Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....
-
ebaynelson
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:28 pm
- Location: Detroit Rock City
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
ebaynelson
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:28 pm
- Location: Detroit Rock City
- Contact:
Yeah, um, when I hit "submit" for that last post, I got an error message. Had never happened up until then. Now that's irony.
[color=darkred]~~~
The solutions all are simple... But they're simple only when you know already what they are.
Robert M. Pirsig
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance[/color]
The solutions all are simple... But they're simple only when you know already what they are.
Robert M. Pirsig
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance[/color]
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
On Society 8/13/01
By John Leo
My morals, myself
Personal rules mean trying to have it both ways
Alan Wolfe thinks that the United States, like other Western nations, is undergoing a radical revolution in morals, and is now "morally speaking, a new society." This is a familiar argument, made bitterly by conserva- tives such as William Bennett and Robert Bork. But Wolfe is no prophet of despair. He is a sociologist and an upbeat public intellectual who has spent many years examining the moral condition of middle-class Americans. Americans are as morally serious as ever, Wolfe says, but they are no longer willing to follow old rules. Besides, he says, the revolution is irreversible. There's no going back, so we might as well get used to it. "Americans are not going to lead 21st-century lives based on 18th- and 19th-century moral ideals," he writes in his new book, Moral Freedom: The Search for Virtue in a World of Choice.
Wolfe thinks the traditional sources of moral authority (churches, fami- lies, neighborhoods, civic leaders) have lost the ability to influence people. In part, this is the result of appalling behavior by so many authority figures (lying presidents, pedophile priests, corrupt corporate executives, etc.). And as more and more areas of American life have become democratized and open to consumer "choice," people have come to assume that they have the right to determine for themselves what it means to lead a good and virtuous life.
Waning war. Wolfe, a moderate and centrist by inclination, tends to see moderate behavior in the people he studies. In his previous book, One Nation, After All, he argued that the culture war is dead or dying and that America has evolved a strong consensus on political and social issues. This is a highly debatable thesis for all who remember the stark red and blue electoral map of Bush versus Gore, but Wolfe is surely right that Americans today are reasonably well united. Moral Freedom continues this genial, middle-of-the-road analysis. Wolfe finds San Francisco gays and militant feminists who speak for self-restraint and Bible Belt conservatives who argue for more self-expression. Americans, he says, are not caught up in the liberation-versus-oppression battles left over from the 1960s. Based on a New York Times survey he helped design, Wolfe concludes that Americans don't spend time pondering a culture war. Instead, they are caught up in an effort to bridge the old and the new, holding on to traditional standards, but refusing to accept them as absolutes. "Any form of higher authority has to tailor its demands to the needs of real people," he writes.
Hovering over the new moral universe is the great cloud of nonjudgmentalism. Wolfe has qualms, but true to his approach, he sees the nonjudgmental ethic in generally positive terms. Americans are now unwilling to tell others how to live. By refraining from judgment, Wolfe thinks, Americans express a sense of humility and respect for the moral freedom of others. Nonjudgmentalism pushes us to interpret immoral behavior as a result of medical or genetic problems. The perpetrator is not at fault; he is the helpless victim of bad genes or a medical-psychiatric problem. A lot of moral concern is smuggled into the national conversation disguised as a scientific discussion of public health or addiction.
Much of the book analyzes various virtues and argues that Americans uphold the old virtues in principle while in practice turning them into personal "options." Americans prize loyalty, but in an age of easy divorce and mass corporate layoffs, loyalty is now seen as conditional. The same is true of honesty. Success today, Wolfe writes, often depends on managing the impressions of other people–a form of dissimulation. Honesty is no longer the best policy. It is a general mandate, strategically applied.
Wolfe offers the good news: Americans share a common moral philosophy "broad and inclusive enough to incorporate people whose views of the actual issues of the day are at loggerheads." But he doesn't spend much time lamenting the downside. Americans have strong principles, but they reserve the right not to apply them in difficult situations. Subscribers to the new moral order can have it both ways–strong principles with a built-in escape hatch. This would explain much of the gap between polls on moral issues and actual behavior. One L.A. Times poll, for instance, shows that 57 percent of Americans think abortion is a form of murder. An annual survey of college freshmen consistently shows that about half of those polled think abortion should be illegal. Yet the prevalence of abortion points to a more relaxed moral standard when the chips are down.
Is this the future: Strong standards casually applied or simply ignored under stress? Could be. In his book After Virtue, philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre lamented that today "all moral judgments are nothing but expression of preference, expressions of attitudes or feelings." But moral codes are supposed to rein in many feelings and desires, not to offer them all free expression under cover of alleged moral seriousness. Wolfe's "moral freedom" seems to whisk away duty and obligation, relieving us all of the burden of doing anything costly. If this is the future, let's have more of the past.
By John Leo
My morals, myself
Personal rules mean trying to have it both ways
Alan Wolfe thinks that the United States, like other Western nations, is undergoing a radical revolution in morals, and is now "morally speaking, a new society." This is a familiar argument, made bitterly by conserva- tives such as William Bennett and Robert Bork. But Wolfe is no prophet of despair. He is a sociologist and an upbeat public intellectual who has spent many years examining the moral condition of middle-class Americans. Americans are as morally serious as ever, Wolfe says, but they are no longer willing to follow old rules. Besides, he says, the revolution is irreversible. There's no going back, so we might as well get used to it. "Americans are not going to lead 21st-century lives based on 18th- and 19th-century moral ideals," he writes in his new book, Moral Freedom: The Search for Virtue in a World of Choice.
