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%
PPP GDP:
- 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!
posted by ziontruth @ Monday, April 30, 2007
25 Comments:
The left is incoherent because it is in a state of panic. It's day is over, and very few people are paying attention any more. Hence, the extremity of the language and the absurdity of the claims. I work on a university campus, and I notice that something new is in the air. Students are so unimpressed with pro-Palestinian demonstrations and leftist flyers, that they don't even react any more.
Anon,
Thanks for the good news. It doesn't seem so from my vantage point, but you're close to it, you work on a university campus, so you know better than me.
G-d bless.
ZY
Things may be different on the more elite campuses, but I work in a large university with a less affluent student body which is ethnically very diverse. Anti-Israel Arab students practically stand on their heads trying to get other students to pay attention. They tried using the rhetoric of religion and when that didn't work, they switched to the rhetoric of the 60's, including such terms as imperialism, racism, etc. Still no response. People just walk by without giving demonstrators a second glance.
What does seem to strike a chord, is religion. I think something is moving below the surface. It's grass roots, not hierarchical or doctrinal. I think the left senses it too. Its hold on student thinking is growing weaker.
I sure hope that blast of optimism has reality behind it..wouldnt that be nice ZY!
Hi Angel!
You're right, it's prudent to evaluate whether any good news has reality behind it, especially in our day, when bad news is plentiful and good news scarce, so that every piece of good news tends to be seized upon uncritically.
I think that the anonymous commenter's observations are indicative. We can see for ourselves that the old Marxist clichés ("The Workers' Internation Revolution for Social Justice", and that sort of thing) no longer sound "radical"--they sound old. The Day by Day cartoon from February 19, 2007 and Jack Langer's article All the Old Dudes are excellent summations of that fact: those Leftist ideas are fossils. Relics of an ancient past. In fact, one of the best ways today for a kid to shock his parents is by... getting traditional religion! (Which is what I did. But thankfully they overcame the shock.)
The Old Guard of the Left, Marxism, multiculturalism and political correctness is still going strong, but it can't hold on forever; it is already being replaced by the new blood of those who hold no truck with the outdated sentiments. The anonymous commenter's observation are the early signs of the process.
G-d bless.
ZY
I do believe the young are having misgivings about leftist dogma. Just think for a moment about the 3 young men from Duke university who were judged guilty by their own faculty not because of convincing evidence, but because of "class" membership and race. Don't think that didn't send a shudder down the spine of every white male college student. And consider Rosie O'Donnell. I've never watched "The View", but I am intrigued by reports of her behavior. It reminds me of a 3 year old who can't get attention any other way. No one is listening any more so she has to raise the volume and become obnoxious, until it's impossible to ignore her. If people were listening, those antics wouldn't be required.
Sorry to be so wordy, but I've been thinking about these things for a while.
Sometimes it's not just what people do, but when that counts. Why all of a sudden are there so many books "proving" a) that God doesn't exist and/or b) that religion is so dangerous that it must be irradicated? Just who is endangered by religion if not the secularists on the left? And why suddenly now? Because their political pre-eminence is threatened for the first time in decades.
Sometimes revolutions take place long before anyone realizes what has happened. In the Middle Ages the established church was extremely effective at stifling "heresy" because it controlled the flow of information. Only wealthy monasteries could afford to support scribes whose sole duty was to laboriously hand copy manuscripts. Everything changed when Gutenberg invented movable type, but no one really knew that the whole balance of power had shifted until Martin Luther posted his 99 theses on the church door at Wittenberg (I think that's the correct place.) Within days of that event, thousands of printed copies of that document were spread all over Europe. Martin Luther, flawed man that he was, had the distinction of being the first heretic to die of natural causes, all because of Gutenberg and his revolution.
Who knows what revolution has already taken place that is obscured by publicized current events. Time will tell.
ZY:
Good post. The double-standard that is applied to Israel is an old one, and is well known, but it's always good to see it debunked so thoroughly.
Anonymous:
You said: Who knows what revolution has already taken place that is obscured by publicized current events. Time will tell.
I think that time has told; the essential, existential, challenge to the old Marxist/Leftists came in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that moment, everything which the old-style Left had based itself on, or had been actively fighting for, was exposed a as a failure.
They've been floundering ever since, trying to find their bearings, but they have been unable to change their thoughts or language to meet the new times.
What we are seeing now is the exploitation of the Left's habitual patterns by Islamic terrorists, for short-term gain to both.
