folks.
could not resist joining this lively discussion.
thanks, mark, for once again saving the left from sinking in the crap tossed about by the deranged fringe we share the lefty banner with.
and cheers to one and all who oppose – and want to stop -genocide in darfur. am i missiing something, or isn’t it a great day when people of differing political persuasions can agree on making a stand against genocide.
like marc, i am also bewildered and concerned by the conspiracy suspicions raised by yoshie (or is it aaron?) and that ilk.
i’d guess that, for people like jcummings, supporting yet again the many bizarre theories that the jews are behind all the major imperialistic blunders of the great satanic united states helps them feel like they are showing to their fellow ilk they are loyal to the fringe-correct worldview of the moment (the facist- left roll call: for bush policies or not, for war in iraq or not, etc, etc). what disturbs me more than people like yoshie, who may have genuinely made a mistake in going down the road she chose, she seems intelligent enough to figure this thing out, is that the people who truly are anti-semitic and those who are ignorant altogether eat this stuff up and this type piece then fuels the fire of more idiotic prejudices. last time i checked: israel is a country and judiasm is a religion and the two don’t always equate. clearly, we have loads of jews on all sides of the political morass just as we have a rainbow of diverse political opinions among muslims, christians, etc.
May 4th, 2006 at 5:15 am
[Emerges from shadows]
Chechnya is not a colonial war; it’s not “Putin’s war,” being the result of an invasion of Dagestan by Khattab and Basaev; and it is largely over.
[Retreats into shadows]
May 4th, 2006 at 6:55 am
Marc says: “This is not an issue about what’s good for the Jews or what’s good for Bush, but rather what if anything can be done to stop the mass murder in Darfur.”
The best quote of the day. The rest is the sound of ego, and wind. Thank you, Marc.
May 4th, 2006 at 7:41 am
“ike marc, i am also bewildered and concerned by the conspiracy suspicions raised by yoshie (or is it aaron?) and that ilk.
i’d guess that, for people like jcummings, supporting yet again the many bizarre theories that the jews are behind all the major imperialistic blunders”
It’s hard to take someone seriously when all they do is lie about what Yoshie has said in either her articles or her responses to Marc Cooper.
May 4th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Marc says: “Im not stupid about this and I understand the deeper implications about pro-Israeli lobbies, for example. But that’s what they are: pro-Israeli lobbies — not ‘establishment Jews.’”
If you take a look at signatories to the unity statement of “Save Darfur” coalition, you notice that Jewish organizations involved in this range widely. Some of them are clearly part of pro-Israeli lobbies; but others — e.g., Tikkun — definitely aren’t. And I don’t consider the Union of Reform Judaism (one of the eleven organizations on the steering committee of the coalition) as a whole to be part of pro-Israel lobbies (do you?), though some Reform Jews are. Hence my usage (besides, “establishment Jews” alliterates with “evangelicals”) — e.g., I would have said “establishment Blacks” if it were Black leaders of comparable social standing in their communities taking charge of the issue in place of Jewish leaders.
Marc wrote: “What continues to bug me in terms of Yoshie’s arguments is her notion of some specifity about Jews.”
Marc, we live in a post-9/11 world, so we ought to remember the fates of people like Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. I believe that at least a small part of the motivations of those who gruesomely murdered them was reactionary hatred toward Jews. Of course, non-Jews have been attacked and killed, too, but I don’t think I’m paranoid if I fear that Jews may be more vulnerable to terrorism and hate crimes than other non-Jews (except Arabs and Muslims).
My reasoning is this: if a Sudan intervention ends in a disaster or results in a long-term deployment of US forces, I don’t want Jewish communities to be in any way associated with that. The way establishment Jews are taking central leadership in the “Save Darfur” campaign, they will end up “owning” this issue. That’s what horrifies me.
A lurker posted a JTA dispatch: “The room burst into applause, however, when AJCommittee board member Edith Everett asked Mehlman to ‘take a message’ to President Bush to stop linking Israel and Iran. ‘It does not help Israel and it does not help American Jews to appear to be stimulators of any action against Iran,’ Everett said” (“Republican Chairman Booed at AJCommittee Event,” 2 May 2006). If doesn’t help American Jews to “appear to be stimulators of any action against Iran,” can it help the pillars of American Jewish communities to be actually stimulating an action against Sudan?
There may be a kind of consensus that what’s going on in Sudan is a genocide demanding any means necessary (including a US intervention under Bush!) in the United States (excepting among American Arabs and Muslims), but there is no such consensus in the rest of the world. If things go without a hitch in a Sudan intervention, that lack of consensus may not be a concern, but chances are that it will go wrong, even horribly wrong: Bush can’t handle Katrina, let alone Iraq, so we can’t expect him to be able to handle Sudan. I don’t want Jewish leaders to put the rest of the Jewish communities in a position in any way associated with a process leading to that (let alone a leadership position!).
