- I have the following proposal, to help us create a much more effective national antiwar movement here in the US. This proposal grew out of the analysis I made here earlier, of the problems in the two big existing antiwar coalitions, both of which have a noticeable leftwing slant:
Maybe we should stop having any faith at all that either of those two existing organizations is capable of coordinating an effective antiwar movement at this time.
Maybe we should ask Tony Benn, the President of the British Stop the War Coalition, and his six very able Vice-Presidents, for permission to form a fraternal branch of their organization here.
Stop the War Coalition-US would adopt the same organizing approach that has proven so effective for the parent group in Britain. In particular:
- (1) A tight focus on ending the war, and
(2) Strong organizational cohesiveness and responsivity to events– including organizational lean-ness, integrity, and full accountability of leaders and officials at all levels.
Going this route would have huge advantages. For one thing, we could fold into such a movement the many sterling folks in the US who are not on the political left, who share the growing desire to bring the troops home… Like that great bunch of people who founded Antiwar.com. They are mainly rightwing libertarians. But their commitment to working and organizing against the war has been so strong that they have always welcomed the contributions of lefty peaceniks to their work. Good for them! That is truly another example we should follow.
When you’re doing coalitional work, it is almost always, imho, important to focus strongly on the goal of the coalition. Now is surely such a time!
The strategy described in the principal statement that came out of the worldwide conference hosted by the Stop the War Coalition on Saturday looks appropriately focused, and looks as if it could attract the broadest possible array of US antiwar activists to such a movement. It was this:
- We salute the struggle of the Iraqi people for national freedom and the worldwide movement against the war and the occupation. We pledge to step up our campaign against the occupation until it is ended. To this end, we call on the anti-war movement in all countries to:
* Organise international demonstrations on March 18-19 2006, the third anniversary of the war and invasion, calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops and an end to the occupation.
* Campaign for a full international public inquiry into the assault on Fallujah last year.
* Give full support to the campaigns of military families in the US, Britain and the other occupying countries.
* Develop an international coordination from this conference to plan further events.
* Campaign against the privatisation of Iraqi oil.
* Oppose any attack on Iran or Syria.
I suggest a new STWC-US should start by simply adopting that strategy as its own… Maybe the British STWC could send a couple of their people across the Atlantic to come and help us get set up here?
“Like that great bunch of people who founded Antiwar.com.”
Like that Israeliphobic bigot Justin Raimondo.
Like that reactionary “culture war” crusader Patrick Buchanan.
antiwar.com is no better than International ANSWER. They may not hold to doctrinaire Stalinist beliefs, but they are just as misguided.
I read Antiwar.com every day. I particularly like Justin Raimondo’s writing skill, and the high technical standard of the site.
I used to think that “demonisation” was just a figure of speech, but now I see that it is an aggressive opening move that the demoniser wishes to follow with further and escalating aggression.
Therefore the demonisers like Joshua should be challenged, whether one agrees with somebody like Justin Raimondo or not.
The fact that Raimondo, like Joshua, is a rabid anti-communist, has nothing to do with it.
In the quest for peace, the largest possible coalition must be assembled. Sectarian jibes must be shed like water off a duck’s back. Peace is for everybody.
Perhaps we mothers can further the antiwar cause by taking back Mothers’Day. I’d gladly forgo the cards and flowers for a family march against war!
“The fact that Raimondo, like Joshua, is a rabid anti-communist, has nothing to do with it.”
Dominic your commitment to rational discourse free of ad hominems is refreshing. We’re sure that since Christopher Hitchens, like Dominic, is a committed leftist, I’d never hear him called a liar, hypocrite, coward, or drunk by the likes of Justin Raimondo.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2824
Whoops, I was wrong.
Speaking of demons, here’s one where Raimondo literally refers to the neocons as agents of Satan:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6914
“The Luciferians who have seized power in Washington are certainly in need of some restraint”
Someone’s in need of restraint, thats for sure.