Wolfe thinks the traditional sources of moral authority (churches, fami- lies, neighborhoods, civic leaders) have lost the ability to influence people. In part, this is the result of appalling behavior by so many authority figures (lying presidents, pedophile priests, corrupt corporate executives, etc.). And as more and more areas of American life have become democratized and open to consumer "choice," people have come to assume that they have the right to determine for themselves what it means to lead a good and virtuous life.
Waning war. Wolfe, a moderate and centrist by inclination, tends to see moderate behavior in the people he studies. In his previous book, One Nation, After All, he argued that the culture war is dead or dying and that America has evolved a strong consensus on political and social issues. This is a highly debatable thesis for all who remember the stark red and blue electoral map of Bush versus Gore, but Wolfe is surely right that Americans today are reasonably well united. Moral Freedom continues this genial, middle-of-the-road analysis. Wolfe finds San Francisco gays and militant feminists who speak for self-restraint and Bible Belt conservatives who argue for more self-expression. Americans, he says, are not caught up in the liberation-versus-oppression battles left over from the 1960s. Based on a New York Times survey he helped design, Wolfe concludes that Americans don't spend time pondering a culture war. Instead, they are caught up in an effort to bridge the old and the new, holding on to traditional standards, but refusing to accept them as absolutes. "Any form of higher authority has to tailor its demands to the needs of real people," he writes.
Hovering over the new moral universe is the great cloud of nonjudgmentalism. Wolfe has qualms, but true to his approach, he sees the nonjudgmental ethic in generally positive terms. Americans are now unwilling to tell others how to live. By refraining from judgment, Wolfe thinks, Americans express a sense of humility and respect for the moral freedom of others. Nonjudgmentalism pushes us to interpret immoral behavior as a result of medical or genetic problems. The perpetrator is not at fault; he is the helpless victim of bad genes or a medical-psychiatric problem. A lot of moral concern is smuggled into the national conversation disguised as a scientific discussion of public health or addiction.
Much of the book analyzes various virtues and argues that Americans uphold the old virtues in principle while in practice turning them into personal "options." Americans prize loyalty, but in an age of easy divorce and mass corporate layoffs, loyalty is now seen as conditional. The same is true of honesty. Success today, Wolfe writes, often depends on managing the impressions of other people–a form of dissimulation. Honesty is no longer the best policy. It is a general mandate, strategically applied.
Wolfe offers the good news: Americans share a common moral philosophy "broad and inclusive enough to incorporate people whose views of the actual issues of the day are at loggerheads." But he doesn't spend much time lamenting the downside. Americans have strong principles, but they reserve the right not to apply them in difficult situations. Subscribers to the new moral order can have it both ways–strong principles with a built-in escape hatch. This would explain much of the gap between polls on moral issues and actual behavior. One L.A. Times poll, for instance, shows that 57 percent of Americans think abortion is a form of murder. An annual survey of college freshmen consistently shows that about half of those polled think abortion should be illegal. Yet the prevalence of abortion points to a more relaxed moral standard when the chips are down.
Is this the future: Strong standards casually applied or simply ignored under stress? Could be. In his book After Virtue, philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre lamented that today "all moral judgments are nothing but expression of preference, expressions of attitudes or feelings." But moral codes are supposed to rein in many feelings and desires, not to offer them all free expression under cover of alleged moral seriousness. Wolfe's "moral freedom" seems to whisk away duty and obligation, relieving us all of the burden of doing anything costly. If this is the future, let's have more of the past.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
Rian Jackson
- Posts: 3903
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
- Location: In Rob's Head
He he. Yes, well see my previous comments on Arafat. But we were discussing the young men with Kalashnikovs that most people call the terrorists. It's usually the case that governments are the biggest terrorists...stuart wrote:
the late Edward Said had a thing or two to say about Arafat. Mainly that he garnered power from the tension.
Have you heard the one about when Bush, Sharon, and Arafat all died (finally, Hamdilallah!) All three, naturally, went directly to hell. After a few days there, Bush wanted to call and check in on the American people. So he asked the devil if he could make a call. Satan said, 'Sure' and told him that it would be $1000. Bush agreed, and Satan pointed him down the hall.
Bush returned from calling the Americans fully satisfied that the American people were carrying on his plans for global domination.
Soon, Sharon thought that it would be a good idea to do the same. So he asked Satan and got the same response. Sharon called the Israelis and was satisifed that the oppression of native peoples was progressing along with the glorification of Israeli culture. He returned and paid his $1000.
The next week, Arafat, after much thought, decided he needed to call the Palestinians. During the call he found out that everything was much as it was before. When he returned to Satan, the devil told him he owed $1.
Bush and Sharon, loving money as they do, were incensed. 'Why do we pay $1000 and he only pays $1?' They asked.
'Well,' said Satan, 'It was an internal call.''
