[lbo-talk] Double Standard: Israel and Saudi Arabia

Joseph Wanzala jwanzala at hotmail.com
Mon Jul 12 13:34:08 PDT 2004


How about JINSA, the "Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization committed to explaining the need for a prudent national security policy for the United States, addressing the security requirements of both the United States and the State of Israel, and strengthening the strategic cooperation relationship between these two great democracies." ? Here the term 'Jewish' and "Israel' are seen as co-extensive. http://www.jinsa.org/about/about.html http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest

As to the business of how confortable Bush is with other rich people, in contrast to Clinton, let's not forget that while Clinton himself came from humble beginnings, his cabinet was surpassed in its number of millionares only by the current Bush cabinet and most of Clinton's closest non-white consorts, other than the people in the photo ops, were wealthy African Americans like Vernon Jordan and Ron Brown.

The portrayal of the Saudis in F911 was very problematic indeed. ___________________________

Liza Featherstone wrote:

I actually think "Saudi" money is OK, just as it's OK to talk about U.S. or Israeli or British or French money. And we do talk about U.S. money: the US money in Israel sustaining the occupation, etc. The reason the term "Jewish money" creeps us out -- and it should -- is because "Jews" qua Jews are not a nationality or government or any kind of body from whom "money" can reasonably said to originate. Jews cannot as a body write a check. Some Jews as individuals send money to pro-Israeli groups, others send money to anti-war groups, or subscribe to LBO. To talk about "Jewish money" substitutes a racist cliche for analysis, as we all agree. Inasmuch as talk about "Saudi" money is similarly not always about the government, it risks a similar racism, but when we make clear we are talking about the Saudi elites, who effectively do run the country, I think it is acceptable. I think Moore in his film did do that, especially with the shots of Bush senior cavorting with the Saudi ruling class. There the message was not, look, he's hanging out with these weird scary Arabs, but rather, look how comfortable he is with other rich people, regardless of apparent cultural barriers. Unlike Clinton, Bush I was not a guy was often shown relaxing and kicking back with people very different from himself, so the image is striking, making you think, oh, maybe they are not so different: perhaps globally, the ruling class is his "base" rather than the American people who voted for him.

Liza



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list