Michael,
Sorry for my harsh last comment on your blog. Jeff just drove me nuts with his "fight the positive PR war" suggestion, and I was irritable after an annoying day as well (must remind self... not to comment 'til it has passed). Also, Jeff partakes the post-colonial way of thinking which I opine is the major cause for our losses, so I have little sympathy with his arguments.
Defending Israel by portraying it positively is something a lot of other bloggers do. I give them their credit, and, knowing myself, I recognize I'm not very good at that. Defending Israel by portraying its enemies negatively is my speciality.
Anon,
You say: "Sorry to be so wordy, but I've been thinking about these things for a while." No, don't be sorry for that! That's exactly what my blog is for: provoking thought and intellectual discussion. And I think your thoughts are on target.
It is no coincidence that the rise of the "New Left" (actually Western Marxism) happened in the 1960's, with the Baby Boomer generation. Those were raised by frugal parents, but they didn't live in the harsh situation (foremostly the Great Depression and then the world war) that prompted their parents' frugality in the first place. Hence their (the Baby Boomers') raising of their own offspring on indulgence and petulance (q.v. Rosie, as you said).
The current generation, my generation, is in a state of disillusionment. They're not going back to frugality like their grandparents, because we are in prosperity, thank G-d, but they are questioning their parents' excesses. A crucial case-maker for our generation is the relatively good balance between capitalism and social consciousness (Live Aid and such) that took place in the Reagan years. It showed that the dichotomy between "greedy capitalism" and "selfless socialism" put by the Left is a grand case of bifurcation fallacy.
I didn't mean to impugn you in particular - I just think there needs to be more of a concern for PR (both positive and negative) at the higher levels of Israeli government. By all means, do what you do.
I'm always amused by the people who claim that Israel was "stolen land" and therefore illegitimate. First, by that logic, every nation in the Western Hemisphere would have to be ruled illegitimate. Second, Israel was officially granted a charter by a governing body including all the world's nations - don't know how you can get more legit than that.
I, too, work on a college campus and I haven't seen a pro-Palestinian demonstration in the four years I've been here. I also run in some fairly leftist circles and I don't see an "Israel shouldn't exist" vibe from too many people. DKos commenters aren't exactly a representative sample of the American Left, and if it is, I think we're defining our terms differently.
Incidentally, what, exactly, is my "post-colonial" way of thinking?
Hi Jeff.
I try to be as detached as possible, to stick to the subject... as you can see, it doesn't always work. I guess I'm just human. Sorry.
International law is not on our side. It demands the evacuation of all 1967 territories at the very least, and recommends the "Right of Return". But most severely of all, international law is against us, indeed against all non-Muslims in general, in that it does not provide for combating an enemy for whom the distinction between military and civilians does not exist. The enemy knows it can recruit international law to its advantage just by hiding civilians in weapons buildings. That's what they did in Lebanon last summer.
As for "post-colonial", I'm now not sure your sentiments were such. On Michael's blog, you said, "You may laugh at Dubya's constant language-changing, but when you're fighting a war (Iraq) in which you're trying to win over Muslim people, if they protest something as silly as a name and it's no shirt off your back to change it, you just do so."; and I emphasized the words, "trying to win over Muslim people". That's the post-colonial sentiment I was referring to. But if you don't hold it, but were just paraphrasing an other's frame of mind, then I take it back.
Yeah, it's easy for me to be detached since the rockets aren't falling on my head.
I think my point was that one of the biggest mistakes we can make is to assume that Islam is a big monolithic phenomenon, and that because we're fighting against radical Islam that we can't be on good terms with moderate Islam. Case in point: as far as the war on terror goes, Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country - is on our side.
And it seems to me that the goals of Palestinian terrorists are political, not religious (it's basically a land grab). Palestinian leaders are simply cloaking the battle in religious terms to make it more palatable. See the Crusades and Northern Ireland for more examples of this phenomenon. Blaming Islam as a whole seems a bit too facile for my tastes.
Good point about international law, though - it desperately needs some updating for the age of terrorism, which is necessarily a stateless phenomenon.
Jeff, who are these Moderate Muslims you speak of? I have family that lived in Iraq, when the Farhud happened the Arab/Muslim neighbors who had never been particularly devout decided, it was a good time to kill the Jew in Allah's name. A moderate Muslims is one who hasnt yet gathered the courage to follow what the Koran demands of him.
Kahaneloyalist - I live on a street with a significant population of Muslim Palestinian immigrants, I am rather prominently Jewish, and not only am I still living after two and a half years, but we have a rather neighborly relationship. Make of this story what you will.
And anyone who believes that the Koran asks Muslims to kill non-Muslims doesn't understand the Koran (I include those Muslims who actually feel that way in this statement).