Justin Raimondo is a great writer. You’ll never touch him, vadim. Leave him alone. Better still, enjoy him. Certainly combine with him for the sake of peace. Ad hominem (or ad feminem) has nothing to do with it. You should read the job he did on Medea Benjamin! It won’t stop them combining for peace.
As for the Lord of the Flies, what worse crime is there than unilateral war-making, which is what the neo-cons have done? These are not half-good people, they are no-good warmongers. At least Justin Raimondo can see that plain and clear, which is more than you can manage, it seems, vadim.
The total cold war
One simple way to interpret Khomeinist anti-Israeli fantasies is to compare them with N.Korean position. Apparently, both Kim and Ahmadinejad reject two models of their relationship with the West:
— Active military confrontation, they don’t want to be destroyed.
— Any meaningful diplomatic process, they find breaking the iron curtain counter-productive. Domestically, the goal is to suppress local pro-Westerners.
So, their apparent goal is a total no-detente cold war. 50 years ago, N.Koreans discovered the ingenious way to fight such war and practice it ever since. What they do is combination of hostile black PR operations with demonstrations of “good will”. For example, they can call top US official “psychotic” and then to agree for the next round of multilateral talks. However, in the end, all this comes to nothing – as designed.
Now Ahmadinejad does exacty the same, but using specifically Khomeinist ideological language. Knowing for sure that “Holocaust denial” excludes any meaningful negotiations with the West, he makes statements to this end followed by “good will” gestures. Naturally, the West rejects these moves. On the next step, the Khomeinists claim that they “want peace” while Westerners are “warmongers”, etc, etc.
On the Western side, the strategy of total cold war poses two major challenges:
— Historical blackout. For neocons, Korean fight against the Japanese and Korean civil war that followed is completely non-existent. Even less they want to remember any non-Israeli views of the post-WW2 period in the ME and 1948 events.
— Irrelevant current news coverage. Each move is systematically taken out of context and heavily misrepresented.
What is to be done? All I can think about is quality historical and news analysis. Penetrating multiple layers of misrepresentation is not easy.
1. Spiegel. Michael Scott Moore. Denying the Holocaust for Political Advantage?: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,390338,00.html
2. GU. Holocaust a myth, says Iranian president: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1667355,00.html
3. Ind. Angus McDowall, Anne Penketh. Iranian president repeats Holocaust denial: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article333236.ece
4. http://www.juancole.com
5. https://vintage.justworldnews.org/
http://inplainview.us.tt/newsWorldMEIran.htm http://inplainview.us.tt/newsWorldFE.htm
I beg your pardon, Judy. Your short contribution is worth more than all the others put together. I think it is a brilliant idea. I think the Mothers should do exactly what you suggest. I think they should take charge on that day, refuse to be patronised and fussed over, and instead insist on the rest of us stopping our main nonsense, not for one day, but for good and all.
Interesting responses here. It strikes me that Vadim, who is not a supporter of the peace movement, is just trying to score points, many of them quite bizarre ones. (Hitchens a “committed leftist”? Gimme a break! I’ve known the guy for 35 years and today that description is completely off the mark.)
However, Joshua is probably more sincerely trying to think things through here. Joshua, the thing about coalition-building is that you do it precisely with people with whom you disagree on many issues– but with whom you agree on one or two that you consider to be of top priority to work on. If you agreed with them on all issues, you’d be building not a coalition but a united party, movement, or whatever.
So how high of a priority do we all put on actually ending this war and bringing the troops home?
(As a Quaker I also firmly believe that there is ‘that of God’ in everyone, even those whose views or actions I strongly disapprove of. For me, coalitional work also provides an opportunity to reach out build relationships with these people, and through these relationships we might later explore areas of difference in a mutually constructive way. But since you’re not a Quaker I don’t necessarily expect you to hold this view. On the other hand, it’s an approach that I know from experience can work… and it’s surely better than everyone staying in the box where they call each other names?)
I’ve known the guy for 35 years and today that description is completely off the mark.
