Hume begins with guilt by artificial association with ancient historical context, relating leftists to Nazis. He characterizes criticism of Israel as a “fashion” of “Israel bashing,” but we never learn whether criticism of Iraq is Iraq-bashing or serious foreign policy-think. His repeatedly alleged links of the left to Islamists are mere assertion, utterly unsubstantiated, much like our friend Instapundit. Similarly unsubstantiated are allegations that antediluvian anti-globalists “share . . . a loss of faith in the modern age.”
Hume’s target is any call for Western intervention in the ME, to separate Arab from Israeli and clear the way for some kind of peace settlement. Coming from the left, he derides this view as a new imperialism. But all of the Western powers favor international cooperation in a peace settlement, including Tony Blair’s advisors. Needless to say, they will not be compared to Nazis by Hume.
Hume’s principal ruse is to accuse “anti-imperialists” of hypocrisy for supporting intervention. Of course, some anti-imperialists favor no such intervention, while others who are light on the 'imperialist' view do favor intervention. By mixing them together, Hume makes it sound like they all think in a similarly inconsistent, hypocritical fashion. But Hume knows very well there has always been part of the left that expects no good to come from Western intervention, and another part that does, from time to time. This is a willful effort to distort, rather than grapple forthrightly with either point of view. So we know Hume is a weasel.
At one point Hume invokes the West Indian Marxist C.L.R. James, resorting to the time-honored tactic of using dead socialists to attack living ones. We get some facts about assorted Islamic dudes, with none offered about links to anti-globalization protesters.
At one point, Hume says, “The issue that brings the anti-capitalists and Islamists closest is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both are quite recent converts to the Palestinian cause.” This is a simple lie. The U.S. and European left have been supportive of Palestinian nationalism since the late 1960's. Obviously the recent escalation of conflict has sparked greater interest. Why shouldn’t it? Every honest person knows Sharon and his cronies have wanted to gobble up the West Bank for forty years, and now it looks like this process is in motion.
The first faintly true item in the column is that the extent of Islamophobia was over-predicted by the left. What was not exaggerated, however, were concerns for civil liberties in the context of racial profiling.
Hume’s effort at analysis is weak. He purports a Western defensiveness and self-loathing, ignoring the developing trend of thought arguing for a newly expanded U.S. role in the world. One false signal of such defensiveness: “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.”
Of course, what is really going on is that the meaning of what a real Palestinian state would be is being ground into hamburger, and the IDF is destroying the Palestinian civil society (a.k.a., "terrorist infrastructure") that would be essential to any such state. Who is the fool here? For all the Hume-approved criticism of Israel, the bottom line is that Israel is permitted to run amuck with no negative consequences from its leading sponsor, the U.S.
In contrast to Hume’s respectable critics are those who say more or less the same thing but stridently, calling Israel a "Nazi" state. There are indeed some lefts who throw around the term Nazi carelessly. These types are a small minority in the anti-glob movement. The term is more commonly invoked among Palestinians. If someone bulldozed my relatives’ house while they were inside, I think I would be moved to extreme terminology too. But the main point here is that Hume seems to be saying the criticism of Israel is justified, it just lacks some historical perspective, and it is partly motivated by its greater salience. Now if your left analysis is lacking, you can be linked to Islamic fundamentalists and Nazis. Whereas if your right-wing analysis is lacking (i.e., Bush's "Axis of Evil"), you run no such risks.
The only speck of evidence in Hume’s column pertains to some turgid commentary (not alleged to be anti-semitic or pro-Islamist) from Jose Bove. In this case, it is evidence that a French farmer has a tenuous grasp of the finer points of political economy. This is like indicting the conservative movement for stupidity by using Rush Limbaugh as a marker. Otherwise we get a lot of psychobabble about the impure motives of protestors.
Hume offers no solutions for the Palestinians, although he acknowledges their plight. He attacks most strongly those most mobilized in defense of Palestinian self-determination. He’s a better leftist because he knows better, even though he doesn’t do shit. One can only conclude his solution is the status quo, wherein Israel is permitted to annex the West Bank, inch in inch, and drive out its inhabitants. With solidarity like this, the Palestinians' susceptibility to murderous Islamists is understandable. Whoops! Am I an Islamist now too? Darn.
********************************* Max B. Sawicky
http://www.MaxSpeak.Org BLOG: http://www.MaxSpeak.Org/gm/index.htm