Doug Henwood (Thu, July 22, 2010 10:36:58 AM):
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Eric Beck wrote:
> As for convincing the government to stop supporting Israel, I think
> you are just being contrarian. You don't really think "we" can
> convince the entire state/war apparatus to change it's mind do you?
It's no more or less likely than a food co-op in Olympia, Wash., changing Israeli policy, is it? I suspect a lot of this sort of thing gets done because it makes people feel better, like they're doing something, rather than any evaluation of the actual consequences of their actions.
Doug ___________________________________
An evaluation of the actual consequences of our actions would mean that most of us do nothing. I've been to every damn peace demonstration in my area since February of 2003. I can't count the letters and emails to my rep and senators on war, complete with pointing out the consequences on my voting behavior of their actions. I've tied campaign contributions as best I could to peace and human rights. The result has been zilch, nada, as the U.S. government pours more money into turning Middle Easterners into pink mist. I find this a moral abomination. So, am I doing the sort of thing that makes people feel better?
Things one does in one's life contribute to persuading others, which may eventually have an effect, however paltry current results may seem. The pressure on apartheid in South Africa is certainly the major success story of public disagreement with U.S. foreign policy in my lifetime. It certainly beats even the supposed victory of Congressional legal restraint from the government practicing terrorism in Nicaragua, but the executive simply broke the law there with impunity. Do you have some ideas on actions with effective actual consequences?