the USA, Israel, and national interest

did pinefox go? what did he make of the invited speakers?

Oh wonderful.

Go to what? Your post shows a blank.

go to the demo. the clip is of one of the numerous speakers who extolled the virtues of hamas.

What's your point?

I went to the rally in Hyde Park, yes, as I said upthread. I didn't go all the way to the second rally which was, I think, somewhere beyond the Israeli Embassy. As your clip doesn't work I can't tell whether I heard it or not.

my point is, the pinefox and others painted the demo as a simple plea for peace, but in fact its invited speakers variously praised hamas (above and beyond the 'right to resist), denied the right of existence to israel, and encouraged the crowd to 'shut down israel shops', not boycott, shut down. pretty unedifying stuff, no? perhaps it's not worth commenting on, what do you think?

b-b-but he was being very specific about shutting down a tiny market stall in westfield don't you see

That sounds pretty bad if invited speakers denied Israel's right to exist and urged action against Israeli shops in London.

So you think the original message of the protest was effectively hijacked into anti-Semitism?

Hijacked?

I didn't hear any speaker denying the right of existence to Israel or urging anyone to shut down Israeli shops. I heard a number of speakers talk of the terrible conditions and violence to which Palestinians have been subjected. I agree with those speakers and with those who believe that this is wrong and should not continue.

Insofar as I understand what is going on in Palestine - and my knowledge remains entirely second-hand, via the news, the LRB and the like, unlike those like the Dirty Vicar and his partner who have been to the Middle East and, I think, witnessed Palestinian society - events and conditions sound pretty unedifying. That seems to me to be the most important thing to recognize, remember and address, if one is going to address anything. I don't, myself, pretend to be making any noteworthy political contribution.

just as well

This is all having one really positive effect: it's reminding me that it is not generally worth spending time on ilx.

there's always a disconnect between the message of the protest as construed by the organizers (in this case the unappetising trot-islamist 'stop the war coalition'), and as constued by the majority of attendees (in this case decent people who want peace, for convenience) -- it would be mad to deny it. i wouldn't put it in terms of hijacking: it's just an inevitable thing.

but in this case the disconnect strikes me as quite stark. i would guess that the majority of attendees didn't actually know what tariq ali was talking about (saying fatah had sold out the cause at oslo, etc) and were unlikely to attempt to shut down 'israel shops', as proposed by galloway. but i am genuinely interested to know what the 'vibe' was like, whether there was indeed a disconnect. i would like to think so.

xpost

i guess pinefox didn't see ali, galloway, azzam tamimi, or that brit ambassador guy who married a stripper then. just as well!

I remember attending a peace demo in Minneapolis not long after 9/11 and being forced to physically distance myself from people chanting "Sharon and Hitler are the same, the only difference is the name," and feeling the same way at one of the massive D.C. anti-war marches before the Iraq invasion, when somebody with a bullhorn started yelling something about infidels (he noticed no one was chanting along, and quickly changed his tune).

But this stuff happens at protests. Was I wrong to be at that Iraq War protest? No, I wasn't. If I had been silent, I would have been counted among those endorsing the war.

these were the invited speakers, the organizers, not random thug elements, though they attended to.

there aren't british boots on the ground, and it's completely untrue that non-attendance means endorsement; or rather, can anyone live up to that standard? unless you've protested all wars, i don't see how.

too

there aren't british boots on the ground

britain doesn't make military boots anymore

plenty of british weapons, though

true indeed.

i didn't and wouldn't have gone on the protest - partly out of the 'what about Africa' argument, partly because of fear of nutjob quotient being much higher than say the Iraq war protest (which was obv a much bigger deal to Brits) and partly because then whole thing is so blatantly fucked up i never know what to think.

"it's completely untrue that non-attendance means endorsement"

I'm speaking from the U.S., the largest backer of Israel since 1967, the functioning democracy where the F-16s are made.

That doesn't make the statement any more true.

I have endorsed every war waged since I was born and I stand by those endorsements, all war is totally great.

