>--- Original Message ---
>From: "KENT, Gary" <kentg at parliament.uk>
>To: "'DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com'" <DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com>
>Date: 6/17/02 10:38:09 AM
>
>By Mick Hume
>
>Western leftists find themselves in strange company when it
comes to the
>Middle East. Are they really happy to line up with neo-Nazis
and Islamic
>fundamentalists? By Mick Hume Once upon a time, a hundred years
or so ago,
>it was fashionable to attack something called "Jewish capitalism".
August
>Bebel, a German friend of Karl Marx, described this attempt
to give
>anti-Semitism a progressive spin as "the socialism of fools".Today's
fashion
>for Israel-bashing seems to me to represent a similar foolishness.
It is not
>old-fashioned anti-Semitism. But there is a growing tendency
to endorse
>dubious ideas under the guise of solidarity with the Palestinians.
It is the
>anti-imperialism of fools.Particularly since 11 September, a
strange-looking
>global alliance has formed against Israel, incorporating Islamic
>fundamentalists, European neo-Nazis and anti-globalists. Many,
in all three
>groups, had previously shown little interest in the plight of
the
>Palestinians: the Israeli state has become a sort of ersatz
America, a
>symbol of all that they hate about contemporary capitalism.For
Israeli, read
>western; and for the west, read modernity. What the anti-globalists
share
>above all with their newfound fellow-travellers among the Islamic
>fundamentalists is a loss of faith in the modern age and in
Enlightenment
>ideas. The spirit of their protests was captured by a banner
at a recent
>rally in Berlin: "Civilisation is genocide".Yet, despite all
the criticisms
>of America, they end up calling on the Great Satan to solve
the problems of
>the world, and particularly of the Middle East. The demand of
the western
>activists who visit the West Bank is for more international
intervention.
>Back in the west, the Palestinian solidarity campaigns demand
sanctions
>against the Israeli state and a boycott of Israeli goods. The
opponents of
>globalisation want to globalise the Middle East conflict; they
demand that
>the US and Europe turn their attention away from disciplining
Iraq and
>towards punishing Israel. In effect, they end up echoing the
call of Robert
>Cooper, Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser, for a new kind
of imperialism -
>the same kind of "humanitarian" arrogance that recently prompted
the British
>government to say it would send troops to India, although the
Indian
>government did not want them.If ever there were an area that
bears the scars
>of too much foreign interference, it is the Middle East. Conflicts
there
>have been manipulated and perpetuated by imperial powers for
two centuries.
>Yet those who claim to oppose imperialism now propose even more
intervention
>- a "foreign occupation" to stop Israel, in the words of one
leading radical
>journalist. Perhaps they would be happy if Palestine ended up
like Bosnia -
>a place where ethnic divisions have been set in stone by international
>intervention, and now to be ruled over by Paddy Ashdown in his
new role as
>UN high representative (that is to say, the colonial governor
general).The
>politics of anti-imperialism first emerged as a defence of the
democratic
>right to self-determination. It rejected the notion that the
solutions to a
>society's problems were to be found from without. Today's anti-imperialism
>of fools, by contrast, not only endorses imperialist intervention,
it also
>appears to oppose anything progressive that the west stands
for - such as
>rationalism, universalism, scientific experimentation or economic
>development. (Its advocates are happy, however, to use the internet
to
>spread the message; theirs is a high-tech primitivism.) The
very different
>tradition of an older anti-imperialism was summed up by C L
R James: "I
>denounce European colonialism. But I respect the learning and
profound
>discoveries of western civilisation." The idea was to free the
colonial
>world so that it might reap the benefits of modernity. Today,
as Kenan Malik
>points out: "James's defence of 'western civilisation' would
probably be
>dismissed as Eurocentric, even racist."Anti-globalisation protesters
now
>find themselves in the same bed as al-Muhajiroun, "an Islamic
movement which
>exists to fulfil the commands of the divine text of the Koran".
Its website
>argues that the Potters Bar rail crash and the crisis in the
national health
>service were caused by the British government ploughing billions
into its
>pro-globalisation and war policies, instead of investing in
domestic
>services. Its argument ends not with the demand to renationalise
the
>railways, but with an invocation that "by the will of Allah,
the economies
>of those countries at war with Islam will continue to deteriorate".It
is not
>unusual to find oneself with strange bedfellows on particular
issues.
>Politics is not for purists, especially where war is concerned.
