Friend of Yours?

[k-punk]

re: Dogger's comments....

Yes, on the face of it, conservative and neo-conservative/Blairite thinkers seem to be full of positive rhetoric about 'freedom' etc., but the one of the key defining characteristics of this axis is its showy disavowal of anything deemed to be utopian. The appeal is always to what, in a theatrical gesture of faux-regret, they call the 'real world' (its assumption being that the nature of reality is basically fixed, we know what people are really like, come on) . Needless to say, what is characterised as the wisdom of maturity actually amounts to a cynical ratification of the current world order (which is both naturalized and presented as 'the best possible world', the end of history to which everything tends and everyone aspires).

Badiou has described the 'nihilsm' of this contemporary ethics very well. 'Parliamentary politics as practised today does not in any way consist of setting objectives inspired by principles and of inventing the means to attain them. It consists of turning the spectacle of the economy into the object of an apathetic (though obviously unstable) public consensus.' This politics articulates itself in terms of a defence of 'human rights' but these ''human rights' are rights to non-evil', so that 'Evil is that from which Good is derived, not the other way round.'

Thus, there can be large-scale commitment of resources only to the 'ridding of Evil', not to the construction of any Good. Interesting that the disavowed utopian impulse is never ACTUALLY translated into a pure pragmatism. The neo-con agenda isn't actually 'realistic'; its vision of extirpating all tyranny from the world is every bit as dewy-eyed as any scheme dreamt up by the Left. It is not as if, for instance, 'the war on terror' has the remotest prospect of succeeding.

 

[owen]

Interesting that the disavowed utopian impulse is never ACTUALLY translated into a pure pragmatism. The neo-con agenda isn't actually 'realistic'; its vision of extirpating all tyranny from the world is every bit as dewy-eyed as any scheme dreamt up by the Left. It is not as if, for instance, 'the war on terror' has the remotest prospect of succeeding.

this is what's always irked me about the Hitchensite defence of US policy- the idea that the US is capable (or interested in) of 'bringing democracy to the middle east', for all its alleged pragmatism, is every bit as out of step with current reality as an appeal to 'world communism'; except at least the latter acknowledges some possibilty other than the geopolitical status quo....

 

[craner]

Reply to Droid

Can't be bothered to write much, as I'm way too cool for this lark, but briefly:

