Dialogue with a western leftist

[shira]

"You say you support the Palestinians?"
"Yes."
"Which Palestinians?"
"What do you mean 'which Palestinians'? I support all Palestinians. Their oppression by Israel is the great injustice of our time. Western hypocrites ignore racism, and use false accusations of antisemitism to stop legitimate criticism. The Zionist-controlled media label resistance 'terrorism', while ignoring the state terrorism of Israel which is the root cause of all the violence in the Middle-"
"All right, stop there. You still have to choose. Do you support the Fatah leadership in the West Bank, which may be corrupt and unpleasant but is at least presiding over an economic boom and allowing some freedoms, or Hamas, which tortures its enemies and tramples on the rights of women."




cont'd...
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/48235/dialogue-a-western-leftist

[inademv]

1. There is a difference

between supporting the rights of a people and supporting the governing body that happens to be in power.

[Jefferson23]

2. Nick Cohen:

snip* Cohen is regarded by his supporters as belonging to the intellectual tradition of radical writers such as George Orwell<4> and Albert Camus. Formerly a strong critic of American foreign policy, declaring it was "Right to be anti-American" early in 2002,<5> in November that year he announced his support for the invasion of Iraq and denounced the left for, as he saw it, "anti-Americanism"<5> and failing to address Islamist ideology. "The left... has swerved to the right," he wrote.<6>

His critics have argued that he has in fact swerved to the right himself, and labeled him a neoconservative,<7> pointing to his praise for Paul Wolfowitz, Sarah Palin, Jonah Goldberg, Richard Littlejohn and George W. Bush, his continuing support for military action in Iraq and the Palestinian Territories, and his decision to write for the Daily Mail and FrontPage magazine, where he complained in a book review that the "ultra-conservative" David Horowitz, the magazine's editor, did not "go far enough" in his denunciation of American liberals. Cohen seemed to accept this, writing that he was "turning... into a Tory"<8> and "defends neocons".<9> A number of journalists and activists, mainly from the liberal-left, have publicly urged Cohen to "rejoin the conversation" and "become part of the solution",<10> arguing that at present he "promotes the most extreme, polarising and least representative voices".

Cohen said in 2010 he "will vote Labour – but only because of Iraq."<11> However, once the election was over, he urged the Liberal Democrats to "be brave enough" to go into coalition with the Conservatives, thus installing them in power. He said they were preferable to Gordon Brown, on the grounds that he shouts at his colleagues, and Conservative spending cuts were necessary anyway.<12> The following week, however, on 16 May, he accused the Liberal Democrats of having "toffed up" the Cameron-led coalition and "sundered their links with the social democratic tradition", and described Vince Cable as a "good social democrat who threw in his lot with the Tories...a man with a mortal sin on his conscience."<13> This prompted the New Statesman magazine, Cohen's former employer, to ask: "Does the Observer not provide this man with an editor? A sub? A reviewer of copy?"<13>

In 2006, he was a leading signatory to the Euston Manifesto, which proposed "a new political alignment" in which the left opposes terrorism and anti-Americanism, terms which Cohen in 2002 had described as a "propaganda insult."<5>

He is an advisory board member of Just Journalism, an independent organisation that argues the British media is too critical of Israel, and needs to be more balanced. He supported Operation Cast Lead, writing in The Jewish Chronicle that "it was clear to me that when Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel it had declared war and had to accept the consequences. I would not have thought that five years ago."<14><15> He also argued: "British Jews are living through a very dangerous period. They are the only ethnic minority whose slaughter official society will excuse."<14><15> He also says that whenever he hears the argument that there is a Jewish lobby influencing US foreign policy, "I bang the table and batter its proponents remorselessly."<16>

snip* He argues that Barack Obama is "the most reactionary President since Richard Nixon", and that he "combines the weakness of Jimmy Carter with the morals of Richard Nixon."<56> He compares him unfavourably to George W. Bush, on the grounds that Obama "doesn't frighten anyone." He says of the President: "Many from his political generation use the superficially leftish language of multiculturalism and post-colonialism to imply that human rights are a modern version of imperialism which westerners impose on societies that do not need them. Scratch a relativist and you find a racist."<56> This article later had to be corrected. The Observer noted: "This Comment piece said: 'In his Cairo speech to Muslim countries ... did not mention the oppression of women.' In fact, he dedicated several paragraphs of his speech to women's rights, condemning those who would deny women equality through education and offering US aid to support expanded literacy for girls in any Muslim-majority country."<56>

in full: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cohen

[inademv]