AHH COME FROM THE CITY WHERE THEY LOVE TO HATE
SPECIALLY ON THAT TRIPLE SIX

lol rong thread

xxpost

Well, I would argue that it does. If you live in a democracy with a certain amount of freedom, you are more responsible for what your leaders do in your name than if you don't.

Like the Palestinians, too!

What if you live in a constitutional republic as opposed to a democracy?

This isn't worth getting into. The participatory democracy part of the argument has been discussed at least three separate times in this thread, it applies to almost all the states involved, and yes it's sad that wingnuts of all stripes seem to hold more sway than they deserve, also, self-righteousness regarding violence is even lazier than self-righteousness regarding pornography

in fairness, it's more understandable to tut-tut about someone killing someone else than it is to tut-tut about someone jackin' it

xpost: doesn't make the statement any more true

Dan, given "true" as viewed from the neutral perspective of logic and denotative language, you are correct.

Politics puts this into a different framework. The US government position establishes the political default. If you do nothing at all, you are pretty well guaranteed to get more of the same. In political terms, silence has the practical effect of assent.

We had a similar argument many times about anti-war protests before the Iraq invasion, when a lot of people attending were either disappointed with claims beyond made or just embarrassed by the opinions and behavior of some of the people around them.

Obviously you have to put some care into what you're going out for, and try not to wind up in an action whose official organizational point you don't agree with. But there's also a level where politics is about big tents, and you get under the tent of one thing you agree on -- say, "we oppose invading Iraq" -- with people you think are wrong about why and are wrong about other things, who you find politically embarrassing, who you might condemn for other reasons. (Part of why you show up, in fact, might be to help your reasonable position outnumber the unreasonable ones.)

I know nothing about the London protests, who organized them, who spoke at them, what they said, etc., so this should not be construed as offering an opinion about that, okay?

Just saying that masses of people mobilize around one central point and are bound to vary wildly on a lot of other things, and I don't think this reflects badly on the individuals mobilizing. I'd also note that one consequence of this is that some of the most effective and powerful protest movements in recent history have gathered people around a very simple message of, as Lamp mocked a couple days ago, "Not Cool" -- not complex, detailed policy positions, but just "This Is Not Acceptable." (Hell, some of the best protest signs of the 20th century read only "I AM A MAN.")

this yet?:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/12/joe-the-plumber-ban-media-from-war/

Nabisco OTM, but all protests are not equally effective. Therefore, "to protest" is not neccessarily to have accomplished some good WR2 your own political goals, even if the ostensible point of the protest seems to sqare with your views/values. Protests can be hijacked, and their surface messages can act as a curtain for views that might not otherwise be so attractive. If a "peace protest" turns into, disguises or enables an anti-Semitic/anti-Israel rally, then supporting such a thing may actually do more harm than good -- strenghtening the resolve of hardliners and equating the opposition with racism. Big tent sure, but you wanna be careful who climb in under the sheets with.

Dan, given "true" as viewed from the neutral perspective of logic and denotative language, you are correct.

Politics puts this into a different framework. The US government position establishes the political default. If you do nothing at all, you are pretty well guaranteed to get more of the same. In political terms, silence has the practical effect of assent.

You realize you are stating that when the government does something you disagree with, the only way they will know you disagree is if you run out and join the first street protest you see, right? I mean, screw voting, screw contacting your elected officials, screw running for office yourself; street protests are the only things that matter and anything unsavory in the stance of the people putting it together is something you have to accept if you want to participate in the political process.

"I think media should be abolished from, you know, reporting," Wurzelbacher said. "You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, 'well, look at this atrocity,' well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."

It's better to forbid information than risk hearing half the truth.

"I think media should be abolished from, you know, reporting."

Joe the Plumber is basically the epitome of "this fucking guy"

B-b-but I thought Joe the Plumber was going to REPORT

haha maybe he realized his reports were going to suck and is trying to back out?

screw voting, screw contacting your elected officials, screw running for office yourself

Hmmmm. None of these activities sound to me like "doing nothing at all", which is what I indicated would have the effect of reverting to the default. They don't even sound even much like "silence", which is what Pete was talking about.

xpost

Put it this way: Silence can hijacked to much worse ends--and has.

