Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Angelus Novus wrote:
>
> > If that's fascism, then the term is so broadly
> > applicable, it is analytically useless.
>
> But there's a thrill in applying it to Israel. Plus you can make nice
> clever graphics involving the Star of David and the Swastika.
I have always opposed using the label fascist for post ww2 states and political tendencies, let alone Nazi.
But one of the reasons for that opposition is knowledge of the repressive power of bourgeois democracies, such as the U.S. and Israel. In the case of Israel a realistic view counts the occupied territories as part of Israel. Given that fact, Israel's domestic policy is so despicable that comparisons become pointless. In the case of the U.S., the state has never been unable to apply the repressive force deemed, at any time, necessary for the maintenance of "stability." Hence it is not necessary to use silly labels like "fascism" or "nazi." And leftists should be aware that if "the left" emerges at any time as a serious threat to capitalist rule, that the "necessary" repression will be used, up to and including mass slaughter.
Now in respect to foreign policy.
Israel is merely a cats paw of U.S. imperialism. Of course the U.S. does not control its 'puppets' the way one controls an actual puppet, but the control is sufficient for all practical purposes, barring occasional embarassments. Hence whatever can be said of u.s. foreign policy applies equally to Israel.
U.S. is a _greater_ menace to human well being in the world as a whole than Nazi Germany ever was or could have become. So again it is merely silly to call the U.S. "fascist" or "Nazi." It is much worse in global terms.
And to deny that the u.s. is fascist does not say anything good about the u.s. It only seems to be so when put up against the strawfigure of u.s. leftists who make the mistake of throwing the label around.
Carrol