Jeff, you say: "I think my point was that one of the biggest mistakes we can make is to assume that Islam is a big monolithic phenomenon, [...]". I don't know if that attitude is to be called "post-colonial", but whatever its name, that's the mindset that drives me nuts. That exhortation to see everything in shades of gray, "things are more complicated than you think", "don't be so simplistic", "stop generalizing"--that's what's keeping us from winning this war.
I don't know of any moderate Islam; I know of moderate Muslims, a tiny and frightened minority. On the issue of moderate Muslims I wrote the post Yes, They Exist. No, They Aren't The Solution, in November last year. The title already gives a hint as to what I think of the issue.
Indonesia, like Pakistan, like Egypt, like even Saudi Arabia, is "on our side" (quotation marks because it only appears that way, to untrained Western eyes) because they are headed by strongmen who are withholding Islamic behavior in the interests of economic and political gain. In reality, all those states are hotbeds of Islamic discrimination for the non-Muslims inside them (Copts in Egypt, for example), even if those states aren't officially against the West. That's the great error in calling this a "War on Terror": it lets non-Muslim powers sink into the complacency of focusing only on direct threats to themselves, while ignoring both the plight of the non-Muslims in the Islamic countries and the fact that those countries, by virtue of being Islamic, are breeding terrorists each day. Myopic.
You say: "And it seems to me that the goals of Palestinian terrorists are political, not religious (it's basically a land grab). Palestinian leaders are simply cloaking the battle in religious terms to make it more palatable." I see it exactly the other way round: the "Palestinian" (fictional nation) struggle has always been a jihad, a religious war, and it is only in order to make it more palatable to Western ears that they have cloaked it in nationalistic terms. It has worked well. The Western Left has swallowed it whole and is hooked on it.
You say: "Blaming Islam as a whole seems a bit too facile for my tastes." I don't see it facile any more than blaming Nazism was facile back in the day.
International law, in so far as it refers to warfare, doesn't need to be updated; it can, and had best, be discarded in favored of a system of law that is far, far more beneficial to us in fighting against the jihadists: Torah Law. G-d's Rules of Engagement are more relevant than ever.
And you say, in response to KL: "And anyone who believes that the Koran asks Muslims to kill non-Muslims doesn't understand the Koran (I include those Muslims who actually feel that way in this statement)." Agreed, in the sense that the Koran asks Muslims to call non-Muslims to convert to Islam first, or pay the poll-tax if they're Jews or Christians, and only if they refuse does it tell them to kill them.
Re: the Koran... not so much. The Koran actually expressly forbids killing unless Islam as a whole is threatened. Which makes calling this a "war on Islam" doubly counterproductive.
We don't blame Christianity for the Crusades butchery, or for the numerous pogroms that crazy Christians have perpetrated throughout history. We write these off as the actions of unenlightened hate-filled folk who were misled by their leaders into thinking that their religion asked them to kill. Why do we not apply the same reasoning to Islamic radicalism?
Let's face it: there are portions of the Christian Bible that could be interpreted as justifying the murder of non-Christians. There are portions of the Tanakh that could be seen as justifying the murder of non-Jews. And yes, there are portions of the Koran that could be used to justify the murder of non-Muslims.
I have a serious problem with the idea that "there is no moderate Islam; there are moderate Muslims." This makes no sense. Moderate Muslims by definition are practicing a moderate Islam. It would be like saying there is no Reform Judaism but that there are Reform Jews. You may not agree with Reform Judaism, you may not think it represents true Torah Judaism, but you can't say it doesn't exist and that people like me don't practice it.
Off the tangent and back to the main point: we routinely dismiss "crusader Christianity" as a corruption of real Christianity. The moderate Muslim believes not that they are non-ideal Muslims, but that "crusader Islam" is a corruption of real Islam. Your interpretation of the Koran may be different from theirs, but you can't say their interpretation doesn't exist.
And if you want the moderate interpretation to win out over the "crusader" interpretation, saying that the moderate interpretation isn't legitimate is basically shooting yourself in the foot. You're never going to win the war against "crusader Islam" that way.
What do you think constitutes the notion that "Islam as a whole is threatened"? To hear it from the radical Muslims themselves, the very fact of resistance to the rule of shariah law, anywhere in the world, constitutes a threat to Islam.
I don't write off G-d's commands in the Torah to cleanse the Land of Israel from pagans (as Joshua did upon entry to the land) as "the actions of unenlightened hate-filled folk who were misled by their leaders". You think of religion from the secular viewpoint, i.e. as a human artifact. Which is OK if you're really secular, but no religionist sees his religion this way. Both the scriptures and their interpretations are seen as coming from above, whether direct dictation or through divine inspiration.