3. So Nick Cohen changes his positions on a whim and often yeah?

[Jefferson23]

4. It's a glimpse into how he thinks, yes. n/t

[saras]

6. Supports Palin? Can't be sane. End of discussion.

[Jefferson23]

7. This is the OP he wrote about Palin as wiki did not have a citation for it.

When Barack's berserkers lost the plot

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/07/uselections2008.republicans2008

[oberliner]

8. Actually seems to be a pro-Obama piece in a way

Not sure what the point is though.

[Jefferson23]

9. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion on that..in a way

a pro- Obama piece..ok.

[shira]

11. Nick Cohen doesn't support Palin but he does have problems with fanatic berserkers on both ends....

...of the political spectrum - including Palin - but not when she's mercilessly ripped into and perceived as a sympathetic figure as a result.

Better to articulate what you stand for politically rather than paint your foe as the devil incarnate and make her into a martyr.

[shira]

13. Yes, you take Noam Chomsky and his 911 truther views over Nick Cohen.

Have at it!

[JonScholar]

14. Yeah, Noam Chomsky is totally a truther

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo

[JonScholar]

5. Dialogue with a strawman

1. Supporting the Palestinians doesn't require supporting Hamas or Fatah. We don't have to choose between them

2. Fatah is presiding over an economic boom in Ramallah, home to a small Palestinian elite. The vast majority of the West Bank lives in dire poverty, unable to secure resources as basic as clean water as a result of Israeli policies.

3. The writer claims that Hamas wants to establish an Islamic Caliphate throughout the whole world. Hamas is not an internationalist movement like Al Qaeda. They are a nationalist movement. He's obviously confusing them with Islamic Jihad or some other organization.

4. The author states the following: "You saw what happened in Gaza. The Islamists won one election, cancelled all future elections". Actually, the Islamists won the elections, and then Fatah which lost the election refused to step down. Fatah later attempted a military coup against the Hamas government under the order of the United States to rout them from power. The military coup backfired and Gaza was taken over by Hamas militants, while the West Bank remained in control of the unelected Fatah government. Hamas cancelled elections inside of Gaza because it refused to hold elections if Fatah would be the group overseeing them. In recent history, a unity government has been formed and elections are now scheduled to take place.

5. He claims that Hamas and Fatah cannot form a unity government. Obviously recent history proves this claim to be wholly inaccurate.

6. The author tries a "gotcha" moment by comparing Israeli military intervention with the academic boycott against israel. Does he recognize the difference between a cultural boycott and dropping bombs on people?

7. "I agree it can be sometimes. But when you will not condemn Islamist movements that lift Jewish conspiracy theories direct from the screeds of European fascism, I am entitled to suspect that you suffer from a severe case of Judeophobia at the very least." Is pure strawman. I don't know any western leftists who support Hamas' tactics.

I don't have the will to go on. The author of this article is a moron

[bemildred]

10. Reminds me of an Ayn Rand novel.

Fake heroes, fake bad people, fake dialog, prose like a high-school debating society. No kinky sex though, you have to be grateful for these small favors.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

15. Your reply doesn't really address Nick Cohen's post. To your first point...

1. Supporting the Palestinians doesn't require supporting Hamas or Fatah. We don't have to choose between them

You don't support Hamas's extreme brand of ultra-conservative, rightwing fundamentalism but you applaud their empowerment and legitimization as part of the new unity government? That's as bad but actually worse than Team Israel feeling the same way about Avigdor Lieberman's party....saying Lieberman's party got some votes so he deserves representation in parliament and that his unity is needed for peace (what a crock of shit).