But how do you feel about “liar, hypocrite, coward and drunk?” These are the terms that your partner in peace Justin Raimondo uses to describe your dear old friend. Are these the coalition building skills you find exemplary Helena? It seems like Justin Raimondo is a very angry and bitter person, overflowing with hatred and resentment. A strange ally for a gentle peace loving soul such as yourself.
I’m not so sure I’d be proud of a coalition that brings the left together with vicious antisemites like Pat Buchanan, David Duke and Justin Raimondo.
Now you’ve gone over the top, vadim. Even Joshua who started this was careful to avoid calling Justin Raimondo an anti-semite, but now you have gone and done it. Of course it isn’t true but what do you care? As I predicted, the demonisation of Raimondo that Joshua started, relatively mild as it was, gives rise to a terrible and relentless logic of escalation.
What distinguishes Justin Raimondo is his commitment to peace. The better he gets at what he does, the more vicious are going to be the attacks on him. But he is strong and people like you can’t touch him, vadim. You only expose your own foolishness, but worse than that, your desire to defend war. What for? Why do you come here to defend war? I think the reason is that you are really afraid that we might succeed in making peace.
“Why do you come here to defend war?”
I don’t come here to defend war Dominic. I havent once offered you (or Helena) my opinion of the war or the US occupation. Just so you know I hope the US leaves as soon as possible and that Iraqis can get on with their lives in peace. I just don’t see the Justin Raimondos and Pat Buchanans of the world accelerating this process. I’m sure you find their rhetoric invigorating and honest; I find it polarising and counterproductive.
I’m glad you are opposed to the war vadim and thanks for saying so.
I’m always looking for signs of peace movement activity, and not just at antiwar.com. On Counterpunch today there is a piece by Monica Benderman. Her husband Sgt. Kevin Benderman is locked up by the US government for refusing to go back to Iraq. She is acidic against what she calls pacifism. She accuses.
It’s a mistake to think that people who are serious about peace are weak or even tolerant, and still less that they are un-polarising. They are often harsh on themselves and demanding of their comrades. It is not a comfort zone.
The peace message insists on asking: Which side are you on? The side of peace or the side of war? I’m glad you are on the side of peace, vadim.
Monica Benderman’s article is at http://www.counterpunch.org/benderman12152005.html
Raimondo is a good writer if you like snarky and obnoxious missives thrown at people you don’t like. I suspect that’s why Dominic really likes him. Beneath their distinct ideologies, they have a greater devotion to smugly insulting those whom they disagree with.
Helena, as you correctly point out, coalition building entalis working with different groups. That can, of course, entail working with people with whom you disagree with on other issues.
I did not support the decision to go to war. And I would like to see it, end. Yet there are also several other issues that concern me. And I am not willing to throw out all of those concerns over the issue of when we withdraw troops from Iraq (and I am convinced it is a question of “when” but that’s for another comment).
The “antiwar movement” includes groups like ANSWER, which support virtually every other regime in the world which I despise. And it includes the Raimondo, Buchanan crowd, which adheres to an isolationist philosophy that I find morally problematic. Both groups hate Israel with a passion, and moreover routinely blame the Iraq war and several other social ills not only on Israel but those who express support for it. And there is clearly a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment attached to this. In some cases it is from the speakers themselves, in some cases it is rhetoric directed at those who harbor antisemitism even if the speaker/writer could, in good faith, deny such a claim.
And it bears worth repeating that this is not disagreement on a free standing issue. Rather, there is insistance on a direct linkage with Iraq. International ANSWER and its constituent groups have explicitly demanded that these issues be addressed as one. United for Peace and Justice is more of the line that “Yes, we support the Palestinian agenda in its entirety, but if you don’t you can still march with us.” Forgive me if neither option is particularly appealing.
So I am faced unfortunately with an antiwar movement that has decided, either for hateful or for strategic reasons, to base much of its rhetoric and policy agenda in what I see as an ethnically based attack towards myself. Sorry, I just don’t build coalitions with those people.