May 4th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Marc says: “Im not stupid about this and I understand the deeper implications about pro-Israeli lobbies, for example. But that’s what they are: pro-Israeli lobbies — not ‘establishment Jews.’”
If you take a look at signatories to the unity statement of “Save Darfur” coalition, you notice that Jewish organizations involved in this range widely. Some of them are clearly part of pro-Israeli lobbies; but others — e.g., Tikkun — definitely aren’t. And I don’t consider the Union of Reform Judaism (one of the eleven organizations on the steering committee of the coalition) as a whole to be part of pro-Israel lobbies (do you?), though some Reform Jews are. Hence my usage (besides, “establishment Jews” alliterates with “evangelicals”) — e.g., I would have said “establishment Blacks” if it were Black leaders of comparable social standing in their communities taking charge of the issue in place of Jewish leaders.
Marc wrote: “What continues to bug me in terms of Yoshie’s arguments is her notion of some specifity about Jews.”
Marc, we live in a post-9/11 world, so we ought to remember the fates of people like Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. I believe that at least a small part of the motivations of those who gruesomely murdered them was reactionary hatred toward Jews. Of course, non-Jews have been attacked and killed, too, but I don’t think I’m paranoid if I fear that Jews may be more vulnerable to terrorism and hate crimes than other non-Jews (except Arabs and Muslims).
My reasoning is this: if a Sudan intervention ends in a disaster or results in a long-term deployment of US forces, I don’t want Jewish communities to be in any way associated with that. The way establishment Jews are taking central leadership in the “Save Darfur” campaign, they will end up “owning” this issue. That’s what horrifies me.
A lurker posted a JTA dispatch: “The room burst into applause, however, when AJCommittee board member Edith Everett asked Mehlman to ‘take a message’ to President Bush to stop linking Israel and Iran. ‘It does not help Israel and it does not help American Jews to appear to be stimulators of any action against Iran,’ Everett said” (“Republican Chairman Booed at AJCommittee Event,” 2 May 2006). If doesn’t help American Jews to “appear to be stimulators of any action against Iran,” can it help the pillars of American Jewish communities to be actually stimulating an action against Sudan?
There may be a kind of consensus that what’s going on in Sudan is a genocide demanding any means necessary (including a US intervention under Bush!) in the United States (excepting among American Arabs and Muslims), but there is no such consensus in the rest of the world. If things go without a hitch in a Sudan intervention, that lack of consensus may not be a concern, but chances are that it will go wrong, even horribly wrong: Bush can’t handle Katrina, let alone Iraq, so we can’t expect him to be able to handle Sudan. I don’t want Jewish leaders to put the rest of the Jewish communities in a position in any way associated with a process leading to that (let alone a leadership position!).
May 4th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Yoshie, what bugs me is that YOU are treating pro-Israel and other Jewish groups as sharing anti-Muslim attitude. Then you tell use your concern is merely to protect Jews from others who might similarly conflate. I don’t buy it.
May 4th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Mavis wrote: “YOU are treating pro-Israel and other Jewish groups as sharing anti-Muslim attitude.”
I am not, and you can present no evidence for my doing so. Besides, I do not think that pro-Israeli lobbies are really acting out of concern for Israelis who actually live in Israel. Pro-Israeli lobbies are more concerned about US foreign policy than Israel, let alone the wellbeing and actual sentiments of all American Jews. If it were up to all American Jews, the occupation of the West Bank would have ended a long time ago.
May 4th, 2006 at 11:12 am
One more thing: I don’t believe that even pro-Israel lobbies are hostile to Muslims per se. They probably don’t care fore Palestinians who want the right of return, other than that, but their motivation is geopolitics, especially US foreign policy and secondarily Israeli policy. Muslims friendly to the American and/or Israeli governments are friends of pro-Israeli lobbies.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Yoshi, Of course I know Bush is not the real Santa Claus, silly.
Yoshi, You would make an excellent Secretary General of the United Nations. Everything is so complicated and political and feelings might get hurt and this and that so lets just do nothing then nothing can go wrong with decisions we never had to make.
Where is NATO btw……zzzzzzzzzzzz.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
that would be “Were is the United Nations btw.”
May 4th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Oh, writing up the tenth warning. Sorry, I knew that.
Let me see, I bet it starts with something like this: “We have warned you for the tenth time if you keep doing this……well……well…..your going to be sorry.”