And, I would add, yes, to some unquantifiable degree, you are more morally culpable for those ends if the hijackers are your elected representatives and you have the freedom to protest in some way (and nobody's saying it has to be this or that particular form of protest, much less this or that specific one).

One solution is to go to such a protest with a pro-Israel sign saying end the blockade, or whatever.

This is actually a classic example of moving the goalposts of an argument, all the more impressive since the assertion that started it was less than an hour ago:

Was I wrong to be at that Iraq War protest? No, I wasn't. If I had been silent, I would have been counted among those endorsing the war.

― Pete Scholtes, Monday, January 12, 2009 1:19 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it's completely untrue that non-attendance means endorsement; or rather, can anyone live up to that standard? unless you've protested all wars, i don't see how.

― DANCE MUSIC STUCK AT RECOMBINANT PLATEAU (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, January 12, 2009 1:26 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'm speaking from the U.S., the largest backer of Israel since 1967, the functioning democracy where the F-16s are made.

― Pete Scholtes, Monday, January 12, 2009 1:51 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

That doesn't make the statement any more true.

― ^likes black girls (HI DERE), Monday, January 12, 2009 1:51 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Well, I would argue that it does. If you live in a democracy with a certain amount of freedom, you are more responsible for what your leaders do in your name than if you don't.

― Pete Scholtes, Monday, January 12, 2009 1:55 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Dan, given "true" as viewed from the neutral perspective of logic and denotative language, you are correct.

Politics puts this into a different framework. The US government position establishes the political default. If you do nothing at all, you are pretty well guaranteed to get more of the same. In political terms, silence has the practical effect of assent.

― Aimless, Monday, January 12, 2009 2:05 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

OK. I read it. I don't notice anything happening other than successive attempts to communicate an idea, refining it as it was iterated. If this is just an exercise in seeing who gets to claim being the winner, then knock yourself out, Dan.

Do you fail to understand my point entirely, or do you think you understand it quite well and take the position it has not the tiniest shred of validity? Or what is your point?

Silence can BE hijacked

Argh, the goalposts have not been moved, you are all just arguing different things.

- Pete says: "Was I wrong to be at the protest? No, because if I'd been silent, that would be an endorsement"

- Dan is successfully poking one hole in this logic, which is that "being at the protest" and "silence" are not mutually exclusive, since there are other things you could do to be non-silent beyond going to a protest -- so "not being silent" alone doesn't justify the protest and you still have to ask yourself whether the protest is a good idea

- If Aimless and Pete consider this hair-splitting, they are not saying so directly, but maybe implying it, by saying "all those other things constitute non-silence, so the point remains, you have to do something (and in this case it was protest)"

- Per all the above, Nabisco is suggesting that this might not really be a big or hugely important point of disagreement

nabisco OTM

He maketh the lamb to lie down with the lion and peace to dwell upon the land.

Peace offering:

http://www.thankyoujonstewart.com/

In a very, very small protest move, I joined a facebook group opposing the offensive, knowing, at least, that Jewish and Israeli friends of mine -- some probably on the fence and some probably 100% for the offensive -- would see my status update. As it happened, the person who had joined right before me had Adolph Hitler as his profile picture. Did turn my stomach a little, but sometimes you have to oppose the greater wrong.

oh isnt this lovely:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7824009.stm

Petrol bombs hit French synagogue

Two petrol bombs have been thrown at a synagogue north of Paris, police have said, days after another French synagogue was attacked.
Police in the Seine-Saint-Denis region said no injuries were caused, but a restaurant next door to the synagogue was damaged.
Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said the attack was "intolerable".
The incident came amid tensions in France over the violence between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, now in its 17th day.
Ms Alliot-Marie vowed to find and punish those who carried out the attack in Saint-Denis on Sunday.
French officials have been keen to stress to Jewish and Muslim community leaders that the unrest in Gaza should not lead to violence in France.
Protests against Israel's military action in Gaza attracted more than 100,000 people in France during the weekend.
In last week's attack, a burning car was rammed into a synagogue in the south-western French city of Toulouse.
The car, packed with a petrol bomb, was set alight and then pushed into the synagogue door by a second car.
No-one was hurt in that attack.