I don’t want the issue of Israel and antisemitism to distract from the several issues of disagreement. There is the treatment of autocrats like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez as modern day folk heros, the shilling for the PRC and North Korea, and the call to free “political prisoner” Sloboden Milosevic.
Finally, let me also say that I have heard similar complaints from several others even with significantly different political views than mine. At a Middle East dialogue project a couple of years ago, I was talking with a Syrian – Palestinian/Brazilian couple about, among other things, a recent antiwar march in Washington. The husband was displeased by the presence of the various groups which he felt were completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. He was particularly annoyed with the “Free Mumia” crowd. His response to them? “Yeah, but the guy shot a cop, right?”
okay, so perhaps there’s a conversation to be had about our host’s actual suggestions, rather than an inane argument about a single wingnut.
one note relating to the last post, before moving on to this one… the workers’ world party is old-line stalinist, not maoist or trotsyist (i’ll spare you their full lineage unless a fellow obsessive asks). their basic mode is a rigid enemy-of-my-enemy logic, which is why they’re not just opposed to the u.s. war and occupation in iraq, but active supporters of the baath (and milosevic, for that matter). mind you, this is their own stated position, not my extrapolation.
but as for the STWC-USA idea:
while i agree that neither WWP/ANSWER nor UFPJ is at all useful or effective, i think the proposal misses the reasons why that’s so. it seems to me that the rise in anti-war feelings in the u.s. has been caused by the effective linking of peace and justice, in the sense that janinsanfran laid them out.
for instance, the war immediately got a lot less popular after hurricane katrina hit – because the disaster was a perfect illustration of how the war (through its costs most directly) affects us here in the u.s., and of how the government’s racism has concrete effects here as well as abroad.
making these connections is what changes people’s minds about the war; just as the visibility of ‘the war at home’ turned u.s. opinion against the war in viet nam. this is what the local groups that make up UFPJ do well when they are effective. and it’s something they’re able to do best when the connection is to u.s. military policy as a whole, not just to iraq. the low-key u.s. occupation of afghanistan, the worldwide net of u.s. military bases, and the high-cost u.s. funding of the israeli military are also part of the equation that makes for effective anti-war organizing, in my experience.
but, unfortunately, none of this is something the UFPJ (much less WWP/ANSWER) leadership is particularly interested in, except as a very thin rhetoric.
UFPJ’s practice is, i would argu, ineffective exactly because it *follows* the “tight focus” approach you recommend. in fact, when the groups within the NYC chapter of UFPJ who had actual grassroots membership bases began to insist on the connections of the ‘war at home’ to u.s. military policy beyond iraq, the UFPJ national leadership dissolved the chapter. there is now *no* local UFPJ grouping in new york city – because a democratic structure was too scary.
but here’s my fundamental point of disagreement: what’s the advantage of having a single centralized anti-war organization, anyway?
electoral approaches to ending the war are unlikely to be effective – my new york senators, elected by vigorously anti-war constituencies, are viciously hawkish (i don’t buy clinton’s recent quavering). we have a good fifty years of experience to show that large numbers of people in the empty sunday streets of downtown washington have no noticable effect of government decisionmaking. synchronization of actions does not require either a national organization or a single program – just effective communication.
and as we know from the war in viet nam, symbolic and direct actions at local war-related sites (recruiting stations, city halls, war profiteers’ offices) work – as organizing tools, as ways of directly affecting the conduct of the war, and as ways of affecting the federal government. the scariest thing so far, for the hawks, is young folks’ massive refusal to be recruited, and their families’ support for them. that didn’t happen because of *any* national organization. some, like the war resisters’ league, have supported it concretely, but no center directed it and none could have if they’d tried.
i think helena’s practice, like most of ours, is a good guide to what actually works – local, sustained, grounded, decentralized organizing, not some resource-draining national superstructure with pretensions to grandeur.
when the groups within the NYC chapter of UFPJ who had actual grassroots membership bases began to insist on the connections of the ‘war at home’ to u.s. military policy beyond iraq, the UFPJ national leadership dissolved the chapter. there is now *no* local UFPJ grouping in new york city – because a democratic structure was too scary.