May 5th, 2006 at 8:04 am
I added some updates to my second Darfur piece. I also wrote a new piece that might interest some here:
“Chechnya, Darfur, and Jewish Activism,”
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/furuhashi050506.html.
May 5th, 2006 at 10:59 am
I wasn’t at the rally so I don’t know about its “Jewish origin and character,” but I do know that the Save Darfur signatories include a number of Muslim, Arab, and human rights groups. Your article ignores all the other pro-intervention groups and focuses only on Jews; ostensibly, you tell us now, to warn Jews that getting out in front on this issue could prove costly. What you write in your article indicates that you have a different concern: “Militaristic identity politics in America, in which each group clamors for its share of Washington’s war chest for its cause.” So we gather that you see Jews as an interest group promoting military intervention out of self-interest. That view is later bolstered by your comment, “I still don’t think that the Jewish leaders’ initiative and central leadership in this campaign squares with material interests of ordinary Jews.” The picture you have constructed is one of “establishment Jews,” which you define as “rangin[ing] widely. Some of them are part of pro-Israeli lobbies; but others… definitely aren’t,” who are pursuing a self-interested strategy of intervention in a Muslim nation. What is that presumed self interest? Why, it is that what hurts Muslims benefits Jews; that Israel benefits from Muslim calamity. I would certainly not scoff at the notion that some pro-Israel groups bear antipathy toward Muslims and I wouldn’t fault you for taking them to task. What angers me is that you don’t distinguish between those groups and organizations like the Counsel for Secular Humanism. And you avoid mentioning that numerous human rights and Muslim/Arab groups are also promoting intervention, undermining any suggestion that what we have is a Jewish-driven military adventurism.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Let me add, Yoshie, that your comments have convinced me that you’re not anti-semitic. Instead, I think what you’ve mounted is a 3rd rate smear job against idealisitc opponents genocide.
May 5th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Here is the “Save Darfur” coalition’s own statement of how it began: “The Coalition began on July 14 when the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and American Jewish World Service organized a Darfur Emergency Summit at the CUNY Graduate Center in Manhattan featuring Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Elie Wiesel.”
Lots of groups signed onto the unity statement, which is a mild one that I would have signed onto if it had been passed onto me. But not all signatories played a role at the rally. For instance, I watched most of the C-Span coverage, but no one from TransAfrica Forum, which has a long record of activism on Darfur, was invited to speak.
One Muslim civil rights organization, a signatory to the statement, volunteered to send a representative, but it received no reply from the coalition:
May 5th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Is it a smear job or simply an analysis of the contradictions of a mainstream American movement that reproduces the ideology of American dominance and purity of intentions? Idealism is not much to write home about if it’s not backed up by careful analysis.
May 8th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
[...] Last week we stirred up the pot with a posting about who exactly was behind the Save Darfur rally of ten days ago. I had taken some plinks at the lefty Monthly Review online edition for its editor’s denunciation of “establishment Jews and some Evangelicals” exercising too much (conservative) influence in the movement. [...]
July 20th, 2006 at 4:17 am
GVMkcoUzH9jHLQ 3LpmshJsuJ uKPKQ6Ph4W0tMw
July 25th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Geben mir bitte eine poker Brotchenmmm
August 1st, 2006 at 11:03 am
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
October 10th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
[URL]http://www.musica-latina.anticoit.org[/URL]
November 4th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
muscle mag…
Very Interesting Blog! I was wondering if you want to visit the famous WWE Diva Trish Stratus website!…
April 25th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green
June 11th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! gegaochzzrisq
June 12th, 2007 at 4:59 am
cjvotnhv
August 4th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Jews of all stripes have always pushed, pushed, pushed for (their notions of) “social justice”…frequently paid for in other people’s treasure and blood. “Let’s you and him fight” cry the Jews. America must fight the Arabs! America must invade Europe, Darfur, Iraq, Iran, anywhere! Go GET those Nazi bastards, you goyim cannon fodder!
Also known as “beating the war drums while hiding under the bed.”
Yes, there were diverse committees and organizations and groups and institutions of every description agitating for more war. Oy, the latest outrage! You should do something about it! But most of these (and aren’t they almost always?) were Jewish.
My God – was Mel Gibson right?
Are Jews the cause of all the wars in the world?
They do pride themselves on being a light unto the nations, Tikkum Olum, and all that.
Let’s you and him fight. An old refrain…
July 7th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
ruleta de la suerte gratis…
Ofisiosamente texas poker on line ruleta europea portal internet pai gow poker poker online flash poker texas holdem…