1. Yes, they're hints. "Meanwhile, a report published by the Wall Street Journal in early October hinted that US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice favored the opening of quiet diplomacy with pragmatists in Tehran."
2. But any fool should know that reports of Condi favouring diplomacy with moderates within the Iranian regime cannot be dismissed. It's in accordance with her instincts, tutored by her realist mentor Brent Scowcroft and early studies of US-Soviet policy. However much she was/has been swayed by the idealist arguments perculating the Bush Administrations post-9/11, she remains an instinctive realist, like Scowcroft and Bush Sr., both of whom, you might remember, actively scorned neocon-influenced policies. Hence she, alongside Powell, helped bring the Blair/Straw persepctive to Bush, virtually lobbied for Britain against the more national-unilateralist instincts of Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives, and persauded Bush to go to the UN for that first Resolution. Like Straw, she favours dialogue with Iranian moderates. I think that's a waste of time, but that's me. It's certainly not the State Department's devious desire, or even intention, to foil European attempts at diplomacy - that's, by and large, their exact same preference!
3. There were plenty of allegations of ballot-rigging and aggressive intimidation at polling booths. Also the strange fact that Rafsanjani won the first round 6,159,453 to Ahmadinejad's 5,710,354, but in the second round Ahmadinejad trounced him 17,284,782 to 10,046,701. That's a bit weird, isn't it?
4. Allegations.
5. More of them.
6. And some more. And a question.
7. Plus, not many people turned out to vote anyway.
8. He summed it up nicely.
9. I didn't point out that the overall democratic system in Iran is inherently flawed and corrupt. I pointed out that there is no democratic system in Iran. I pointed out that it's a theocracy and thus antithetical to democracy. It's run by unelected ayatollahs and imams who report to a theocratic dictator. The President is merely a tool.
10. Seeing as the anti-Israeli terror groups and Iran and, in recent history, many Arab regimes, have sought or talk of the elimination of Israel, have spoken of driving the Jews into the Med, and in the case of Hamas, have incorporated genocidal anti-semitism into their charter, I think it's fair to conclude that Israel faces an existential threat greater than other States in the rgion.
11. The idea that Israel is openly more aggressive to Iran than Iran is to Israel was surely discredited last week. As Rafsanjani usefully pointed out, "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
12. Which British papers (the "our" of your original statement) publish neocon journalists, politcians or wonks every day, or even regularly? How often do you read the leading neocon opinion-writers in our papers? Max Boot? Charles Krauthammer? Bill Kristol? John Podhoretz? Micheal Ledeen? Er, nope. David Frum, occasionally, in The Telegraph.
13. Talking of Frum, who I read, show me an article in which he has called for war against Iran or the extermination of Muslims. I don't read Ann Coulter, so can't comment. Having said that, even if they did, it wouldn't be as significant seeing as neither are President of their country.
14. Similarly, show me all those articles about the "now-peaceful" Gaza. I've not read one!
15. The floor's truly mine? Are you sure you don't mind? Well, Iran's sponsorship of Hizbollah is very well documented; over £100mill a year, plus drones, weapons, etc. There's a whole chapter dedicated to it in Dr. Daniel Byman's book about States that sponsor terror, Deadly Connections (CUP).
16. Byman is a fellow at that liberal bastion, the Brookings Institute. Here's a lecture he gave at Brookings this September.
17. You didn't know that Iran is hosting and shielding senior al-qaida members, did you? Byman did: "Tehran's inactions should be noted as well as its actions, particularly the Iranian regime's unwillingness to expel senior al-Qaida members to countries where they will be brought to justice."
18. US State Dept Terrorism Report. Hint: Not Defence or CIA. "During 2004, Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity, both rhetorically and operationally. Supreme Leader Khamenei praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups -- notably HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command -- with funding, safe haven, training, and weapons. Iran provided an unmanned aerial vehicle that Lebanese Hizballah sent into Israeli airspace on November 7, 2004."
19. Interesting report from MEMRI
20. Iran throwing money at Islamic Jihad.
21. Respectable old wonks at the Council on Foreign Relations, here and here
22. Respectable old wonks at Global Security here and here.
23. Everybody's favorite, Asia Times!
24. A feast!
25. Another feast!
26. Yet more!
27. Do me a favour, take the Bosnia/Kosova stuff over to the American Power thread, will you? It'll fit in better there. Let's stick to Iran here.
28. Although, I liked the way that, in your view, intervention in Bosnia and Rwanda would have been perfectly justified, whereas in the two places it happened, Kosova and Iraq, it palpably wasn't! I have no doubt that, had the UN/US spearheaded interventions in the first two, their "perfect justification" would have been less perfect. Me and my hunches! You're certainly adept at sticking to the anti-American line. Such nimble feet!
29. The US doesn't want to redraw the map. Do you? Do you have any ideas for new borders, then? I'm sure new borders would diminish chances of peace more than current borders would or could. Notably, in Iraq.
30. Israelis have, largely, given up on Ersatz Israel. Even Sharon has! You obviously pay too much attention to Netanyahu (or, as I like to call him, Netanyahoo) and his vain, demented cronies.
31. I tried to read a Thomas Friedman book, but couldn't finish it. I'm worse than you think!

 

[domtyler]

Some thoughts on democracy in Iran

Oliver, you obviously know your stuff and you've done your research.

Your post was a challenge wasn't it? Do you feel that those who are reluctant to characterise Iran as a malevolent force with specifically murderous intent are blind to the obvious facts as you see them? Am I stupid to think that there is a grey area between good and evil?

