The ease with which many of us are so willing to back revolutionary violence is equally troubling. This is highlighted by the fact that there is almost no accommodation of a position like LeVine's, which irrespective of how one might disagree with his take on Mandela, still embraces the same criticisms of both Israel and the United States that most of us share. So, he supports a 'non-violent' approach to this conflict. Its simply a difference of suggested strategy, not of overall analysis. At least there's that much to work with.
What I think makes many of us uncomfortable is the fact that because there is such a strong and emerging pro-violence consensus within the Western left - Europe, the US, we're increasingly unwilling to even entertain discussing non-violent alternatives to the conflict, or much else for that matter. That aspect of this discussion is really bad.
Many of our fellow travellers, so to speak, are being radicalized by this violence in all the wrong ways, to the point that they have a hard time thinking outside of it. Imagination is always important. W when you lose that, you get into trouble.
Joel
On Aug 4, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Seems to me there's a difference between saying that Israel cannot
> be allowed to win in Lebanon, and the U.S. in Iraq and that
> Hezbollah and the Iraqi resistance are the only available agents to
> make that happen, and writing love letters to them.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>