Yet it is
>striking how comfortably many arguments of the anti-globalisation
movement
>now seem to fit the arguments of Islamic fundamentalists such
as
>al-Muhajiroun - a group which boasts that its outlook "is not
rational", and
>reserves its most bitter hatred for "the Jews" who, it claims,
run much of
>the world.The issue that brings the anti-capitalists and Islamists
closest
>is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both are quite recent converts
to the
>Palestinian cause. As he made efforts to win support in the
Islamic world
>during the 1990s, Osama Bin Laden did not mention the plight
of the
>Palestinians at all. The anti-globalisation movement is an even
later
>recruit to the Palestinian banner. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
now
>features at May Day marches and international summit protests.
In April in
>Washington, three separate demonstrations - against the World
>Bank/International Monetary Fund, against the war in Afghanistan
and against
>the Israeli occupation - merged into what was reported as the
biggest
>pro-Palestinian demonstration in US history, involving 75,000
people,
>according to the police. The International Solidarity Movement
has sent
>delegations of western protesters to "witness" the Middle East
conflict and
>show solidarity with the Palestinians - notably by breaking
through an
>Israel Defence Forces blockade to enter the Church of the Nativity
in
>Bethlehem.Why should Palestine have suddenly become such a cause
celebre?
>Critics now talk of the Israeli state as if it were a mini-superpower,
given
>licence by Washington to commit genocide against the Palestinians;
some have
>described President Bush as "Sharon's poodle". This cartoon
version of
>events grossly inflates the power and importance of Israel today.
It is
>ridiculous to think that the foreign policy of a global superpower
could be
>driven by a tiny state with a population of six million. For
America (and
>before that Britain), relations between Jews and Arabs have
always been
>negotiable in the wider scheme of things.During the cold war,
the US
>generally backed Israel as its gendarme, in order to contain
the threat
>(real and imagined) of a Soviet-backed Arab nationalism. But
we are no
>longer living in 1967 or 1973. Arab nationalism has been dead
for at least a
>decade. The west has less need of Israel to police the region
so tightly.
>More important, in the post-cold war era, the west has lost
its sense of
>imperial certainty. This underlying vulnerability is revealed
most sharply
>in its relations with the Islamic world. No longer able to promote
their
>cherished old notions of racial or cultural superiority, the
western elites
>have become increasingly defensive.After 11 September, many
predicted a
>full-scale clash of civilisations. Yet, far from pursuing a
fundamentalist
>crusade, Bush and Blair have emphasised that they are not fighting
a war
>against Islam. There have been panics about "Islamophobia" in
America and
>Europe. The Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was denounced
for
>advertising "the superiority of our civilisation" over the Islamic
world.
>And a US marines website was closed down for making "insensitive"
remarks.
>This must be the first war in which it is officially considered
illegitimate
>to hate the enemy.The newly defensive mentality within the western
camp is
>far removed from America's past belief in its manifest destiny.
This
>uncertainty towards Islam has clear implications for relations
with the
>Israeli state, long seen as an outpost of the west in a hostile
Muslim
>world. Even a right-wing Republican such as George Bush now
demands that
>Israel pull out of "occupied territories" and calls for the
creation of a
>Palestinian state. Other members of Washington's foreign-policy
>establishment have gone further. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former
national
>security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, denounced the Israelis
as being
>"increasingly like the white supremacist South Africans, viewing
the
>Palestinians as a lower form of life". The US still helps to
bankroll the
>Israeli state, and there remains a powerful pro-Israeli lobby
in Congress
>and the media. But these people now feel compelled to make shrill
public
>appeals on Israel's behalf which would have been considered
unnecessary in
>the past.Elsewhere in the west, a new antagonism towards Israel
is more
>obvious. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, declares that Israel's
current
>offensive falls outside the war against terrorism. The German
government
>offers to send peacekeeping troops to separate Arabs and Jews
(something
>considered taboo since the Holocaust). And in Belgium, a court
is attempting
>to prosecute the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, for "crimes
against
>humanity". The immediate reaction from the UN and Europe to
the Israeli
>attacks on Jenin revealed a readiness to accept the wilder allegations
of
>massacres and mass graves.All this has more to do with western
uncertainty
>than with anti-Semitism; the most vehement critics of Israel
include leading
>Jewish spokesmen such as the Labour backbencher Gerald Kaufman,
a veteran
>Zionist, who has condemned Israel as a pariah state and Sharon
as a war
>criminal in the House of Commons.Yet Israel is no more a "Nazi"
state than
>it ever was. Those who imagine that the violence in Jenin was
unique in the
>Israeli-Arab conflict have short memories (or none). What is
different today
>is the west's defensiveness about Israeli actions. Israel now
stands
>condemned for the kind of actions that might once have been
condoned
>tacitly. It is this feeling of western vulnerability that has
inspired the
>left and the anti-globalisation movement. Protesters find it
easier to feel
>morally worthy when they are guaranteed to get an apologetic
response from
>the authorities.Yet these newfound friends of Palestine do not
seem to know
>much about the history of this conflict. Their websites and
leaflets
>sloganise about "NaZionists", and how this is a war between
"racism and
>justice" (a politically correct way of saying "good v evil").