And rather than criticize what they do in Gaza and what they stand for (which is everything illiberal and regressive), you also don't feel it's appropriate to promote progressives/liberals for office in Gaza, or fight for free speech/press, women's rights, gay rights, or LGBT rights there? Hamas can do as they will and you won't say a word?

[oberliner]

16. What do you think would happen if the Palestinians had an election today?

Do you think Hamas would do well?

[shira]

17. It wouldn't make a significant difference unless Hamas voluntarily disarms

And they won't do that, knowing payback's a bitch if they let Fatah get revenge for 2007.

So even if Fatah wins in a landslide, Hamas will still rule Gaza. And when the IDF leaves the W.Bank, they'll rule that too - with or without a vote.

[inademv]

18. Didn't the Palestinian government rule W.Bank before Israel stole it?

[azurnoir]

19. nope Jordan did, the West Bank was never part of Israel

not in the partition plans it was part of Jordan and Jordan ceded it to the Palestinians on July 31, 1988, you'll hear that referred to as Jordan stripping Palestinians of citizenship with little other detail

[Shaktimaan]

29. No.

There was no Palestinian government, nor did Israel "steal" the West Bank. (It occupied it, annexing only East Jerusalem.)

When Israel occupied the WB there was no semblance of Palestinian government (or even a coherent national agenda beyond a general desire to crush Zionism and retake Israel's land in the name of Palestine.)

Between 1949 and 1988 Jordan claimed the West Bank as its own. As azurnoir mentioned, it occupied the WB and gave the Palestinians living there Jordanian citizenship. When the PLO was founded in 1964 one of its tenets was a (basically forced) concession that the West Bank and Gaza was not Palestinian land. Article 24: "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area."

The PLO (the only organization legally allowed to speak on behalf of the Palestinians internationally) was expelled from Jordan following Black September in 1970. It settled in Lebanon until it was expelled to Tunis by Israel in 1982 following the war.

Jordan relinquished its claim over the West Bank in 1988, ceding the land to the Palestinians (while simultaneously stripping all WB Palestinians of Jordanian citizenship.) This was a largely symbolic gesture since no one except England ever accepted Jordan's autonomy over the WB anyway. Regardless, it did mean that Israel now had the option of withdrawing without seeing the WB immediately fall back into Jordanian hands. (Provided the Palestinians were able to form a government that Israel could negotiate with.)

In 1993 the Oslo Accords were signed granting the Palestinians the right to self-govern with limited powers. This was the first semblance of Palestinian government to ever exist.

[LeftishBrit]

30. No, it was ruled by Jordan before 1967.

[LeftishBrit]

20. Well, actually...

as long as the Israeli voting system is what it is, there *is* no choice than to give Lieberman's party representation in parliament. What *was* avoidable and inexcusable was making him Foreign Secretary.

But I oppose boycotting Israel, or refusing talks with it, even though they have Lieberman and other undesirables in the government. I would have opposed boycotting America for having Bush and Cheney as its leaders, or for having Jesse Helms as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee (in some ways, parallel to the Lieberman situation) a few years ago.

And I oppose an automatic refusal to deal with Palestine, however much I may hate their RW government.

Elections and policies do have consequences, and if the Palestinian Authority veers in a RW direction, this does mean that talks may be less effective and agreements less possible. But no reason for not making the attempt. Begin and Sadat didn't look like very promising candidates for peace talks - until they happened. Nor, for that matter, did the likes of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness.

[LeftishBrit]

21. Like many of Cohen's articles...

this mixes very dodgy allegations with some grains of truth. Yes, some western leftists can be a bit uncritical of all countries and groups that are opposed to the American and allied Right, and have a 'mirror-imageist' view that such groups and countries are ipso facto the 'good guys'.

But western leftists in general do not use the term 'zio-nazi', rail about the 'Zionist controlled media' or attempt to close down Jewish shops. Really, who on the left, even Helen Thomas or Jenny Tonge, has done the last of these things? Cohen, who still supports the Iraq war, is probably not making a distinction between leftists and anti-war xenophobic-isolationists.