I think that your sources are probably right and that there were serious irregularities in the elections and I follow your point that it hardly matters because, in fact, the whole system is a sham. However I don't think that says much about Iran apart from the fact that it's a flawed democracy at best and at worse no democracy at all. Current rhetoric has it that democracy works like a kind of political and cultural penicillin, once introduced to the patient (nation) the infection clears right up and it's freedom for all, but is it really like that? I think Churchill said (and I'm recklessly paraphrasing here) "Democracy is not the best way to govern, it's simply the least bad". You mentioned in one of your later posts that most of the people of Iran do not wish to be, effectively, governed by The Guardian of Councils. I guess we don't know whether or not that's true because the system doesn't allow for dissent to be measured but even in "good" democracies it's common for a majority of the electorate to oppose the ruling party. I guess my point is: how should the fact that Iran isn't a democracy impact on our interpretation of Ahmadinejad's hateful rhetoric on Israel and America?

Iran supports terrorists, certainly, a lot of states do unfortunately. For instance, the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran to raise money for terrorists in Nicaragua. Real world? Try Realpolitik.

 

[droid]

Oliver - ill respond to your post as soon as i have a chance. One bit of advice though - learn to use the enter key! - it makes things a bit easier to read if theres at least a few spaces!

 

[craner]

Apologies. Stylistic folly.

 

[dominic]

World without America.... good

so a world w/o the UK = also good???

i.e., what were the possible reasons for invading iraq?

(1) prevent saddam hussein from using chemical weapons or supplying such weapons to terrorists -- i.e., rid the world of this "evil" threat -- AND YET no such weapons were found, there was little or no evidence of iraq having such weapons before the war, etc -- AND AS WE HAVE RECENTLY LEARNED the USA used what amount to chemical weapons against the iraqi people at fullajah, and one would imagine elsewhere too

(2) bring liberal democracy to the middle east, i.e., make iraq a beacon -- this was the supposedly positive side of the neo-con project

(3) get control of iraqi oil supplies in the face of impending global shortages, with the additional advantages of displaying u.s. military might to intimidate the chinese, plus test new weapons and tactics

if we assume that #3 is the real reason for the war, then how is the uk any less loathesome than the usa??? i.e., doesn't reason #3 imply that war was prosecuted to advance the interests of the american capitalist class, whose interests are more or less indistinguishable from those of the british capitalist class -- therefore the close cooperation between the two governments

moreover, in light of recent events in france, doesn't it seem likely that french govt opposed the invasion of iraq not on high principle but as base calculation w/ respect to its own seething domestic problems, which have since come to a head

so maybe eliminate all three countries, france, the uk, and the usa

World without Israel... good

israel should have been constructed out of parts of poland and germany at the end of wwii

but since that's not what happened, we're stuck with israel where it's at -- and stuck w/ how it got to be there, namely, by the dispossession of the palestinian people

World without Zionism....good

hannah arendt is worth reading on this point -- she wanted to see a bi-national state, where jews and palestinians both had full rights of citizenship

also, look for the magazine "news from within" -- this is a current publication that continues to argue for a bi-national israel

'How is that politics has come to be ENTIRELY articulated in negative terms?' Intervention is justified if 'human rights' are under attack, i.e. to eliminate an Evil, but not to bring about some Good. The Good is off the agenda, entirely. This excision is, for me, the very signature of the current ideological configuration.

this is certainly true of rationale #1 = eliminate saddam hussein's regime b/c he's evil and poses a threat to do even more evil b/c he either has or is on the verge of getting WMD

but isn't rationale #2 a positive project = bring liberal democracy to the middle east, make iraq a "beacon" -- i.e., wasn't this the neo-con project?

OR do you see liberal democracy as aiming for the elimination/curtailment of evil (civil war, anarchy, death, poverty = hobbes) ------- or perhaps marginally better, liberal democracy as liberating certain human drives and affording scope for limited ambition (for money, for comfort, for material gain -- as well as for art, science, learning) ------- but liberal democracy ultimately fails b/c it does not allow most people to realize their highest ends and utmost dignity??? or doesn't push most people in this direction? or has no clear notion of "ends" and "direction" = a free for all that is ulimately in the service of capital

please elaborate on how liberal democracy is not a positive project -- i.e., surely its aim is perpetual peace and increasing material comfort -- are these not goods??

even though in practice the leading liberal democracies prosecute wars and achieve increasing material comfort (at least in usa) only by running massive trade deficits (i.e., the alternative to trade deficits would be vastly reduced corporate profits, i.e., either workers are paid more and so are able to pay higher prices for goods OR you ship manufacturing abroad so that consumers can pay less for goods)

even if this is the actual practice, isn't the ultimate aim of liberal democracy something along the order of perpetual peace, increasing material comfort, and free expression and self-realization for all????

or is this a false vision of the political good?