***
So Bush, Sharon, and Arafat are all in an airplane together, but it's going down because the weight is too much. They decide that someone will have to jump out. First, they turn to Bush. 'No. Not a chance,' he protests. 'I'm the leader of the free world and the largest nuclear power on the globe.' Sharon and Arafat consider, looking at each other, and agree that it would be a bad idea to throw Bush from the plane. So they turn on Sharon. 'Oh, no,' says he. 'I am the leader of the Jewish people. I must protect them from the Arab hordes and make sure they are fulfilling their destiny as God's chosen people.' Arafat and Bush agreed that they couldn't very well throw Sharon from the plane. So, naturally, they turned on Arafat. No matter what Arafat said, it didn't satisfy them, so they threw him from the plane. Satisfied that the job was done, Sharon and Bush leaned back until they realised that the plane was sinking just as fast. They peered over the edge of the cargo door and saw Arafat hanging by his fingers. They proceeded to stomp on his fingers, but he wouldn't let go. 'Go to 'Aza, you and all your people!' Sharon shouted angrily. Arafat lifted his hands in the air, formed victory signs with his fingers, and shouted 'Free Palestiiiiiiiiiiiine.'
That from Joel's latest above just above.Americans are now unwilling to tell others how to live.
Well, how the fuck do we explain Asscroft then? Or the Office of Religious Freedom, so the feds can support sectarian xtian social programs by granting tax dollars to churchs? Or imposing democracy, by force, from above?
It's a nice thought, but it doesn't seem very grounded in the sanctimonious, scorched earth policies of this once and future administration.
What am I missing?[/i]
Fight for the fifth freedom!
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
I don't believe John Leo was referring to the Attourney General. I believe Joh Leo was referring to Wolfe's book and its assertions...blyslv wrote:That from Joel's latest above just above.Americans are now unwilling to tell others how to live.
Well, how the fuck do we explain Asscroft then? Or the Office of Religious Freedom, so the feds can support sectarian xtian social programs by granting tax dollars to churchs? Or imposing democracy, by force, from above?
It's a nice thought, but it doesn't seem very grounded in the sanctimonious, scorched earth policies of this once and future administration.
What am I missing?[/i]
I hope that answers your questions.
May I suggest re-reading the article, thereby clearing up your mis-conceptions... It was a book review with a few editorial comments thrown in for good measure.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
I understood it was a book review. It is common in such reviews to discuss the ideas presented in the book, such as the notion that American's don't want to tell other people how to live. I was in fact refuting that assertion. Americans are very comfortable telling other people how to live.
Fight for the fifth freedom!
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Anyone else here feel his/her blood run cold upon hearing that this administration is investigating the legality of postponing the presidential elections in case of a terrorist attack?
What kinda fuckin sense does that make?
A) What benefit derives from postponing the election? Are we supposed to believe that without the president directing things, we're completely defenseless? Don't get me started about how the fucking half-wit who somehow got elected is fucking things up. He's just a figurehead.
B) Talk about demotivating someone from fulfilling the stated functions of their job- if he does a good job and keeps us protected from attack, he might get voted out, but if he does a crappy job and we are attacked he can declare martial law and become the first american dictator? That's like rewarding the sherrif if there's "too much crime" to "risk inefficiencies during a leadership handoff" by letting an incompetent keep his job indefinitely until... hmmm, until when, when crime lessens? You see where I'm going here, right?
C) If they do create this commission that has the "legal" ability to postpone the election, I'm heading straight for vegas and betting every cent I have that we will have a terrorist attack before election day. Cuz that's a sure thing.
D) Isn't this the sort of thing we hear from banana republics all the time, that the election is postponed or cancelled because of some dumb-ass half-baked excuse? Are you people awake out there? Are we just going to slide into a not-so secret dictatorship because the great mass of humanity is too fucking lazy to call or write his reps and say "look motherfucker, you better shut that shit down RIGHT FUCKING NOW, because I will FIRE your sorry treasonous ass come the next election."
Am I the only one who gets the impression that this administration is having massive coke parties and laughing at us while they jerk on our strings?
"This is gonna be good, later today, I'm gonna announce that in case of biological attack, people should seal up their house in plastic and duct tape." And then they sit back and laugh as the fucking morons RUSH OUT and buy thousands of dollars of plastic and duct tape so that they can SEAL THEMSELVES inside a HUGE COFFIN so that the rich and connected don't have to smell their decaying bodies when they're dead...
Or how about the HEAD of HOMELAND SECURITY announcing that they have NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER as to any kind of definite plan for attack, WHERE it might occur, WHEN, HOW, or by WHO, but they are taking this non-information so seriously that they're looking into how they can put a legal face on what amounts to a coup d'etat against the democracy of the UNITED STATES?
Please explain to me the fallacy in my interpretation of what I'm seeing, because I sure don't want it to be true...
What kinda fuckin sense does that make?
A) What benefit derives from postponing the election? Are we supposed to believe that without the president directing things, we're completely defenseless? Don't get me started about how the fucking half-wit who somehow got elected is fucking things up. He's just a figurehead.