Cohen is not a very reliable commentator. It should be noted for example that he's very anti-Obama (or was when I last looked; he tends to lurch rather disconcertingly between different viewpoints from time to time).

[oberliner]

22. He has an article somewhere explaining why he would vote for Obama if he could

Not sure if he has changed his tune since then or if the initial article was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Can't seem to track it down.

[LeftishBrit]

23. He changes his expressed views on many issues with startling frequency...

I think the article you mean is:

http://www.jewcy.com/post/nick_cohen_if_i_could_vote_itd_be

But more recently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/24/nick-cohen-barack-obama

[shira]

24. He calls it as he sees it and wants liberal values upheld.

I commend him for calling out leftists who turn their backs against genuine liberal causes and values.

Who are some of the leftists you appreciate for upholding, maintaining, or fighting for liberal values?

[LeftishBrit]

25. Sometimes he does. Supporting the Iraq war is not 'defending liberal values'.

People I appreciate for their liberal/ left values range in degree of leftism from Peter Tatchell (one of the furthest left *and* most consistent) through Ed Miliband the current Labour leader, to President Obama - not as left-wing on some issues as I'd like, but a lot better than most other presidents, and a lot wiser than Nick Cohen.

[shira]

26. Nobody's perfect...

I like Tatchell.

But I consider Cohen, Tatchell, and David Hirsch to all be on the same page (give or take) with Israelis like Amos Oz, Barry Rubin and Ben Dror Yemini or Canadians like Terry Glavin. All liberals, some more leftwing than others, socialists or not, but fellow liberals nonetheless.

[LeftishBrit]

31. I think I've seen everything...

when I see Peter Tatchell and Barry Rubin put in the same category!

[shira]

32. Any disagreements they'd have with each other...

...are far less important than what they would agree upon.

Ask yourself why David Hirsch puts articles up by both Nick Cohen and Norm Geras on Engage.

[LeftishBrit]

33. I disagree

They would agree on *one* issue - opposition to Islamic theocracies - for completely different reasons.

It's a bit like saying that all opponents of the Iraq war are fundamentally in agreement with each other, because they agree on that one issue, and that thus Ed Miliband, the late Robin Cook, Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer are all on the same side as Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Jean-Marie LePen and Nick Griffin, and that all of them are on the same side as Ahmadinejad.

[shira]

34. All the people mentioned above agree on typical liberal values...

Universal human rights, Freedom of religion, speech, and press, individual civil liberties, equality before the law, separation of powers, reason over irrationality, self-criticism, gun control, healthcare, the environment, pro-choice, etc...

It's hardly one issue that unites them.

Those on the "Left" who do not believe in universal human rights or any of the other rights above when they relate to different societies are NOT liberals no matter what they advocate for western society.

I think you believe the faux left moral relativists who are basically against (or refuse to advocate on behalf of) universal human rights count as liberals and I couldn't disagree more. They're as Rightwing as it comes outside western society where they are basically megaphones for the lunatic 3rd world totalitarian right.

[LeftishBrit]

36. Here are a few quotes from 'The Rubin Report' blog

'Even a refusal to limit immigration, promote assimilation, deny special privileges, or ban polygamy can be justified as ways to avoid making Muslims feel "excluded."

Indeed, this is largely what's happening in Europe: almost is anything is justified to ensure that Muslims are happy.'

Nonsense! And polygamy is NOT recognized in the EU in any case. Immigration (except between EU countries) is already seriously restricted in most countries, so that when people propose 'limiting immigration' further they usually mean banning it altogether, banning it for certain populations, or still worse, 'voluntary' repatriation of existing immigrants and their descendants. And define 'special privileges'.

'Yet if the main threat is revolutionary Islamism and the collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy, then Europe is in a lot of trouble.'

Anyone who THINKS that the main threat in Europe is 'the collapse of national identity, stability and democracy' due to small Muslim minority populations is not a liberal, any more than a person who attributes a similar level of threat to 'Zionist control'. And 'revolutionary Islamism' (a big problem in Pakistan and the Middle East, but very minor in comparison with local far-right groups and just-plain apolitical violent local gangsterism in Europe) is just a current excuse for xenophobia in Europe. I'm old enough to remember the days when Islamism was scarcely treated as an issue, but right-wing anti-immigrant bigots were nevertheless screaming about our being overrun by 'alien' immigrants.

