No Excuses for the Left :The Holy Cow of Palestine
October 3rd 2006 05:55
David Aaronovitch’s documentary No Excuses for Terror is doing the rounds of blogs around the world. It is a fairly damning indictment of the Left’s capitulation or worse, co-option of terrorism everywhere in the world. You can find the documentary here.
The movie however notes the facts but carefully stops from remarking on them. It doesn’t give even a single reason as to why Left has become an accessory to modern terrorism. It looks like some sections of Left apologising for the other sections of Left, saying in effect, we’re not all nuts here. Playing good cop, bad cop.
While at it, the movie also looks at the single, monolithic, no-dissent-allowed demonising of Israel. I am not a supporter of Israel, nor of Palestine. I have never been able to understand the centrality of Palestine issue in the world affairs. Millions are wiped out in ten days in Rwanda and the world barely registers. Thousands are killed in Darfur and the world hardly blinks an eye. There is a small gunshot or a riot in Palestine , it’s a front page news everywhere, Why? The documentary notes this too but without asking the question that should asked of the Left: Why?
Palestine is routinely presented as the biggest obstacle to world peace. Why? When somebody like Mr.Bush prosecutes his war on terror and rightly gives the “issue” the cold shoulder, he is advised by all and sundry to solve the Palestinian issue first and well, everything else will be solved automatically. How? Why should lives of people the world over be made hostage to what happens in this small dinky corner of the planet? I am not a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim or a Liberal and I assume there are at least a billion people like me and well, we’re not interested in what happens there.
The Jews built their temple here and thought that the restoration of the temple will be their restoration to an angry God. The Christians in turn made this their holy land and the Muslims followed suit. Not to be outdone, the leftists came next and thought well, if they can only erect a secular state in this piece of land, they can conquer the world imagination. A secular state on the holy land of Jerusalem. Just imagine. Followed by secular states everywhere.
This gives us a clue to Left as a social group. Yeah, of course like any other socio-political entity it posits itself by some principles. But, it’s existence owes not to the careful application of these so-called principles but like any gang it depends on just one thing: muscle. What it wants is a direct access to a collective imagination. Hence, whatever holds the imagination of a collective, thither go our friends. Principles? What principles?
The movie however notes the facts but carefully stops from remarking on them. It doesn’t give even a single reason as to why Left has become an accessory to modern terrorism. It looks like some sections of Left apologising for the other sections of Left, saying in effect, we’re not all nuts here. Playing good cop, bad cop.
While at it, the movie also looks at the single, monolithic, no-dissent-allowed demonising of Israel. I am not a supporter of Israel, nor of Palestine. I have never been able to understand the centrality of Palestine issue in the world affairs. Millions are wiped out in ten days in Rwanda and the world barely registers. Thousands are killed in Darfur and the world hardly blinks an eye. There is a small gunshot or a riot in Palestine , it’s a front page news everywhere, Why? The documentary notes this too but without asking the question that should asked of the Left: Why?
Palestine is routinely presented as the biggest obstacle to world peace. Why? When somebody like Mr.Bush prosecutes his war on terror and rightly gives the “issue” the cold shoulder, he is advised by all and sundry to solve the Palestinian issue first and well, everything else will be solved automatically. How? Why should lives of people the world over be made hostage to what happens in this small dinky corner of the planet? I am not a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim or a Liberal and I assume there are at least a billion people like me and well, we’re not interested in what happens there.
The Jews built their temple here and thought that the restoration of the temple will be their restoration to an angry God. The Christians in turn made this their holy land and the Muslims followed suit. Not to be outdone, the leftists came next and thought well, if they can only erect a secular state in this piece of land, they can conquer the world imagination. A secular state on the holy land of Jerusalem. Just imagine. Followed by secular states everywhere.
This gives us a clue to Left as a social group. Yeah, of course like any other socio-political entity it posits itself by some principles. But, it’s existence owes not to the careful application of these so-called principles but like any gang it depends on just one thing: muscle. What it wants is a direct access to a collective imagination. Hence, whatever holds the imagination of a collective, thither go our friends. Principles? What principles?
| 80 |
| Vote |
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Revolutionary Convention of France and the seating arrangements of the Girondins as opposed
to the Jacobins. When the left aim at the right and vice versa, I suspect they have a large target.
De Gaulle when asked where he stood would always say, "Above". By the by regarding your site
which says, incidently, Those who stormed the Bastille also raised the Guillotine. Is that technically correct?
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
As for the legend, to my knowledge I think its true. Still I'd be happy to pull it down if its not exact. Can you help with any info?
Comment by Anon
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
There is this interesting paradox that occurred during the Stalinist era when people like Satre found themselves in bed with Josef Stalin. Now was he left of right, secular or liberal? Did not believe in God, sexually depraved or impotent and signed a pact with Adolf Hitler.
As to the wonderful question about whether the people who stormed the Bastille also set up the Guillotine, I think you can safely retain your post for the present if one is to take Simon Schama’s Citizens as an authority on the French Revolution. The Convention and Directory certainly set up the instrument or “machine” as the French preferred to call it and they used the Sans Culottes to further their more bloody intentions. How wonderful is the history of that instrument which took the head of the man said to have invented it. Dr. Guillontin. He always deeply resented that attribution because it was actually designed by a committee. When the committee came up with the idea the blade, at first, was curved like a crescent or scimitar. Superb irony upon ironies, they took their idea to Louis 16th, always a deeply practical man, who recognized immediately that such a blade would quickly go blunt so he recommended the current graduated razor shape we have grown to know and love.
The calling of factions, which is what this is about, should turn its attention to the lobby that currently surrounds the American President. Who are they and who funds them? Who dares oppose them? For this we have the New York Review of Books, that fearless magazine to assist us.
Comment by Damo
Certainly there is no excuse for terror, either by terrorist or by governments. The names may be different by the results are the same. Innocent people die. However people do get tempted to use terror when they are desperate. Desperation can be physical like hunger or mental like a sense of oppression and injustice.
You don't have to be brilliant to work out that the Middle East oil supply is one of the things that support the western consumer lifestyle. It is our hip pocket nerve that makes us pay attention. If a bomb goes off in the Middle East we feel the shockwave at the petrol pump.
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
I wouldn't want to equate governments of a state with random groups of terror, Damo. That would be a non sequitur. Even if both groups use force, one group randomly unleashes violence on civilians and the responds to threats to a civil body.
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
For clarifying about the french revoluton. If my comment holds in such specificity, i'd be very glad indeed. When i wrote that I did not mean the very people who did the first thing did the second. I mean generally, French revolution which was supposed to be abt lbrety, freternity and all that stuff also ushered in a reign of terror. So, you've got to be careful abt those who prefer to usher in a "revolution." I am in generally suspicious of all those equality types.
As for Stalin's pact with hitler, well the left was certainly not completely against Hitler from the start. Many in the continet didn't even want the powers to fight him. Think Knut Hamsun. That's because, Hitler does not belong unequivocally to the Right, as the Left conveniently has it these days. He was a national Socialist, remember? Hitler didnt turn bad in the Left's eyes until he dared attack Holy Mother Russia. Their only criterion is whether something will threaten their empire. If it did, thats the worst thing for them, as far as they are concerned. Knut hamsun was concerned more abt britsh imperialism than about fascism in italy or nazism in germany even though later were killing millions of people and the former, though oppressive was no where near as bad as the others. and the left today loathes capitalism of america but is not bothered by any of the other dictatorships, genocides or imperilaisms. Why? Becos capitalism is the enemy. The others they couldnt care less. i think thats also the my concern in palestine issue