B) Talk about demotivating someone from fulfilling the stated functions of their job- if he does a good job and keeps us protected from attack, he might get voted out, but if he does a crappy job and we are attacked he can declare martial law and become the first american dictator? That's like rewarding the sherrif if there's "too much crime" to "risk inefficiencies during a leadership handoff" by letting an incompetent keep his job indefinitely until... hmmm, until when, when crime lessens? You see where I'm going here, right?
C) If they do create this commission that has the "legal" ability to postpone the election, I'm heading straight for vegas and betting every cent I have that we will have a terrorist attack before election day. Cuz that's a sure thing.
D) Isn't this the sort of thing we hear from banana republics all the time, that the election is postponed or cancelled because of some dumb-ass half-baked excuse? Are you people awake out there? Are we just going to slide into a not-so secret dictatorship because the great mass of humanity is too fucking lazy to call or write his reps and say "look motherfucker, you better shut that shit down RIGHT FUCKING NOW, because I will FIRE your sorry treasonous ass come the next election."
Am I the only one who gets the impression that this administration is having massive coke parties and laughing at us while they jerk on our strings?
"This is gonna be good, later today, I'm gonna announce that in case of biological attack, people should seal up their house in plastic and duct tape." And then they sit back and laugh as the fucking morons RUSH OUT and buy thousands of dollars of plastic and duct tape so that they can SEAL THEMSELVES inside a HUGE COFFIN so that the rich and connected don't have to smell their decaying bodies when they're dead...
Or how about the HEAD of HOMELAND SECURITY announcing that they have NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER as to any kind of definite plan for attack, WHERE it might occur, WHEN, HOW, or by WHO, but they are taking this non-information so seriously that they're looking into how they can put a legal face on what amounts to a coup d'etat against the democracy of the UNITED STATES?
Please explain to me the fallacy in my interpretation of what I'm seeing, because I sure don't want it to be true...
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
ebaynelson
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:28 pm
- Location: Detroit Rock City
- Contact:
I believe Democrats have been all been classified "enemy combatants"...
They're expanding Guantanamo, aren't they? Probably for us...
They're expanding Guantanamo, aren't they? Probably for us...
[color=darkred]~~~
The solutions all are simple... But they're simple only when you know already what they are.
Robert M. Pirsig
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance[/color]
The solutions all are simple... But they're simple only when you know already what they are.
Robert M. Pirsig
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance[/color]
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Fortunately, Congress would have re-write the law in order to delay election day, and that's very unlikely to happen.
But I see this as yet another way to play with smoke and mirrors to disenfranchise voters. Mention the possibility of moving election day over and over again, and some people might eventually become unsure about when elections are going to be held. It's bad enough that our elections are held on one day, at what seems now to be a randomly chosen date.
I think it's high time Congress revisited election law, but not to give some commission or department head the power to delay an election. What this country needs, at the very least, is to make election day a national holiday. How much sense does it make that it is not uncommon for people to get the day off to recognize Washington's Birthday, while those same people face the possibility of missing the opportunity to exercise one of their most important rights?
Two other ideas:
Hold elections on more than one day, preferably over a weekend. Open the polls Saturday morning, and keep them open until Monday night, 24 hours a day.
Or
Hold elections exclusively by mail. Oregon has instituted a policy like this for statewide elections, and they have voter turnout rates to put the rest of the country to shame. Sure, absentee ballots are already available, but they're more hassle than they should be.
Voting should be easy, not something you have to prepare for or work into your schedule. And how about solving the voting machine issue? I can't wait to see what happens in Florida this year.
PS - For those who care about these kinds of things, I've re-registered with a new Playa name. Ebaynelson was just my Yahoo name, which became sort of a default name. Now that I've fallen headfirst into this whole BM world, I decided it was high time to adopt a proper identity. So here I am. Hope nobody else goes by Lark...
But I see this as yet another way to play with smoke and mirrors to disenfranchise voters. Mention the possibility of moving election day over and over again, and some people might eventually become unsure about when elections are going to be held. It's bad enough that our elections are held on one day, at what seems now to be a randomly chosen date.
I think it's high time Congress revisited election law, but not to give some commission or department head the power to delay an election. What this country needs, at the very least, is to make election day a national holiday. How much sense does it make that it is not uncommon for people to get the day off to recognize Washington's Birthday, while those same people face the possibility of missing the opportunity to exercise one of their most important rights?
Two other ideas:
Hold elections on more than one day, preferably over a weekend. Open the polls Saturday morning, and keep them open until Monday night, 24 hours a day.
Or
Hold elections exclusively by mail. Oregon has instituted a policy like this for statewide elections, and they have voter turnout rates to put the rest of the country to shame. Sure, absentee ballots are already available, but they're more hassle than they should be.
Voting should be easy, not something you have to prepare for or work into your schedule. And how about solving the voting machine issue? I can't wait to see what happens in Florida this year.
PS - For those who care about these kinds of things, I've re-registered with a new Playa name. Ebaynelson was just my Yahoo name, which became sort of a default name. Now that I've fallen headfirst into this whole BM world, I decided it was high time to adopt a proper identity. So here I am. Hope nobody else goes by Lark...
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
I believe the elections should be conducted with a heightened state of alert based upon the assessed threat.