Reviving the notion of the Good is crucial; without it, we don't have politics

you almost sound like leo strauss here

And, in effect, we have a world which poses the question: 'what do you want, given that you can't have what you want?' The Impossible and the Good are intimately connected.

this is quite provocative -- "the impossible and the good are intimately connected"

 

[DigitalDjigit]

israel should have been constructed out of parts of poland and germany at the end of wwii

but since that's not what happened, we're stuck with israel where it's at -- and stuck w/ how it got to be there, namely, by the dispossession of the palestinian people

Because the Polish people would not feel dispossesed at all. WTF are you talking about? Why would it make sense to create Israel in a place where most of them were wiped out? Palestine is where the Jews locate their homeland.

 

[dominic]

Because the Polish people would not feel dispossesed at all. WTF are you talking about? Why would it make sense to create Israel in a place where most of them were wiped out? Palestine is where the Jews locate their homeland.

so better to dispossess a people, the palestinians, who had never committed an historical wrong against the jews than to dispossess the germans and the poles???

moreover, central europe had been the center of jewish civilization since the explusion of the jews from spain -- and i say "center" despite fact that jewish civilization existed as a diaspora -- i.e., if you had to choose a center, you couldn't do much better than poland

further, do you realize the massive movements of peoples that have occurred since the destruction of the temple in the first century AD??? should every modern-day people be allowed to return to and reclaim their ancestral homeland? if not, why should the jews be the exception? merely b/c they had a certain literary genius, the people of the book, such that they could stake a claim to the land of david's kingdom???

 

[DigitalDjigit]

moreover, central europe had been the center of jewish civilization since the explusion of the jews from spain -- and i say "center" despite fact that jewish civilization existed as a diaspora -- i.e., if you had to choose a center, you couldn't do much better than poland

Maybe before the whole Polish jewish population was wiped out. There were lots of jews in other places too, outside of Europe.

Basically European Jews were left without a place to go, they were refugees and noone likes refugees. Meanwhile there was already a Jewish community established in Palestine. The Jews didn't just appear there in 1948. In fact there was always a Jewish presense there even if not very large.

Jews sure do catch a lot of flak for Israel. It's not like there was genocide or a huge land grab. I mean, yeah, there was some wrongdoing but there are no winners in this. Everyone has to compromise. Something which a lot of the Arab countries (and Iran) refuse to do (to bring it back around on topic). It doesn't even concern them so much, really. It's not their land that was taken and they have refused to take in any Palestinian refugees.

 

[craner]

Brilliant! Just what I needed!

 

[craner]

Domtyler.

Iran doesn't tolerare dissent...and yet dissent continues. Rallies, riots at football matches, the Women's movement, political prisoners embarking on hunger strikes, the Referendum movement...

And there are casualties.

And those are the people brave enough to dissent.

Try this.

Good for context. (Droid! You liking my spaces!)

Iran is not a democracy. Why perpetuate this myth?

 

[scottdisco]

Craner keeps banging on about Iran this, Iran that, whether it's a democracy, how rhetoric impacts, blah blah.
well who can say if Ahmadinejad really wants to provoke Israel in a game of tipping one way or t'other, or any of that jazz.

frankly i'm getting rather bored with Olly's prattle, so i consulted a recent Garton Ash article in the NYRB (online here)
to see what he says instead of that neo-con Ledeen.
Timmy writes the Islamic Republic is still an ideological dictatorship. Its central organizing principle can be summarized in four sentences: (1) There is only one God and Muhammad is his Prophet. (2) God knows best what is good for men and women. (3) The Islamic clergy, and especially the most learned among them, the jurists qualified to interpret Islamic law, know best what God wants. (4) In case of dispute among learned jurists, the Supreme Leader decides. This is the system....it is Khomeinism.

oh.

what's the latest in the case of the Zahra Kazemi slaying Oliver dear chap?

 

[Buick6]

Until Iran creates a cultural identity like Dana International, they can get fucked.

