If B, C, D and E has committed more egregious wrongs than A, and yet I call for harsher penalties against A, I have gone beyond a double standard to engage in affirmative discrimination against A.
In this context, the question begs to be asked: why do I single out A for such discriminatory treatment? And when A has been an object of historic prejudice and discrimination, of oppression, the rationale for that discriminatory treatment has to be "extraordinarily suspect," whether one chooses to face up to it or not. I can appreciate why folks who think of themselves as good lefties may not want to face up to the fact that what they advocate falls into this category, but that does not change the fact that it does.
And in this context, consistency is the sign of a single, nondiscriminatory standard, and of nondiscriminatory treatment. No cliche about consistency can change that reality.
I have noted that the latest rounds of postings from Carrol and Yoshie have entirely avoided the substance of what I had to say about Israel's place among the long list of settler states around the world, and instead launched ad hominem attacks that my line of argumentation was an expression of my personal support for Clinton [imputed from thin air], or the Democratic Party [based on some sort of extrapolation that someone like me who has a strategic view of how to intervene in electoral politics is the shill for an entity known as the Democratic Party], or the AFL-CIO [based, apparently, on the fact that I work for a trade union which, like virtually every other union in the US, is affiliated with the AFL-CIO]. Now it appears that Todd is characterizing my argument as one sowing 'dissent' on the left, an accusation that I have always found somewhat amusing, since it involves the rather clear assumption that some have some God-given right to decide what the 'left' position is, to which others must then conform in order not to sow 'dissent.' I have always thought, by contrast, that dissent is an essential element of democratic discourse, and couldn't care less whether or not Carrol or Yoshie is sowing 'dissent,' just whether or not they are right. This sort of ad hominem rhetoric is standard fare from Carrol, who seems to know no other method of political disagreement, but it is a bit disappointing from Yoshie; despite our political differences, I have found her to be, as a general rule, intellectually honest, willing to engage an argument directly. Would that she would do so here.
I am far from being uncritical of Israel. In general, I believe that its treatment of the Palestinians is discriminatory, that it continues to deny them self-determination, and that a lasting peace is not possible without self-determination. I am an advocate of a two-state solution, with an independent Israel and an independent Palestine. If I was an Israeli, I would be part of the Peace Now movement.
What draws me to take up the issue here is the unthinking way in which some of us approach us, the complete lack of historical context in which some of us address the question, and the double standards with which some of us approach the question. Calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, singling it out among all of the settler states of the world -- the entire Americas, Australia, New Zealand and most of the Pacific, etc. -- is not simply unjustified on the basis of the facts, not simply the exercise of a double standard, but given the element of affirmative discrimination, and the unwillingness to address directly why such a double standard and affirmative discrimination is justified, "extraordinarily suspect." And if anything makes a critique of what the Israeli state is doing more difficult, it is such argumentation, which leaves the impression that deep-seated prejudice against the very existence of a specifically Jewish state, a state of an oppressed people, underlies the criticism of what Israel is doing.
> Leo said:
>
> >If you are going to make an argument that Israel should be treated
> >differently from other nation-states in the same category, then you >must
> show
> >how it is different from those other nation-states. My argument is not >
> that
> >there is nothing wrong with what nation-states in general, and settler
> >nation-states in particular, do, but an argument that whatever their >
> wrongs,
> >a consistent approach to them is required. To single out for the most >
> extreme
> >punishment the one settler nation-state which, if anything, has the >most
> >mitigating factors for doing the wrong it has done, which was founded >out
> of
> >a desire to escape oppression, is not simply illogical, but >
> extraordinarily
> >suspect.
>
> Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
>
> Inconsistency can be inconsistent for it's own reasons.
>
> I was a touch disappointed, Leo, that you threw in those last three
> words: "but extraordinarily suspect". One could argue that it is
> extraordinarily suspect that you harp so much on consistency in
> treatment for nation states: it makes any sort of critique of Israel
> more difficult (not that truth shouldn't do this, but the Devil can
> quote scripture for His own purposes). One would hope that you're not
> crassly in someone's pocket; it would be even more disappointing to
> those who respect you.
>
> I think it was Yoshie herself who said something previously about trust
> and secret police informants and sowing dissent in Leftie ranks (not
> that the cops need help).
>
> Todd
>
Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass --
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010908/9227f191/attachment.htm>