Having said that, I'd think everyone should get out and vote on November 2, 2004 with or without the threat of terrorist attack.
Apathy and complacency are the enemy.
Having said that, I'd think everyone should get out and vote on November 2, 2004 with or without the threat of terrorist attack.
Apathy and complacency are the enemy.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
I would say the clouds of apathy and complacency will incapacitate many; and that is what the RNC is hoping for.Lark wrote:I for one will cast my vote even if I have to walk through a cloud of anthrax to a still-burning poll station.
and a very minor side note.... I wish we could elect Kerry's wife instead... I liked seeing her correct thumb-sucking child in front of the cameras.
It is called "attention to detail." IMHO
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
Everytime DHS announces a terror threat it's a reminder of their failure to shut down al-Queada becasue of the sideshow in Iraq.
I think the elections rumor was started by the democrats to put the Bush people on the defensive. It's working. Rice is spending today trying to debunk the rumor.
I think the elections rumor was started by the democrats to put the Bush people on the defensive. It's working. Rice is spending today trying to debunk the rumor.
Fight for the fifth freedom!
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Your tax dollars hard at work.blyslv wrote:Everytime DHS announces a terror threat it's a reminder of their failure to shut down al-Queada becasue of the sideshow in Iraq.
I think the elections rumor was started by the democrats to put the Bush people on the defensive. It's working. Rice is spending today trying to debunk the rumor.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
Rian Jackson
- Posts: 3903
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
- Location: In Rob's Head
The Cost of Zionism (www.resist.ca)
Politics and Government by Jon Elmer and Uri Avnery; fromoccupiedpalestine.org; March 07, 2004
Jon Elmer: Israel's raison d'etre is to be a national safe haven for Jews of the world, yet we know now that Israel is the most dangerous place in the world for a Jew to live. Elsewhere you have written that Israel is a breeding ground for anti-Semitism internationally. How has Israel helped or hindered the security of Jews, both within Israel and internationally?
Uri Avnery: There is a lot of irony in this: One of the reasons for setting up the State of Israel was to create a safe haven for the Jews of the world after the Holocaust, one place the Jews would be safe. But what actually happened - and it has been said before me by the late professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz - is that the one place in the world where the Jews are in danger is Israel. They are in danger of annihilation in the end, because if this war goes on, eventually weapons of mass destruction will be employed in the war between us and the Arabs.
Zionism was created with the idea of putting an end to anti-Semitism in Europe. Theodor Herzl - a Viennese journalist and writer, and the founder of political Zionism - wrote in The Jewish State (1896): Those who want to remain Jews will move to the Jewish state and remain Jews, and all the others will assimilate in the nations where they are living and cease to be Jews. People have forgotten this, but this was the basis of political Zionism.
Of course, the Jews did not stop being Jews. There are Jews all over the world. What the Jewish state here in Israel is creating - because we are at war with the Palestinians, the whole Arab world, and practically the whole Muslim world - is immense opposition all over the world. We are an occupying power. We are in the middle of a war in which three and a half million Palestinians are oppressed by our occupation.
Every day we are conducting operations in the occupied territories which look awful on television screens - not just in Cairo or Damascus, but in Berlin and Paris. You could say that we do not behave worse than the French in Algeria, or the British in Malayasia or Kenya, or the Americans in Vietnam. Maybe, but when you see on your television screen Israeli soldiers pushing around Palestinians, humiliating people at roadblocks, killing people in huge military actions, you get a picture of Israel as an oppressive and inhuman kind of state. The very opposite of the way Israel looked, let's say, fifty years ago; and this creates resistance.
Now, the Jews of the world identify with Israel, and Israel relies upon the Jews of the world for support - political support and political pressure on their governments, especially in the United States. The borderline between the interests and policies of the State of Israel, on the one side, and the life of the Jewish people in the Jewish communities all over the world on the other - this borderline is being blurred. Israel is wiping out the borderline because it wants to get the support of the Jews; the anti-Semites are wiping out the borderline because they want to use the objection to Israeli actions in order to create hatred toward the Jews in general. This is a very unfortunate situation.
I have always said that we should draw a very clear line between Israelis and the Jews of the world. Israel is a state, and it acts as a state - for better or for worse. It is acting for its own perceived interests. The Jews of the world should not be involved in, or committed to, Israeli actions. There should be a clear borderline. Criticism of Israel, for good or for bad reasons, should have nothing to do with Jewish communities.
Elmer: Is Zionism in crisis? Many people have spoken of the moral decay created by the brutality of the occupation. Avraham Burg has said "the countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun." Can you shed light on the internal debate within Israel about the crisis of Zionism?
Avnery: I think the crisis of Zionism is really more semantic than real. You will notice that people who speak of a crisis of Zionism, for or against, generally do not define what Zionism is.
What is Zionism? What is socialism? Socialism can be Stalinism, it can be social-democratic, can be Mao Tse-tung, it can be trade unionists in the United States... By saying socialism you are saying nothing unless you define what you mean by socialism. The same with Zionism. What does Zionism mean? Does it mean sympathy with Israel? Does it mean that all the Jews of the world should come to Israel, [aliyah]? Is Zionism the belief that the Jews of the world will cease to be Jews unless they move to the Jewish State? What does Zionism mean?