The blood curdles with some of the immature rhetoric going on here. What do you expect Israel to do out-numbered 100000's to 1 who's existence was threatened as soon as the country came into existence? So why don't we let them drop their weapons and right to self-defence and see how long it lasts. I bet it wouldn't last longer than what happened to the Kurds now would it?

Amazing how fascists who aren't scared to kill themselves and innocents can polarize the public, and allow anti-semitism to rear its head.

I mean if Israel doesn't get support from Amerikkka, who will support them? And remember kids, Noam Chomsky said that the Kibbutz system was one of the first purely SOCIALISTIC systems that worked, but hey, its bundled up in some form of Imperialism, nobody's perfect. and we know a world with no America, no Israel, no Zionsim will be a better place, though i don't think the Nazi's woulda over-taken America. But lets come out and say it A WORLD WITH NO JEWS WOULD BE FANTASTIC!!! LETS ALL REVEL IN IT FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT DEEP INSIDE! KILL THE JEWS THEY ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!! THEY ARE FASCISTS AND WORSHIP MONEY AND CORRUPTION AND THEY ARE DEEPLY, DEEPLY ARROGANT, IN FACT THEY INVENTED ARROGANCE!!!

Gee it doesn't really ring true, does it? Wankers.

I think the balance of power is just part of the nautral law of things, if you don't like it, become a fucken politician and make a difference, but seriously, if you were so good, you wouldn't be piss farting around in dissensus now, would you?

 

[droid]

Good for context. (Droid! You liking my spaces!)

Well done Oliver. They're my favourite parts of your posts

Iran is not a democracy. Why perpetuate this myth?

Er... Who exactly is perpetrating it? The liberal Mass media?

What do you expect Israel to do out-numbered 100000's to 1 who's existence was threatened as soon as the country came into existence?

Thats right. The entire Arab world's number one priority for the last 50 years has been to drive Israel into the sea. Israel has never been an aggressor, has constantly sought peaceful solutions, and only ever acts in self defence, also, israel was 'a land without a people' when Jewish settlement began, Palestinians 'left' their land in 1948 of their own free will, there has never been a single Palestinian civilain killed unjustly due to the IDF's policy of 'purity of arms', and all citizens in Israel have equal rights regardles of religion or ethnicity...

Have I left any of the important myths out? Or would you like to add some more from your own selection?

So why don't we let them drop their weapons and right to self-defence and see how long it lasts. I bet it wouldn't last longer than what happened to the Kurds now would it?

Are you talking about 'one of the biggest human rights abuses' of the 90's?, ie - Turkeys persecution of their Kurdish minority facilitated by military support from the US? Or perhaps Saddam's brutal attacks on the Kurds, which were repeatedly ignored by Washington due to their strategic alliance with Iraq?

Either way, it would be a fairly radical shift in US policy to go from supplying Israel with approximately $6 billion a year in arms and state of the art weaponry, to giving logistical and miltary support to her persecutors - and about as likely as me becoming Pope..

Oh- and since when did possesing 270-400 nuclear warheads in a primarily non-nuclear-armed region constitue self defence?

I mean if Israel doesn't get support from Amerikkka, who will support them? And remember kids, Noam Chomsky said that the Kibbutz system was one of the first purely SOCIALISTIC systems that worked, but hey, its bundled up in some form of Imperialism, nobody's perfect. and we know a world with no America, no Israel, no Zionsim will be a better place, though i don't think the Nazi's woulda over-taken America. But lets come out and say it A WORLD WITH NO JEWS WOULD BE FANTASTIC!!! LETS ALL REVEL IN IT FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT DEEP INSIDE! KILL THE JEWS THEY ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!! THEY ARE FASCISTS AND WORSHIP MONEY AND CORRUPTION AND THEY ARE DEEPLY, DEEPLY ARROGANT, IN FACT THEY INVENTED ARROGANCE!!!

Gee it doesn't really ring true, does it? Wankers.

The blood curdles with some of the immature rhetoric going on here.

You said it. Surely you can come up with a slightly more rational and level headed argument. The ill-informed rant above does your position absolutely no favours.