'In other words, the Multicultural, Political Correct, criticism-of-Islam-equals-hate-crime approach is the worst possible policy, undermining the host country, radicalizing the Muslim community, and simultaneously stirring up mutual hatreds. There is nothing more likely to create something that might be called "Islamophobia" in the future than kowtowing to fear of this largely non-existent phenomenon in the present.'

There can be genuine debates about multiculturalism - vs. melting pot issues, and about how much one should accommodate different religious groups (personally, I favour a firm stand in support of secularism in public life against excessive influence by Christian *or* Muslim anti-secularist social conservatives, of whom the former are far more numerous, but both exist and will probably be collaborating with each other far more as time goes on). But to say that 'Islamophobia' is currently largely non-existent is just like saying that antisemitism is largely non-existent. Both are untrue. And in my opinion, it's important to fight ALL xenophobia, bigotry and 'culture war' mentalities, rather than claiming that only some forms exist or are important, or putting different forms of it in competition with each other.



'The Netherlands is about to be Europe's great experiment: Can a center-right government manage an overblown welfare state, nationally suicidal multiculturalism, and virtually open-door immigration policies in a way that can maintain popular support and solve problems?'

Anyone who refers to 'nationally suicidal multiculturalism' is not a liberal. There may be genuine reasons to oppose certain forms of multiculturalism in favour of more integrationist policies; but the concept of 'national suicide' is a fundamentally RW-nationalist, xenophobic one. It should be noted that only 5% of the Dutch population is Muslim. There are quite a few East Europaean immigrants in the Netherlands, and also a certain number from former Dutch colonies such as Suriname, but I don't think these are the groups that worry Rubin (though they do worry some of the local anti-immigrant bigots!)

The Netherlands does *not* have a 'virtually open door immigration policy', *except* with regard to people from other EU countries.

And, quite apart from views on immigration, multiculturalism, Islam, etc. - ANYONE who uses the phrase 'overblown welfare state' is almost certainly illiberal on what may be the one single political issue most crucial to me!

[shira]

37. Response

Am I to understand correctly you don't agree someone is liberal if he/she takes a strong stand for all the things mentioned in my last post?

I would certainly say that those who hold (white) westerners to liberal standards and minorities or immigrants (in western democracies) to lower or illiberal standards (claiming multiculturalism or moral relativism) is not only racist but illiberal. Do you disagree? It tends to be these same "leftists" who also have zero standards/expectations for all 3rd world societies/cultures and people. These are traits of rightwingers, not liberals - or do you disagree?

AFAIK based on all I've read from him, Rubin is a staunch liberal. When I read the articles you pulled quotes from, what I see is Rubin's concern that due to fear of Islamist retribution, there exists a deliberate refusal - in some western liberal societies - to hold extreme Islamists to the same lawful standards as everyone else. He is in no way saying all Muslims are extreme Islamists, that all Muslims are a threat to society, or that something must be done WRT Muslim immigration, etc. In fact he has written sympathetically about moderate, secular liberal Muslims who are treated as pariahs and threatened not only by extreme Islamists but are also shunned/ignored/silenced by "leftists" or other so-called "liberals". Apparently, to side with liberal Muslims is to oppose/criticize all that the extremists stand for. Therefore, to oppose Islamist views and actions (which are about as far rightwing as possible) even within western society is racist, rightwing/neo-connish, and not very PC.

Tell me something, do you agree with some western nations banning the burka? Consider women's rights. You realize Jews are leaving places like Malmo Sweden because the authorities refuse to protect them from Islamist extremists? Have you seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBtct-z9JS8&feature=related

These extremists with ridiculously harmful rightwing views are doing what they want in liberal societies out of fear that holding them accountable is "racist". You don't see a problem here?

[LeftishBrit]

38. I do not think that someone is a liberal if they use such expressions as 'nationally suicidal

multiculturalism', no.