When an Israeli says Zionism, he means nothing. He means that he is a patriot, that he wants the state of Israel to exist and to do well. That's all. Therefore, when you say that all, or nearly all, Israelis are Zionists, that's what you mean.
Some Israelis who criticize Zionism say that Zionism, while doing wonderful things, also involved a terrible injustice to the Palestinian people; therefore, we must see how to safeguard Israel but put an end to this injustice. There is an old Hebrew saying: he who admits what he has done, puts an end to it and leaves it, will receive mercy from God.
If you analyze one hundred years of Zionism and say yes, we created wonderful things. Zionism created a new society in Israel, it created the State of Israel and so forth... but at the price of doing a very great injustice to the Palestinian people. If you come to this point and you say: Okay, what can we do about it? How can we achieve a solution for peace that will do justice to the Palestinians as much as possible? If this is the crisis of Zionism, it is a very good thing. I very much subscribe to this idea.
Elmer: During my time in the West Bank I interviewed several Palestinian resistance fighters who spoke of the concept of the "innocent Israeli"; they claim that in a society that prides itself on having "a people's army", in which there is mandatory military service for every man and woman, there really are no innocent Israelis. Can you comment on this?
Avnery: Israel is a more or less democratic society, like the United States. You have many different opinions in Israel. You have people very much committed to peace, risking their life for peace - lately, Israeli peace activists have been shot at by our army. You also have very fanatical rightwing Israelis who really want to drive the Palestinians out of all of Palestine and turn it into a Jewish state. Then you have the great mass of people in between, people who very much would like to have peace but don't quite believe peace is possible, people who, after such a long war, are full of fears and prejudices towards the Palestinians.
I can understand the Palestinian who says that the only Israelis he meets are either settlers or soldiers who take away his land, shoot at him, who says, 'to hell with all Israelis, let's drive them into the sea.' This is understandable, but I think you have the great majority of Palestinians who realize that the nation of Israel cannot be driven into the sea, and that in order to fulfill their own national aspirations and gain a measure of freedom and independence in their own state, they need to live together and work together with Israelis.
We [at Gush Shalom] meet these kind of people everyday in our actions and demonstrations. I believe that the simplistic view that exists on both sides - that all the Arabs are murderers and suicide bombers and should be eradicated, and that all Israelis are murderers or settlers who don't respect Palestinian land - these ideas don't represent the great majority on either side. Therefore, one should stick to the belief that peace is possible, and that peace will come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uri Avnery is a founding member of Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc). In his teenage years he was an independence fighter in the Irgun (1938-1942), and later a commando in the Israeli Army's Samson's Foxes. A three-time Knesset member (1965-1973, and 1979-1983), Avnery was the first Israeli to establish contact with the Palestinian Liberation Organization leadership, in 1974. During the war on Lebanon in 1982 he crossed "enemy lines" to be the first Israeli to meet with Yasser Arafat. He has been a journalist since 1947, including 40 years as Editor-in-Chief of the newsmagazine Ha'olam Haze, and is the author of numerous books on the conflict.
Jon Elmer is a photojournalist who reported from the West Bank and Gaza Strip from September to December 2003. He is the creator and editor of the online journal FromOccupiedPalestine.org
The interview was conducted on 15 February 2004. Jon Elmer was in Toronto. Uri Avnery was in Tel Aviv.
Politics and Government by Jon Elmer and Uri Avnery; fromoccupiedpalestine.org; March 07, 2004
Jon Elmer: Israel's raison d'etre is to be a national safe haven for Jews of the world, yet we know now that Israel is the most dangerous place in the world for a Jew to live. Elsewhere you have written that Israel is a breeding ground for anti-Semitism internationally. How has Israel helped or hindered the security of Jews, both within Israel and internationally?
Uri Avnery: There is a lot of irony in this: One of the reasons for setting up the State of Israel was to create a safe haven for the Jews of the world after the Holocaust, one place the Jews would be safe. But what actually happened - and it has been said before me by the late professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz - is that the one place in the world where the Jews are in danger is Israel. They are in danger of annihilation in the end, because if this war goes on, eventually weapons of mass destruction will be employed in the war between us and the Arabs.
Zionism was created with the idea of putting an end to anti-Semitism in Europe. Theodor Herzl - a Viennese journalist and writer, and the founder of political Zionism - wrote in The Jewish State (1896): Those who want to remain Jews will move to the Jewish state and remain Jews, and all the others will assimilate in the nations where they are living and cease to be Jews. People have forgotten this, but this was the basis of political Zionism.
Of course, the Jews did not stop being Jews. There are Jews all over the world. What the Jewish state here in Israel is creating - because we are at war with the Palestinians, the whole Arab world, and practically the whole Muslim world - is immense opposition all over the world. We are an occupying power. We are in the middle of a war in which three and a half million Palestinians are oppressed by our occupation.
Every day we are conducting operations in the occupied territories which look awful on television screens - not just in Cairo or Damascus, but in Berlin and Paris. You could say that we do not behave worse than the French in Algeria, or the British in Malayasia or Kenya, or the Americans in Vietnam. Maybe, but when you see on your television screen Israeli soldiers pushing around Palestinians, humiliating people at roadblocks, killing people in huge military actions, you get a picture of Israel as an oppressive and inhuman kind of state. The very opposite of the way Israel looked, let's say, fifty years ago; and this creates resistance.
