All Posts

post a reply | post a new topic

Author

Topic: Part Three

topic by John Calvin 2/4/2002 (20:30)

reply top So where are Israeli and American liberals, so quick to condemn violence while saying little about the disgraceful and criminal occupation itself? I seriously suggest that they join brave activists like Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and Louisa Morgantini, an Italian member of the European Parliament, at the barricades (literal and figurative), stand side by side with this major new secular Palestinian initiative and start protesting the Israeli military methods that are directly subsidized by taxpayers and their dearly bought silence. Having for a year wrung their collective hands and complained about the absence of a Palestinian peace movement (since when does a militarily occupied people have responsibility for a peace movement?), the alleged peaceniks who can actually influence Israel's military have a clear political duty to organize against the occupation right now, unconditionally and without unseemly demands on the already laden Palestinians. Some of them have. Several hundred Israeli reservists have refused military duty in the territories, and a whole spectrum of journalists, activists, academics and writers (including Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, David Grossman, Yitzhak Laor, Ilan Pappé, Danny Rabinowitz and Uri Avnery) have kept up a steady attack on the criminal futility of Sharon's campaign against the Palestinian people. Ideally, there should be a similar chorus in the United States, where, except for a tiny number of Jewish voices making public their outrage at Israel's occupation, there is far too much complicity and drumbeating. The Israeli lobby has been temporarily successful in identifying the war against bin Laden with Sharon's single-minded, collective assault on Arafat and his people. Unfortunately, the Arab-American community is both too small and beleaguered as it tries to fend off the ever-expanding Ashcroft dragnet, racial profiling and curtailment of civil liberties. Most urgently needed, therefore, is coordination among the various secular groups that support Palestinians, a people against whose mere presence geographical dispersion (even more than Israeli depredations) is the major obstacle. To end the occupation and all that has gone with it is a clear enough imperative. Now let us do it. Copyright Edward W. Said, 2001.

reply by John Calvin 2/4/2002 (21:08)

reply top I must demonstrate the utmost respect for the thoughts and blessed good intentions of Edward Said but I have certain doubts and questions about the utility of a purely secularist solution to governing authority in Palestine- whether it is capable of achieving anything more than Arafat, who to my mind has always been to some degree 'secularist' though in recent years has had to expend more time identifying itself in a religious context. I am particularly concerned that 'secular' easily becomes anti-religious bigotry, which is probably the soundest basis for an appeal to so-called American liberals, most of whom appear to be simply a milder version of the pre-dominant reactionary right-wing. A new government of Edward Said and his academic pals, however, might procure a temporary respite or pretext for getting Israel to 'soften-up', though it is doubtful that any promises of fufilling the right of return or clearing established settlements off occuppied territory would be fulfilled anytime soon. I think Norman Mailer made an interesting point at Queens College in North Carolina last November. The one thing the Palestinians have that the Israeli and Americans don't is an intense faith.: 'We will destroy you before we let you take that way and turn us into your flunky.' Of course there is little doubt in my mind that theocracy is and always has been a most beneficial attribute of new states developing into modern democracies- as in Holland, Britain, France, the United States ( Mass. Bay Colony), Scotland, as well as Iran. It is certainly the case that a great number of the framers of the constition of the United States were practicing Presybeterians working with the framework established by the Protestant reformers of the 16th and 17th century. Secular government works when it emerges out of a religious tradition- as a NON_SECTARIAN EXPRESSION OF A RELIGIOUS TRADITION, not as a force counterveiling religious traditions. This is the main difficulty for Said and his compatriots, with all due respect and humble inexperience- from afar, as it were, though I believe this is not entirely out of alignment with MER's general point of view.At least, they have expressed some scepticism about this fellow Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi. Of ourse. MER could be all wrong too.

reply by DJFLux 2/5/2002 (2:47)

reply top John, I couldn't have agreed with you better, even with my Socialist roots, the need for an open theocracy in Palestine could be of benefit to the people, afterall the fanatics can then show their good side. Although you stressed this with caution as secularism can only work when it comes out of religious tradition. This is a correct methodology in the running of a nation, to be able to have people with their religious background, further reinforcing their strides towards even better understanding. For that to happen, I think that is the step. Edward Said is undoubtly an imperative figure people don't get the opportunity to hear. And of course people like you John.

reply by DJFLux 2/5/2002 (6:55)

reply top Just to make sure, when I said open theocracy, it would have to include all faiths and denominations in it. Obviuosly apart from the generalised Jew vs Muslim view...Palestinian Christian and muslims show a unique solidarity...something which would greatly benefit a system of the above mentioned. I can safetly say that religious tolerance could in fact be well established in that sort of situation.

reply by John Calvin 2/5/2002 (14:55)

reply top Yes, I mean theocracy in a sense of powerful though not dictitorial guidance by religious leaders. A guidance that consciously seeks concordance rather than contest between the variations of religious faith, ruled by the principle of magniminity. Not that some initially painful compromises wouldn't be necessary. Yes, these are important yet extremely difficult questions as Norman Mailer has pointed out in an interview with the BBC today:'Allah is a concept that is absolutely foreign to Americans'. Yet despite the apparent unaniminity is support of the 'war on terror', most people I encounter in daily life and with whom one can at least begin a discussion on such matters are more curious than ever before to understand what's going on and how 'the enemy' actually feels and thinks. Sensible people always find a way to keep their hopes alive,that the present insane progress towards war and destruction can be halted, that the brotherhood of man is not just a crazy dream. Great impact of attacks on America Norman Mailer says 11 September was 'larger than the atom bomb'. In a Newsnight interview, he tells Kirsty Wark how the aftermath of the attacks has affected America. Mr Mailer believes people will be writing about 11 September for a long time. He has written about the horrors of war in Vietnam, and served in the US army during World War II. But, he believes that nothing compares in magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington. This includes the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which ended the Second World War. Norman Mailer was one of the major US writers of the twentieth century, and came to prominence following his debut book 'The Naked and the Dead' which drew on his experience in the Pacific during World War Two. Cultural changes He spoke to Kirsty Wark following a special investigation by Newsnight reporter Madeleine Holt. She travelled to America to discover whether there has been a cultural shift since 11 September. Allah is a concept that is absolutely foreign to Americans Norman Mailer Newsnight found that the University of California in Los Angeles had set up fifty courses on 'Perspectives on September 11th.' All 700 places on the courses have been taken. Norman Mailer is not surprised that people are looking for answers. 'The key element in it is that Allah is a concept that is absolutely foreign to Americans,' he says. He believes that there is a great divide coming across the world. But the Americans do not know who their enemy is. 'What are we unifying against? The point is that's what makes me nervous,' he says. He argues that World War II was a definable war. The allies were unified against Hitler. But in this war, the US were able to take out the Taleban quickly. But now they do not know who they are fighting. He goes on to say it could take on huge siginificance because half the world is Islamic. Evil Mr Mailer believes that this is the reason that George Bush speaks in terms of an axis of evil. He is highly critical of the President's political rhetoric. 'The fact is I don't trust a man who uses the word evil eighteen times in ten minutes,' he says. He tells Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark that America takes solace from having an evil enemy. Mr Mailer says, 'If you're half-evil, nothing soothes you more than to think the person you are opposed to is totally evil.' Kirsty Wark's interview with Norman Mailer appeared on Newsnight's 4 February edition.