Wow! It looks like rightist dems know exactly what thety are doing 🙁
what’s the advantage of having a single centralized anti-war organization, anyway?
Decentralization looks reasonable.
new york senators, elected by vigorously anti-war constituencies, are viciously hawkish (i don’t buy clinton’s recent quavering).
Right.
we have a good fifty years of experience to show that large numbers of people in the empty sunday streets of downtown washington have no noticable effect of government decisionmaking.
Right 🙁
synchronization of actions does not require either a national organization or a single program – just effective communication.
Rioght!
the scariest thing so far, for the hawks, is young folks’ massive refusal to be recruited, and their families’ support for them. that didn’t happen because of *any* national organization. some, like the war resisters’ league, have supported it concretely, but no center directed it and none could have if they’d tried.
Interesting. However, were are in no-draft situation.
I disagree with Rozelle. Support for the war has fallen primarily because:
1. It became clear that the rationale for going was fabricated.
2. We’ve lost a lot of troops.
3. We’ve been there for over two years.
4. American troops continue to be regularly attacked despite claims of progress.
A lot of people thought that the war would be quick and easy. That was largely true as far as removing Saddam Hussein. But now people are realizing that we couldn’t just bop Hussein and leave. America was a bit spoiled after the 1st Gulf war, and angry after September 11th. Now americans are realizing that these actions have longer term consequences.
I will give Rozelle that Katrina may have caused some further discontent, but I think this was marginal at best.
RE:”the presence of the various groups which he felt were completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. He was particularly annoyed with the “Free Mumia” crowd.
The anti-war rallys are PATHETIC and EMBARASING. I went to an anti-war rally and hooked-up with the local Veterans For Peace group… but the entire day was filled with “save the rain forest, gobal warming sucks, stop the big corporations for doing corporation-y thingys, and we need a lesbian mayor” garbage.
TOTALLY WORTHLESS – A JOKE
============================
There are several reasons the antiwar movement against the US intervention in Vietnam was more effective than the movement in against the US intervention in Iraq:
So, it’s not really your personal fault, folks. The situation really is different. Pop Quiz: Who was the leader of the US Vietnam anti-war movement? Answer: There was no single leader, or the leadership was “Shadowy”. That is, secret. Just like today.
There are several reasons the antiwar movement against the US intervention in Vietnam was more effective than the movement in against the US intervention in Iraq: 1. The war in Vietnam was longer and many more Americans died. 2. The US allies in Vietnam were a minority. The us opposition in Iraq is a minority. 3. The Vietminh were a respected nationalist movement, compared to the Return Party and Al Queda which is reviled and feared, especially by the Shiites and Kurds. 4. The Vietnamese Communists got more help from the USSR and China than the insurgents do from outside. 5. The US intelligentsia and blogosphere recognizes that the insurgency is essentially fascist. 6. There are numerous Americans like this one who remember the old anti-war movement and its methods. 7. The Viet Cong never tried to blow up New York. Al Queda did, and the war in Afghanistan has an effect on the war in Iraq. 8. The South Vietnamese never had elections as genuine as the one today in Iraq. 9. Back then the Communist Party, USA was getting support from the USSR.
IMO, of all this only #1 makes certain sense, everything else is pretty much based on regionalism – generalized version of Said’s Orientalism.
My main point is that Vietnam war was lost not by the US politicians, US miltary – or anti-war lefties like Chomsky or Fonda. IMO, it was lost by the US regional analysts who, like Lewis and Pipes now, created completely wrong view of the SE Asia.
Greene made it very clear how blind “idealism” fails in situations where it is completely irrelevant.
Graham Greene. The Quiet American http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143039024/qid=1134683136/
“Just so you know I hope the US leaves as soon as possible and that Iraqis can get on with their lives in peace.”