But there is
>little analysis of the causes.Some of the clumsy attempts to
incorporate the
>Middle East into the concerns of the anti-globalisation movement
border on
>the bizarre. Jose Bove, the French farmer and green activist,
sprang to
>global fame when he attacked a McDonald's burger bar with a
tractor, and
>wrecked GM crops. Last year, he turned up in a peace delegation
on the West
>Bank. This year, he was back again, visiting Yasser Arafat's
besieged
>compound at Ramallah. Why? Bove told the New Left Review that
the Israelis
>are "putting in place - with the support of the World Bank -
a series of
>neoliberal measures intended to integrate the Middle East into
globalised
>production circuits, through the exploitation of cheap Palestinian
labour".
>This is the kind of conspiratorial anti- capitalist-speak that
we might call
>globaldegook.Naomi Klein, a critic of both the Israeli occupation
and
>globalisation, worries that "every time I log on to activist
news sites such
>as indymedia.org . . . I'm confronted with a string of Jewish
conspiracy
>theories about 9/11 and excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders
of Zion".
>She thinks that "the anti-globalisation movement isn't anti-Semitic,
it just
>hasn't fully confronted the implications of diving into the
Middle East
>conflict".Klein is right. What we are witnessing is not simply
a resurgence
>of old-fashioned anti-Semitism: that accusation is most often
a defensive
>reaction from Israel's supporters. But the anti-globalisation
movement is
>"diving into the Middle East conflict" blindly, in pursuit of
a vague and
>simplistic moral agenda of its own. The delegations of self-styled
>"internationals" who travel to the Middle East to show sympathy
for the
>Palestinians are lauded as "the real heroes of today" on solidarity
>websites. Yet few of them would lie down in front of tanks if
Israel really
>were the Nazi state they claim. The internationals seem less
keen to travel
>to other conflicts, away from the eyes of the world media, where
they might
>risk meeting the fate of the international solidarity activists
killed
>during the Pinochet coup in Chile.For many activists, the
>Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to have become a convenient
outlet for
>the morbid emotionalism and victim-centred culture of our age.
A solidarity
>meeting in London begins with people being searched and asked
for "passes"
>(tickets), so that they can "experience" what life is like under
Israeli
>occupation. Writing in the NS, one "international" announced
that, having
>seen a warning shot fired and been woken up by the noisy Israeli
air force,
>"I'm beginning to understand what it must be like to be a Palestinian."
I am
>beginning to think that this might be the point of the exercise
for some of
>these people.Far from offering an alternative for the Middle
East, these
>self-indulgent demonstrations of western victim culture can
only reinforce
>the emotional nihilism that is already rampant in the region
- what one
>American commentator calls "the desperado politics of victimhood,
embraced
>by Jews and Palestinians alike".Writing about the 1979 Iranian
revolution,
>Tariq Ali attacked "the anti-imperialism of fools" expressed
by "useful
>idiots from the western European left", who thought there must
be something
>progressive in the Ayatollah, because he overthrew America's
stooge, the
>Shah. Many on the western left now express sentiments that are
just as
>foolishly misplaced. At least those idiots in Iran had a successful
popular
>revolt to get carried away with; many of the anti-Israel protesters
of today
>seem content to revel in powerlessness.Western society is infected
by a
>powerful sense of self-loathing and a rejection of its political,
social and
>economic achievements. It was this spirit of self-loathing that
led some, of
>the left and right alike, to suggest that America got what it
deserved on 11
>September. Those sentiments are no more progressive when aimed
against
>Israel as a symbol of the west than when they are directed in
irrational
>campaigns against GM crops and the literature of Dead White
Males.We may
>feel solidarity with the Palestinians, but that is no reason
to endorse the
>anti-imperialism of fools. Populist anti-Israeli rhetoric is
cheap, but it
>offers no solutions - especially when it ends with a demand
for even more
>western intervention in the affairs of the Middle East. The
long-suffering
>peoples of the region deserve better than to be used by those
looking for
>somewhere convenient to strike sanctimonious poses.
>
>Mick Hume is editor of spiked ( [http://www.spiked-online.com])
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>Free $5 Love Reading
>Risk Free!
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/kCpqlB/TM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> -----The Democratic Left List-----
>To post message: DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com
>To subscribe: DemocraticLeft-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
>To unsubscribe: DemocraticLeft-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>To view messages on the web: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DemocraticLeft/messages
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>