Tuesday, June 23, 2009
[Please welcome our newest poster, straight our of the comments and my email, Sophia. I frankly got tired of reading her long comments and emails and said, "So why don't you post some of this on the front page instead?" Sophia's a "lefty" on many subjects, but we have a lot of common ground when it comes to Zionism and anti-Semitism today, and she will be posting primarily on those subjects when the feeling strikes. She's done a good job reading around the other stuff I post about that we probably don't agree as much on, and I look forward to her contributions. It's a sign of fanaticism when you can't look past disagreements to come together on the things you agree on... So, without further ado... -MS]
I'm struck by the contrast between our reaction to events in Iran and the administration's unrelenting harshness toward Israel. Some pundits are similarly conflicted and "progressive" organizations and leaders find themselves having to confront their own hypocrisy regarding human rights.
Harry's has several pieces reflecting this dichotomy. Here's Galloway, who visits Hamas and accuses Israel of apartheid, defending the Iranian system.
Andrew Sullivan, who has done excellent work collecting and posting tweets and other information from Iran for The Atlantic, revises fact about Roger Cohen's earlier columns about Iran and flies into full (and bigoted) hissy fit about "neocons" and "AIPAC". He's ably confronted by Jeffrey Goldberg in the same publication, here and here.
Why is that people theoretically in favor of human rights have a problem with Jewish human rights?
And why is it smart and cool to desist even from making strong statements supporting the Iranians struggling for basic rights, yet continue attacking Israel (a democracy) and also demonize groups in America which support said democracy?
The Mearscheimer/Walt thesis has played into all the old anti-Jewish canards about dual loyalty, undue influence, conspiracy and control - meanwhile the "realists" appear to be supporting autocratic Middle Eastern regimes and Jimmy Carter is visibly "meddling" by embracing the Hamas - according to some reports on behalf of the Administration.
Only after great pressure from the American people, opposition figures, the example of European leaders, and perhaps even powerful people within the Administration did our president issue strong words in support of the people of Iran. As pointed out on this blog, regardless of the brutality of the regime, we've invited them to "engage" the regime's diplomats on the anniversary of our own struggle for freedom.
Meanwhile, the administration refuses to compromise on the settlement issue.
Even Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are considered "settlements" and included in the demands to "freeze". This is regardless of Jerusalem's history let alone the impact on people living in those neighborhoods. Biased articles continue to be published - apparently Cohen's brilliant new pieces from Iran are relegated to the blogosphere whereas precious paper is given over to Tony Judt in the NYT.
Here's a comment on Judt's editorial in the NYT, accurately entitled "Memo to the Times: The Whole Country is Illegal to Tony":
Here's a problem: facts and history are running smack into ideology and prejudice. The contretemps in Iran is revealing this most starkly. So does the inability of People Who Should Know Better And Who Are Ostensibly Fighting For Human Rights in Iran to see when they've stepped into a bigoted swamp regarding Israel.
Finally, here's an article by Jonathan Chait entitled "The Obama Method", in which he defends "small acts of intellectual dishonesty in the pursuit of common ground."
So. There is meddling, and there is meddling - and apparently there are facts and there are facts.
Where is this leading?
Oh, come on, Martin. I celebrate diversity and all. But Sophia? Isn't she, like, a woman?
"Why is that people theoretically in favor of human rights have a problem with Jewish human rights?"
I'll give you two guesses, Sophia. And as for those Jerusalem suburbs. Not to worry. I have it on the QT personally from Obasama that they will all be safely relocated to Encino.
Ah! Encino -
So, ok, not to worry, I'll call my cousins, they should fix a nice chicken:)
Deal. We'll meet up at Trader Joe's on Havenhurst to grab some couscous and feta. Then it's party time!
Sophia,
Basically what you have posted says that people will jump on any bus to get boot into the Jews.
g,
You can have all the diversity you like as long as you don't try to mix crocodiles and chickens.
"And why is it smart and cool to desist even from making strong statements supporting the Iranians struggling for basic rights, yet continue attacking Israel (a democracy) and also demonize groups in America which support said democracy?"
[...]
"Meanwhile, the administration refuses to compromise on the settlement issue."
Bingo. That illuminates so much. Or, rather, it should.
I for one have always enjoyed Sophia's comments, both here and in the Augean Stables blog.
As for her "lefty" positions on many subjects, and her views on Israel, I've always been on her wavelength regarding both. So I consider her to be a true kindred spirit.
Go Sophia!
Hi Joanne!
Hi Sophia,
Now that you're an official co-blogger, good luck in your new endeavor.
If you take a more liberal stance than Solomon on some issue, I'll be there to back you up. Poor Solomon may soon find himself outgunned. :-)
Sophia can be as liberal as she likes as long as her stance is based on facts, pure and integral, and not transfacts from the melange concocted by the MSM and their partisan apparatchiks.
Left/right per se is (of course) very often a red herring, pure artifice and typecasted, more remarkable for how it serves misdirection and a hackneyed partisanship rather than illumination and probative depth and genuine humane concerns.
There are exceptions of note (e.g., the abortion debate can more responsibly be conceived in left/right terms because it has a decisive Gordian Knot aspect that is undeniable), but too often and arguably far more often than not left/right configurations serve to cloud fundamental moral perceptions (Obama is a lefty, but what he's presently doing vis-a-vis Iran is morally obtuse and stunted, imo unarguably so).
Heh. I promised to behave:)
Anyway, I think that Michael B is correct, the basic moral issues are getting lost in polarizing or politically-motivated rhetoric.
One of the weirder assertions coming out of Britain (in re the Iranian dissenters), asserts that there is no universality of moral principles, that it is all culturally relative. Some are even arguing on behalf of the repressive government, which I find astonishing:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/06/24/socialist-unity-in-praise-of-the-islamic-republic/
Fortunately, not everybody on the far left is buying into this. There are arguments within SWP and other groups now.
I'm curious what the Greens are thinking...they had been in favor of human rights but recently haven't been acting rational on that score - this is particularly obvious in the short-sighted attacks on Israel and solidarity with Iranian proxies which vow her destruction.
In that case, Israel is made a proxy of imperialism and the Palestinians objectified as symbols of all oppressed people - the ideological arguments sustain a tragic conflict rather than solve it and meanwhile the oppressed people around the world remain oppressed because everybody is attacking Israel instead of working against oppression, including the oppression of poverty and war and medieval conditions.
I find this both ironic and bitterly sad.
I think Iran might be a wakeup call for people who'd been running around endorsing repressive militias and regimes.
I certainly hope so; I don't see how ANY factions of the free, democratic West can argue for repression in the East or in Africa - it doesn't matter whether the repression is coming from a totalitarian state or from a religious totalitarian state or from a dictator or a king - it's still something that is sharply at odds with our ideals.
At the moment though I don't see what we can do to help besides offer moral support. Now that Ahmadijenad is comparing Obama to Bush there really isn't any further need for pretext; we have been blamed regardless of our careful stance, which was inevitable.
So, we might as well stand up for our ideals.
In fact I think we're obligated to, aren't we?
We may as well stand up for our ideals. Because Obama won't (or doesn't share them?).