I can’t quite let you get away with this statement, Vadim. Do you mean it literally, as soon as physically possible? Or do you have some special definition of what is “possible?”
I agree with Rozele. There is very little support for real war. There is only support for imaginary war – Hollywood movie war, Presidential speechwriter war, talk radio war, Washington thinktank war, somebody else’s war. The more real the war seems to Americans, the less they support it.
How do we make the war seem real to people thousands of miles away from it? The steady stream of casualties has that effect, but at a terrible price. Disseminating information about the costs of the war and how it affects peoples lives here in America is very important.
I’m not convinced that large-scale street protests have a net positive effect. They do remind people there’s a war going on, but they also tend to exacerbate the “us vs. them” mentality on which the warmongers thrive. The target audience (people on the fence) are just as likely to see a rowdy collection of all the “special interest” groups they oppose for various social reasons unrelated to the war, and turn in the opposite direction. Quiet, local demonstrations like Helena’s are likely more effective, IMHO.
John C.,
I agree with Rozele. There is very little support for real war. There is only support for imaginary war – Hollywood movie war, Presidential speechwriter war, talk radio war, Washington thinktank war, somebody else’s war. The more real the war seems to Americans, the less they support it.
I said a long time ago who are prod of US war and all that it’s a Movie/Game war they sit there launched Tomahawks, and all the weapons “Stupid Weapons and Bombs” they call it Victory
What’s the victory in Iraq Invasion, Its
1- Five Times Librated Al Ramadi
2- Three Times Librated Samara
3- Two Times Librated Falujah
4- Two Times Tel La’afer
This is Washington thinktank victory John…
Interesting responses here. It strikes me that Vadim, who is not a supporter of the peace movement,
I don’t know either what he going to say next time and what his new clams, now he is against the war “in words”… but what’s in his heart “God” knows
Here’s a question for the “ticking time bomb” torture lovers like Charles Krauthammer:
Suppose you have custody of a person you know has access to a vast arsenal of nuclear and conventional weapons, ready to be launched on his instructions. Suppose you know this person is determined to launch attacks that will result in well over a hundred thousand casualties, justified solely by his own religious and ideological convictions. Suppose the only way to stop these attacks is to force this person to admit that all the reasons he has claimed as justification for his aggression are based on lies and false intelligence. If it would mean saving all of those innocent lives, would you be justified in torturing George W. Bush?
Bush said that he still prays several times a day and particularly appreciates the prayers of fellow citizens. He said his faith plays a big role in his life and guides him through it. Despite that devotion, Bush said that he is not confused about how he got into office.
“There’s a difference between a personal relationship with an almighty and kind of this notion in some quarters of the world that some have God as directing policy out of the White House,” Bush said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178741,00.html
John C, God help us
I’d say be careful before getting the British STWC involved; they too are dominated by a Marxist party, the Socialist Workers’ Party, and the “RESPECT Coalition” party they founded decided to put up a number of SWP activists as candidates (eg. Lindsey German for mayor of London). It’s not a front as such, but certainly the SWP’s involvement has lost it a lot of credibility.
Lindsey German the Convenor of STWC is reputed to come from the SWP and Andrew Murray the chairperson is probably in the CPB. But I think you are missing the point, Yusuf.
In the USA the difference in tactics between these two numerically small camps has split the whole country’s peace movement into two.
The CPUSA is with the UFPJ while the US equivalent of the SWP is the main force in ANSWER.
The British have managed to avoid the split. Don’t ask me exactly how they did it, but it looks like a trade-off.
The uniting factor of STWC is strictly peace and end to occupation in Iraq, and no side-issues. But any organisation that wishes to parade behind that banner on public occasions is welcome. Plus they have the committee of well known and representative people that Helena described. So you get what you want – sharp focus and broad support.
Another thing I notice about US thinking is that it is largely passive. It imagines the public as a huge mass that gets inexorably driven by large impersonal forces. WarrenW’s is the outstanding example here. He does not treat the people as having agency or aotonomous thought. To him they are a herd.