This is a civil enough board.


Lets please keep it that way.

 

[scottdisco]

Droid:
Well done Oliver. They're my favourite parts of your posts

possibly the thread's best line yet

 

[k-punk]

You said it. Surely you can come up with a slightly more rational and level headed argument. The ill-informed rant above does your position absolutely no favours.


This is a civil enough board.


Lets please keep it that way.

Hear, hear.

Jeez, are we still at the stage of having to distinguish being anti-Israel from being anti-semitic?

 

[craner]

Good question, Scottie.

 

[craner]

And that was under Khatami! You see, it means nothing.

Alright, I think I've made this point rather well now.

 

[dominic]

Basically European Jews were left without a place to go, they were refugees and noone likes refugees.

there were all kinds of refugees at the end of wwii, esp. in eastern europe = millions of ethnic germans were expelled from the ukraine -- massive rearranging of populations occurred

therefore it would have been relatively easy to carve out a territory for the jews -- though i suppose w/ soviet union in control of eastern europe, perhaps not so easy

but the point is, why did the crime have to be against palestinians rather than europeans?

i.e., all states are founded upon crimes against other people, so i don't lament the radical expropriation of others as such ------ rather, i think that in this case europe should have "punished" itself by handing-over some of its own territory to the jews ------- the result would have been something in the nature of justice, not crime

i think, also, that under modern conditions, the jewish people need to have their own nation-state, or at least a state in which their status as full citizens is not in question -- so i don't take issue with the concept of an "israel" or at least a state in which jews are among the founding elements

Meanwhile there was already a Jewish community established in Palestine. The Jews didn't just appear there in 1948.

no, but they did more or less appear there over the course of the previous 50 years, in what was essentially a colonial operation = zionism is and always has been a species of western imperialism

It's not like there was genocide or a huge land grab.

how about ethnic cleansing?

yeah, there was some wrongdoing but there are no winners in this.

again, all states are founded on wrongs

the problem w/ israel is that the wrongs were perpetrated against a stronger people -- i.e., the arabs

which has meant that israel, in order to survive, has had to depend upon the good will of western powers, for a short time britain, and for the most of the past 60 years the usa -- and so this makes of israel a western presence in the middle east, an imperial outpost -- so even if many israelis in fact came from other areas of the middle east and north africa, and indeed even if a few come from families that had never left the land of palestine, the state is a western proxy

Everyone has to compromise. Something which a lot of the Arab countries (and Iran) refuse to do (to bring it back around on topic).

they won't have to compromise if they have more endurance -- i.e., they can wait another hundred years, wait however long it takes for western commitment to israel to collapse -- and then they'll be free to drive the jews into the sea -- remember: arabs take the long view -- they are a very old civilization (even if islam is relatively new)

or rather, they would be free to vanquish israel only if it were not nuclear armed -- this is why israel needs a nuclear capability, b/c at the end of the day such weapons are its only real security

It's not their land that was taken

you say this as though national identity were more pronounced among arabs and muslims than religious, cultural, and regional identities

only if arabs and muslims conceived of themselves primarily or exclusively as "syrians" or "egyptians" or "persians" would the land of palestine not be theirs that was taken

instead, they experience the expropriation of the palestinians as a crime against islam and an insult to arab honor -- a humiliating symbol and perpetual reminder of western dominance over the islamic world

and of course such feelings of humiliation are irrational, the tendency to always and everywhere experience insult is highly problematic -- and this is where the arabs are at fault

but you cannot fault them for resisting the dispossession of their brethren

and they have refused to take in any Palestinian refugees.

there are palestinians who live and work throughout the middle east -- esp. the more educated classes

remember: palestine was a sedentary culture w/ a high degree of learning and technical expertise as compared w/ other parts of he arab world, where the people were traditionally nomadic but had the good fortune to be grazing on top of massive oil reserves

and last: were the other arab countries to take in and absorb completely the palestine refugees, it would normalize the situation and therefore legitimate, willy nilly, the state of israel, and the crimes upon which israel was founded would be forgotten

but the arabs see no need to forget b/c forgetfulness is for the wretched and weak -- i.e., israel is positioned against an arab sea and someday the tide will turn