End-of-Month Leftist Hypocrisy Roundup
My post for Israel’s 59th Independence Day, Here’s to This Object of Jealousy, made the point of how the Leftists shrug off all the real-world achievements of Israel with the moralistic charge, “But it’s all stolen!” Under this post, I was treated to the spectacle of a commenter who argued exactly that which the post addresses (with the following words: “No amount of Israel’s achievements can ever rectify the fact that Israel is the product of land theft by Europeans.”). I answered the comment, though with the frustration that a whole post had been ignored by that commenter. However, as I said numerous times, it is less my line of work to defend Zionism than it is to attack the anti-Zionists. On that note, I bring two instances of Leftist hypocrisy in that regard (of morality vs. utility), one from (where else?) Daily Kos, and one from the blog of Jewish self-injurer Antony Loewenstein.
From DKos is the diary, Is the Bandar Bush Alliance coming to an end?, from April 29, 2007, by long-time Israel-basher “mattes”. In the diary itself he quotes Saudi Prince (prince? Prince?! What about all the “Standing for democracy!” the Kossacks harp on about? I guess it only applies when the policies of BushChimpMcHitler needs to be opposed…) Turki Al-Faisal, saying, “I think the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the primary cause for most of the unrest and terrorism that takes place in the world today”, or in other words: it’s time to do a Czechoslovakia on Israel in order to bring “peace for our time”. But later in the passage, Prince Turki says, “Just read the literature of all of the terrorist organizations, and you’ll find that they use this conflict as an excuse, not just to commit their acts, but also to recruit supporters and support from all over the world” (emphasis mine), which, it seems to me, pours some water on the whole theory—if it’s just an excuse, then in its absence a new one will be found. However, as usual, the real meat is found in the comments. A commenter named “Near Vanna” comments on how Chinese currency is rising over the dollar, and nods of agreement follow:
Saudis Like Chinese Money Fine
Yuan looks a lot better than the dollar these days. (Near Vanna)
The damage BushCo has done to the
United States will be felt for decades. Maybe for the rest of our history. Hence, the need to impeach now. (mattes, in response to Near Vanna)
GDP growth rate (1st quarter 2007 annualized):
- China: 11.1%
- US: 1.3%
- China: 8.8 trillion
- US: 12.2 trillion
At this rate, they surpass us in four years. (Opakapaka, in response to Near Vanna)
Is anyone paying attention???
At all? (mattes, in response to Opakapaka)
That section of comments leaves me astonished—and, given the fact that I’m a long-time reader of Daily Kos diaries, that says much. Remember, if there’s one theme the Leftists are obsessed with, and take pride in emphasizing, it’s the theme of social justice. With that in mind, their jealousy over China’s monetary ascendancy is, to put it as gently as possible, disturbing.
It is no secret that the low prices of Chinese products are the result of cheap labor. The cheap labor there stems not just from sheer numbers, but from the fact that the Chinese government (in contrast to the hated BushExxonMcHalliburton) has neither restrictions nor scruples as to making the people work for low pay. Even the beginning of an attempt to organize a strike in China would meet the response of mass incarceration and “re-education”. So, it can be seen that those same Leftists who protest sweatshops are showing here an admiration of the one great sweatshop that is the economy of China.
There is no denying that China is in the process of economic ascent; but that is not because of the “bungling of the Bush Administration”, but because China is engaging in the economic equivalent of competing in the Olympic Games on steroids: forced labor at small pay. But I’m not holding my breath for the Kossacks to protest that, any more than I’m holding my breath for feminist organizations like NOW to protest the crackdown on women’s rights in Iran or for “animal rights” groups like PETA to protest the use of slaughtered animals as a means of reaching out to Muslim customers.
The riding of China’s economy upon indisputably ill-gotten gains (cheap labor bordering on slavery) is of no consequence to the Kossacks. Only in the case of Israel does “morality” all of a sudden take first seat.
Now to the second item: Antony Loewenstein’s co-blogger Andre has a piece, Why is the US trying to break Somalia?, from April 27, 2007, implying that things were beginning to get swell in Somalia at the hands of the peacemaking, unifying force of the Islamic Courts Union, until the USA had to trash it all by driving Ethiopia to invade the country. Excerpts:
Somalia was actually on a road to peace, when the US decided to introduce their own brand of chaos to the region.
Indeed, while warlords and secular governments have come and gone, the Islamic Courts have enjoyed relatively consistent support for over a decade.
So how was life under that Islamic Courts paradise? A post from Jihad Watch, from December 6, 2006, may give you an idea: Somalia Town Threatens to Behead People Who Don’t Pray 5 Times Daily:
MOGADISHU, Somalia – Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.
Those who do not follow the prayer edict after three days have elapsed, “will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law,” Rage told The Associated Press by phone. “As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do.”
Now, don’t tell me what the response to this is going to be. This theme is not new—I saw it several months ago on CounterPunch. The response, therefore, is already known: the Leftists will say, that even with those Taliban-like decrees, the rule of the Islamic Courts Union is better than the former state, because they keep order, unity and peace in the region. Preferable to chaos and “warlordism”. Better the certain danger to life from a tyrannical but unifying rule of law than the uncertainty of chaos.
Perhaps there is some truth to that argument. Perhaps the state of chaos was indeed too much to bear, prompting the acceptance of tyranny. But I am astonished again, when I consider the principles of the arguers: Whatever happened to “Those who trade their freedom for security are deserving of neither”, which is so quickly shouted each time a new anti-terrorism measure is adopted? How is it that the moral outrage of shariah law, of beheading people just because they don’t pray five times a day, is here washed white by the practical benefits of peace, order, unity and security, while the practical, material achievements of the state of Israel are all (according to the Leftists) null and void in the face of “the ethnic cleansing and apartheid that underlie the Zionist State”?
Who needs all those rhetorical questions? I need do no more than quote Steven Plaut’s piece on anti-Zionist hypocrisy:
We think the only country in the Middle East that is a fascist anti-democratic one is the one that has free elections. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.
We have no trouble with the fact that there is no freedom of religion in any Arab countries. But we are mad at hell at Israel for violating religious freedom, and never mind that we are never quite sure where or when it does so. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.
Read it all, it’s a brilliant piece.
To the Islamonazis and their enablers on the Left no quarter!