You say the existence of moderate Muslims implies a moderate Islam. I disagree: lax observance of a religion does not imply a lax form of a religion. As an Orthodox Jew, I do not regard Reform Judaism as a form of Judaism at all. So it is with the Muslims: any Muslim who declares publicly that he does not agree with the traditional tenets (jihad among them) is branded an apostate. There are Jewish girls who are dressed in pants although that is forbidden by the Torah, but that doesn't mean those girls are practicing a "moderate form of Judaism"--they're going contrary to Judaism. The Koranic commandment to institute shariah law upon the whole world is as integral to Islam as the Torah's prohibition of various creative acts on the Sabbath is to Judaism.
You speak of the necessity of Islamic reform. I addressed it in a post from Feburary: Reform At Will (Not). The bottom line of it: reform of Islam away from the jihad ideology is theoretically possible, but in practice is unlikely, because the non-Muslims, through acts of dhimmitude, are doing everything to show the Muslims that the jihadist way pays off, and thus giving a major disincentive against relinquishing it.
Jeff, there is no Reform Judaism only Jews have have(temporarily) lost their way.
During the Farhud my relatives were attacked by people they had know since childhood, some of their oldest and(seemingly) best friends. Talk to sephardi Jews, or Sikhs, or Copts, or a thousand other groups that had the great misfortune of living under the Islamic heel. You will hear the same thing over and over again. The same evil all in the name of Allah, and please I beg of you to remember Takiyah, the muslim duty to lie to the infidel to make Islamic conquest easier.
Do you know what the Rambam wrote about Islam during the "Golden Age" of Islam in the most tolerant of all Muslim countries? This is in Iggeret Taiman
"You dear brethren know that Hashem has unfortunately cast us down among this people, Ishmael, who plot great evils against us and hate us, as Hashem decreed upon us: "Our enemies commit crimes against us", (Devarim, 32:31). You know that no greater enemy has threatened us, and no nation has done more to subjugate and humiliate us. Even David HaMelech, when he saw through Ruach HaKodesh all the troubles slated for Israel, began to wail and lament the wicked Ishmalite nation: "Woe is me, that I sojourn with Meshech , that I dwell beside the tents of Kedar!" (Tehillim 120:5). Note that of all of Ishnmael's descendants he mentions Kedar. That is because the lunatic(Mohammed) was descended from Kedar, as is know regarding his lineage. Moreover, Daniel only mentioned our humilation and servitude in the context of the Ishmaelite Kingdom, may it soon be crushed: "Ishmael cast down on the ground some of the host and of the stars and trampled them" (Daniel 8:10). We are still suffering their enslavement, perfidy and lies, which surpass the bounds of human endurance."
Remember the words of this true Tzadik and hold them close to your heart, distance yourself from this vile people my brother and know that we must do to them what Hashem commanded us over and over to do to our enemies and the Rambam, reminds us in Hilchot Melachim Perek 6 how we are to engage in war.
So how was life under that Islamic Courts paradise.....exactly!...the leftards will romanticize Nazism if given the chance as long as they get to hate Israel and bash America..good stuff ZY!!!
I'm not sure there is a "left" anymore. Womanhonorthyself quite rightly observes that they romanticize Nazism, or at least its political heirs. It is difficult to reconcile a social order which advocates theocracy, subordinate status for women, marginalization and diminished status for outsiders with any Marxist principles or any form of socialism, for that matter.
ZY:
You and Jeff don't need to apologize for your exchange on my blog; I rather enjoyed it, and y'all managed to keep it civil.
Anonymous:
That's how we know that the "revolution" has already happened... And the Left lost.
Michael:
If the left has joined the far right, how do we now define ourselves? The old symmetry of left/right/and gradations in between that has existed since the French enlightenment is now gone. Are the middle of the road people now the new left? Or do we find a new terminology?
Anon,
You're absolutely right, and that's the reason I wrote a post (on January 11) suggesting that the Left/Right dichotomy is very much a distraction:
Left, Right: What Really Matters
ZY
Thanks for the link to your January 11 Post. Very interesting. I agree with your argument against a theocratic state. Human beings are corruptible. In fact, I've read that in Iran, Mosque attendance is way down due to cynicism regarding the Mullahs' rule. Corrupt theocracies go a long way toward driving people away from religion. The 16th century wars of religion in Europe are sometimes cited as the beginnings of anti-Christian sentiment on the continent.
hello
vous pouvez mettre vos messages sur jewisheritage
a bientot
Post a Comment
<< Home