Now, the Jews of the world identify with Israel, and Israel relies upon the Jews of the world for support - political support and political pressure on their governments, especially in the United States. The borderline between the interests and policies of the State of Israel, on the one side, and the life of the Jewish people in the Jewish communities all over the world on the other - this borderline is being blurred. Israel is wiping out the borderline because it wants to get the support of the Jews; the anti-Semites are wiping out the borderline because they want to use the objection to Israeli actions in order to create hatred toward the Jews in general. This is a very unfortunate situation.
I have always said that we should draw a very clear line between Israelis and the Jews of the world. Israel is a state, and it acts as a state - for better or for worse. It is acting for its own perceived interests. The Jews of the world should not be involved in, or committed to, Israeli actions. There should be a clear borderline. Criticism of Israel, for good or for bad reasons, should have nothing to do with Jewish communities.
Elmer: Is Zionism in crisis? Many people have spoken of the moral decay created by the brutality of the occupation. Avraham Burg has said "the countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun." Can you shed light on the internal debate within Israel about the crisis of Zionism?
Avnery: I think the crisis of Zionism is really more semantic than real. You will notice that people who speak of a crisis of Zionism, for or against, generally do not define what Zionism is.
What is Zionism? What is socialism? Socialism can be Stalinism, it can be social-democratic, can be Mao Tse-tung, it can be trade unionists in the United States... By saying socialism you are saying nothing unless you define what you mean by socialism. The same with Zionism. What does Zionism mean? Does it mean sympathy with Israel? Does it mean that all the Jews of the world should come to Israel, [aliyah]? Is Zionism the belief that the Jews of the world will cease to be Jews unless they move to the Jewish State? What does Zionism mean?
When an Israeli says Zionism, he means nothing. He means that he is a patriot, that he wants the state of Israel to exist and to do well. That's all. Therefore, when you say that all, or nearly all, Israelis are Zionists, that's what you mean.
Some Israelis who criticize Zionism say that Zionism, while doing wonderful things, also involved a terrible injustice to the Palestinian people; therefore, we must see how to safeguard Israel but put an end to this injustice. There is an old Hebrew saying: he who admits what he has done, puts an end to it and leaves it, will receive mercy from God.
If you analyze one hundred years of Zionism and say yes, we created wonderful things. Zionism created a new society in Israel, it created the State of Israel and so forth... but at the price of doing a very great injustice to the Palestinian people. If you come to this point and you say: Okay, what can we do about it? How can we achieve a solution for peace that will do justice to the Palestinians as much as possible? If this is the crisis of Zionism, it is a very good thing. I very much subscribe to this idea.
Elmer: During my time in the West Bank I interviewed several Palestinian resistance fighters who spoke of the concept of the "innocent Israeli"; they claim that in a society that prides itself on having "a people's army", in which there is mandatory military service for every man and woman, there really are no innocent Israelis. Can you comment on this?
Avnery: Israel is a more or less democratic society, like the United States. You have many different opinions in Israel. You have people very much committed to peace, risking their life for peace - lately, Israeli peace activists have been shot at by our army. You also have very fanatical rightwing Israelis who really want to drive the Palestinians out of all of Palestine and turn it into a Jewish state. Then you have the great mass of people in between, people who very much would like to have peace but don't quite believe peace is possible, people who, after such a long war, are full of fears and prejudices towards the Palestinians.
I can understand the Palestinian who says that the only Israelis he meets are either settlers or soldiers who take away his land, shoot at him, who says, 'to hell with all Israelis, let's drive them into the sea.' This is understandable, but I think you have the great majority of Palestinians who realize that the nation of Israel cannot be driven into the sea, and that in order to fulfill their own national aspirations and gain a measure of freedom and independence in their own state, they need to live together and work together with Israelis.
We [at Gush Shalom] meet these kind of people everyday in our actions and demonstrations. I believe that the simplistic view that exists on both sides - that all the Arabs are murderers and suicide bombers and should be eradicated, and that all Israelis are murderers or settlers who don't respect Palestinian land - these ideas don't represent the great majority on either side. Therefore, one should stick to the belief that peace is possible, and that peace will come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uri Avnery is a founding member of Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc). In his teenage years he was an independence fighter in the Irgun (1938-1942), and later a commando in the Israeli Army's Samson's Foxes. A three-time Knesset member (1965-1973, and 1979-1983), Avnery was the first Israeli to establish contact with the Palestinian Liberation Organization leadership, in 1974. During the war on Lebanon in 1982 he crossed "enemy lines" to be the first Israeli to meet with Yasser Arafat. He has been a journalist since 1947, including 40 years as Editor-in-Chief of the newsmagazine Ha'olam Haze, and is the author of numerous books on the conflict.
Jon Elmer is a photojournalist who reported from the West Bank and Gaza Strip from September to December 2003. He is the creator and editor of the online journal FromOccupiedPalestine.org
The interview was conducted on 15 February 2004. Jon Elmer was in Toronto. Uri Avnery was in Tel Aviv.