Whereas experienced political people, and religious people come to that, know that public opinion is won on a one-by-one basis. You have to confront your neighbour, and put the case to him or her.
Of course if nobody takes the time to do that, then people will have to go by what they see in the mass media, which is essentially supporting the war.
But if you do the door-to-door and local neighbourhood work you will be able to beat the mass media every time.
Support for the peace movement is everywhere. It is mainly a matter of organising it properly, rendering it visible, and getting it to talk to its neighbour.
Also, I somebody wrote that big demonstrations are “preaching to the choir” or preaching to the converted. This is true in the sense that big demos are occasions where the movement shows itself off to itself. And this is a vital function of any big movement. It must be able to see and feel and know its own strength. I would say that more times than not, this is the main function of mass demonstrations. They are social occasions and they also provide an effective means of communication within and between the mass movement. And the mobilisation prior to demonstrations is where the message gets put out around the movement, revitalising it, and to the general public, even more than in the demo itself.
This latter is why it is so good that we have three clear months’ notice of the demos of 18-19 March 2006. We have an excuse to talk to our neighbours about it and we can start right now over Christmas making rendez-vous for March.
Joshua, if you want to be part of an effective antiwar movement you have to get over the notion that opposition to US policies in the Middle East is not ipso facto evidence of antisemitism. The truth is that most people I have known who criticize Israel do so out of sympathy for the Palestinians, not hostility towards Jews.
Can’t you see that the insistence by some supporters of Israel that opponents of Israel are motivated by antisemitism simply reinforces the antisemitic notion that Jews and Israel are identical? You can’t have it both ways.
The fact is that in the controversy over the Middle East, the most committed supporters of Israel are Jewish. If people (like myself) criticize, say, Bill Safire, they do so because of his political position, NOT because he is Jewish. I wish you could muster the maturity to accept this.
Jason Raimondo has never said or written anything that I have seen that could be called “clearly anti-Jewish”.
“…The antisemitic notion that Jews and Israel are identical”
The idea that Jews and Israel are identical is hard to prove or disprove — it’s not a very clear-cut idea. But it is hardly an anti-semitic idea.
Clearly there are non-Jewish Israelis and Jews outside of Israel so… What might be meant is the idea that support for Israel is the same as support for Jewish well-being, I guess. And there are non-Jewish Zionists and Jewish anti-Zionists too. People are complex. In any case it’s clear that anyone who is deeply and sincerely anti-Semitic would naturally be anti-Israel. And it is also clear that some important anti-Israel forces are very anti-Semitic (see the Hamas charter for an example). Also, the Mufti of Jerusalem was a Muslim Nazi in the 1940’s and was anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish and anti-Israel.
But while the idea that the “notion that Jews and Israel are identical” may be true or false, I don’t see it as an anti-Semitic idea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1095694,00.html
“If Israel’s critics are truly opposed to anti-semitism, they should not repeat traditional anti-semitic themes under the anti-Israel banner. When such themes – the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery – are used to describe Israel’s actions, concern should be voiced. ”
“Joshua, if you want to be part of an effective antiwar movement you have to get over the notion that opposition to US policies in the Middle East is not ipso facto evidence of antisemitism. ”
I never said it was. That’s largely a straw man of your own creation. But see vadim’s post above as to what problems there are in the antiwar movement.
By the way, use a new handle. The current one is laughably inaccurate.
anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish and anti-Israel.
When its come to Muslims its not “racisim”
Anti-Muslim racism? That oxymoron puzzled me. Islam being a religion with followers of every race and pigmentation, where might race enter the picture? Dictionaries agree that racism concerns race, not religion:
Daniel Pipes
WarrenW wrote:
“The idea that Jews and Israel are identical is hard to prove or disprove — it’s not a very clear-cut idea. But it is hardly an anti-semitic idea.”
It certainly is. Jews and Israel are not identical. Period. Israel is a state, and Jews are individuals. Individuals may or may not choose to identify themselves with Israel. It’s up to them. It’s their choice. To say that Jews and Israel are identical, is to deny them this choice because they are Jews. That’s antisemitic.