We are coming again to the distinction that you mention often with regard to Israel: the distinction between demonization and criticism.

It is not necessarily illiberal to advocate a melting-pot approach in preference to multiculturalism. It is not illiberal to take a tough line on certain cultural practices that a country disapproves. As regards the burqa: I suppose that here I take a view rather closer to libertarianism than is typical of me: I don't think that the state should be telling people what to wear, but I also think that employers, educational institutions, etc. should be able to prohibit the burqa without coming under any discrimination laws. Personally, as a university teacher, I would not wish to teach a student who was wearing a burqa, as it interferes with necessary communication (and despite my having had quite a few Muslim students none has ever worn a burqa, at least in my presence). Not many British Muslims actually do wear burqas.

But thinking in terms of 'nationally suicidal multiculturalism' is another matter. NO ONE is committing 'national suicide'. This is a culture-warrior's expression: implying that a small minority of people are taking over; that Islamist extremists are being allowed to get away with anything because of some sort of fear of retribution (no, they are not); and that this is due to 'multiculturalism'. There are right-wing extremists of all sorts - ultranationalists like the EDL, BNP, and French National Front, as well as some people who are indeed Muslim versions of Fred Phelps, but to focus only on the latter while ignoring the former *is* illiberal. Basically, it is reminiscent of people who argue that the 'Zionists' are taking over, controlling the media, etc. It is fine to accuse particular Muslim groups or organizations of malpractices, but not to treat it as some sort of takeover or 'national suicide'. Just as one can do so with any group - I certainly took a very dim view of the IRA, for example; but that does not mean that it was appropriate to endorse Ian Paisley and his 'NO SURRENDER' rhetoric.

(As you'll guess, I revived this thread due to checking what I've previously said about Rubin.)

[shira]

39. You're lumping Rubin in with people like Pipes, Spencer, Geller, and Phillips.

Now their work is repugnant, but Rubin is nothing like them...

Do you object to Bernard Henri-Levy's work as much as Rubin's?

ETA:
I'd also be interested to see what you think about Maryam Namazie's views on Islamism.

She's neither a liberal or progressive and DEFINITELY not in any way rightwing.....

[shira]

40. LB, are these people that Terry Glavin describes "liberal" or "progressive" in your view....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=359681&mesg_id=359843

Because if not, I'd expect you to be just as disgusted at these people as you are with Dershowitz or Rubin, for example.

[LeftishBrit]

41. I think he's lumping different groups together

Those who actually are 'mirror-image-ists' and consider that all who oppose the Western Right are good guys, fighting against an 'axis of evil' that is just a different one to that proposed by Bush, are indeed unprogressive, and doing pretty much the same thing as Dershowitz at any rate. However, I think that Glavin is including with this group those who simply consider that military intervention in most cases does more harm than good. Very different categories, IMO.

[shira]

42. LB, here are some articles by Maryam Namazie on Islamists...

http://maryamnamazie.com/articles/artspch.html#cultural_relativism

Are these rightwing views in your opinion?

[LeftishBrit]

43. No.

Namazie is one of the surprisingly few political writers who really seems to be genuinely straightforwardly opposed to Islamism because of its right-wing oppressive nature, and NOT as one part of a general xenophobia or hawkishness. She is against the repression of civil liberties as part of the 'war on terror', and against harsh treatment of asylum seekers - in both ways she differs markedly from a right-winger.

[oberliner]

27. Yeah, I don't think I really understand where he is coming from

Isn't The Guardian generally a leftist paper?

[LeftishBrit]

28. It is a liberal-to-left paper but has some conservative contributions

'I don't think I really understand where he is coming from'

I am not sure that HE really understands where he is coming from!

I think he has a tendency to define himself in terms of whoever he's currently against. Many of the people whom he's against *do* deserve opposition, but I don't think that he has a very *positive* vision of what he wants.

[oberliner]

35. Thanks for the insights

This fellow does seem to be all over the map.

[bemildred]

44. "Dialog with a straw man" is more like what it is. nt