-
Rian Jackson
- Posts: 3903
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
- Location: In Rob's Head
Back on Topic...
Yeah, I'd say the election deal seems pretty sketchy. What a perfect opportunity to take power even more completely. Once they are delayed, how much easier would it be to keep coming up with yet another reason why they cannot carry on as planned?
Maybe i'm too much of a conspiracy theorist. but they keep being supported...
As far as rewriting law, the Patriot Act more or less erased previous protections in the laws, and they did it with very little difficulty.
Let me tell you, the good ol' Patriot Act made life very interesting for a while.
So, maybe I am being simplistic here, but isn't the point of terrorism to disrupt, to instill fear, to break people out of their normal way of living? And they keep telling us that the whole point is not to let the terrorists 'win.'
It wouldn't be any more complicated to say we'll go along with elections come hell or high water, then make contingency plans if a city, for instance, can't make it due to attack. And maybe we can add in everyone they'll disenfranchise this year on that date.
And hey, reaslistically - as far as actually keeping people from the poles, all emotional responses aside, it would be difficult for people to hit even a small percentage of polling stations.
hey, i have a plan. let's summon people individually to underground bunkers scattered across the plains states. then they'll never track us. and it's so much easier to rig elections that way!
Maybe i'm too much of a conspiracy theorist. but they keep being supported...
As far as rewriting law, the Patriot Act more or less erased previous protections in the laws, and they did it with very little difficulty.
Let me tell you, the good ol' Patriot Act made life very interesting for a while.
So, maybe I am being simplistic here, but isn't the point of terrorism to disrupt, to instill fear, to break people out of their normal way of living? And they keep telling us that the whole point is not to let the terrorists 'win.'
It wouldn't be any more complicated to say we'll go along with elections come hell or high water, then make contingency plans if a city, for instance, can't make it due to attack. And maybe we can add in everyone they'll disenfranchise this year on that date.
And hey, reaslistically - as far as actually keeping people from the poles, all emotional responses aside, it would be difficult for people to hit even a small percentage of polling stations.
hey, i have a plan. let's summon people individually to underground bunkers scattered across the plains states. then they'll never track us. and it's so much easier to rig elections that way!
-
Last Real Burner
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:34 am
- Location: Heaven
- Contact:
bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
I got one word for you
Canada!!!!!!
it gives new meaning to run for the border....
democratically,
mr smith
Canada!!!!!!
it gives new meaning to run for the border....
democratically,
mr smith
And exactly what "assessed threat" would that be?Simply Joel wrote:I believe the elections should be conducted with a heightened state of alert based upon the assessed threat.
Actually, the administration is investigating what legal maneuvering room there is to create a commission that would have the authority to delay the election.blyslv wrote:I think the elections rumor was started by the democrats to put the Bush people on the defensive. It's working. Rice is spending today trying to debunk the rumor.
The "debunking" part was Condoleeza Rice saying over again that despite their actions to the contrary, "the administration has no plans to delay or postpone the election"- which technically may be true; they don't have one- YET.
Just more of this administrations "big lie" propaganda techniques. And why should they change tactics now? This one obviously works well on a moronic and apathetic populace.
I can't resist paraphrasing in the interest of clarity;
"I have no plan to do something completely and totally and obviously constitutional, but I have directed my staff to spend hours and days and weeks if necessary to find a way to do that which I have no plan to do."
Ummm, riiiight...
OOPS, I meant UNconstitutional...
And exactly what "assessed threat" would that be?Simply Joel wrote:I believe the elections should be conducted with a heightened state of alert based upon the assessed threat.
Actually, the administration is investigating what legal maneuvering room there is to create a commission that would have the authority to delay the election.blyslv wrote:I think the elections rumor was started by the democrats to put the Bush people on the defensive. It's working. Rice is spending today trying to debunk the rumor.
The "debunking" part was Condoleeza Rice saying over again that despite their actions to the contrary, "the administration has no plans to delay or postpone the election"- which technically may be true; they don't have one- YET.
Just more of this administrations "big lie" propaganda techniques. And why should they change tactics now? This one obviously works well on a moronic and apathetic populace.
I can't resist paraphrasing in the interest of clarity;
"I have no plan to do something completely and totally and obviously UNconstitutional, but I have directed my staff to spend hours and days and weeks if necessary to find a way to do that which I have no plan to do."
Ummm, riiiight...
Re: bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
I've felt tempted, too, but think of it this way: Do you really want to leave this glorious country in the hands of such assholes? Left to their own devices, they would probably shut down the national forest/park system and log/drill to their hearts' content. And the Constitution would probably be amended so that the Bill of Rights is basically a relic of the past, except for the right to bear arms and free speech (but only for corporations).Last Real Burner wrote:I got one word for you
Canada!!!!!!
it gives new meaning to run for the border....
democratically,
mr smith
I admit that I find it extremely hard to bear the thought of another four years of Bush/Cheney, but even if that nightmare plays out, I wouldn't leave. When barbarians threaten to overtake my country, I plan to fight. When justice is outlawed and all that jazz. Fuck the powermongers - this is my country, not theirs. Let's vote them all out.