Joshua, in your own words and with concrete examples, who exactly are these people in the antiwar movement who have “anti-Jewish sentiment”, and make “ethnically based attack(s) towards myself”. And don’t just name names but provide evidence, please.
Is this a metaphor? This thread, I mean. It starts with a practical cosideration from Helena Cobban “for an effective US antiwar movement”. Joshua immediately tries to turn it into a discussion of semitism/antisemitism. With the help of vadim and WarrenW and of those who would argue against them, they gradually succeed in drowning out the discussion of practical peacemaking, until the finer points of their obsession is all that is going on.
I am not saying that these are necessarily warmongers doing it deliberately. Actually, in any struggle it is extemely difficult to avoid sectarian wrangles taking over the agenda, time and again. People would rather wallow in the abstract than stretch for the concrete. It’s less strenuous, not so demanding, and much less risky. Practical action can fail, so there is also fear of defeat involved.
Getting action back on the agenda requires persistence and awareness by at least one person and the more that contribute, the more likely are we to be able to get back on to the consequential and away from the inconsequential.
Let’s try again, folks. This time without the anti/pro-semitism debate interfering. A successful peace movement is good for everybody.
Fair point, Dominic. Any peace movement has to start with ourselves, and perhaps I’m not so well-equipped to participate.
I will say that I question whether mass rallies are effective, even if they are one-pointed and free of Trotskyite influence. I attended a rally in Boston in October 2002. My main feeling about it was that by blocking off a large area of downtown we were inconveniencing a lot of people. Maybe times have changed and smaller, more targeted activities like vigils are more appropriate now.
No Pref, I reckon there’s lots of room for imagination but if you leave it to the last minute then you will prolly end up marching from A to B all over again, but then you should still do it.
The idea that what keeps people away from showing some kind of opposition the war is some kind of “cringe factor” is awful but at least partly true, I’m afraid.
However, emarrassment goes away with experience to the point where you get people standing in the freezing rain like Helena and her friends the other day. Learn to love it!
DENVER – The Air Force Reserve is discharging a lieutenant colonel accused of causing thousands of dollars in damage by defacing cars bearing pro-Bush bumper stickers, his lawyer and military officials confirmed Friday.
Lt. Col. Alexis Fecteau, a pilot with 500 combat hours in the first Persian Gulf War and the Balkans, was charged earlier by Denver prosecutors with felony criminal mischief.
Did we prepare to stop these actions by US admin.?
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,83128,00.html
The reason why the British anti-war movement is as you described it is due to the fact that most people back home opposed the war from the start. Thus setting up a movement was relatively easy because it had so much talent to draw on. Remember that when Blair was fored to allow the Commons to vote on the aggression, opponents of the war came from all three main parties.
In the USA the war was very popular, untill the casualty figures mounted. Thus is is no surprise that the anti-war movement there is narrow and sectarian, because only the far left were organising anything. That will change as time goes on, so don’t lose heart.
Ken, the American public had no particular desire to invade Iraq. The war became popular in a sense only after the invasion, when the rally-round-the-flag effect took over. There has always been widespread apprehension about the wisdom of this adventure.
It’s easy to misinterpret American conservativism. It’s not just Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Lots of people are torn between their strong beliefs in loyalty to family, friends and country, and their sense that they have been led down the wrong path.
The Bush gang understood from the beginning how shallow and fragile their domestic war coalition was, which is why they never seriously considered restarting the draft, even when it became clear that we had nowhere near enough troops on the ground.
I think it’s clear that the generals have told the civilian leaders they can’t go on like this much longer. The ground war is going to end soon, with or without an “anti-war movement.”
Fatal mistake, John C.
They are going to continue bombing, with or without troops on the ground or troops “over the horizon” unless your peace movement gets its arse into gear.
“They are going to continue bombing, with or without troops”
You may be right, Dominic. This has been my worst fear.