But you've got to have friends ...
Here's a fascinating article in the current issue of Dissent about the history of successful self-determination movements (mostly in the twentieth century) and their reliance on support from "imperialist" powers.
The author, Shlomo Avineri, suggests in his conclusion that those on the left who have essentially ignored the plight of the Kurds might have some pangs of conscience:
That there were in 1939—and are today—more Arabs than Jews tells us a great deal about world attitudes toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. That there are so many more Arabs (and Turks) than Kurds has determined attitudes toward the Kurdish people. The issue is, obviously, not only numbers. It is also a matter of the power of Arab—and Muslim—states. It entails concern for oil and Turkey’s strategic location. And finally, it concerns the fact that the Kurds are not only a small people, they also do not have powerful friends. They are a nation without many cousins abroad or fraternal allies.
One can understand why governments and chancellors respond to these dilemmas with realpolitik, but it is a scandal that liberal, left-wing opinion, supposedly motivated by humanistic and universal values has traditionally ignored the case of the Kurds. How often have left-wing intellectuals and protesters who condemn Israeli policies—sometimes rightly, sometimes less so—mobilized on behalf of the Kurds and against their oppressors—Saddam’s Iraq, but also Turkey?
This is a stain on the record of the European and American left. The only consolation may be that the present geopolitical situation, brought about by the toppling of Saddam, may perhaps give the Kurds in Iraq, for the first time in history, a place in the sun, either in a federal, democratic Iraq or, ultimately, in a state of their own.
Should this happen, Kurdish self-determination would not be due to the support of the left, but to the questionable politics of the Bush administration. Perhaps some people on the left ought to examine their consciences. Those of us who share a belief in Hegel’s “cunning of reason”—that is, the idea that great historical consequences don’t always come from the intentions of historical actors—may, once again, and against our moral preference, be vindicated.
Avineri only vaguely touches on the reasons behind the left's relative silence about the Kurds, but I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that a good portion of the European and American left defines itself in opposition to American "imperialism" rather than in solidarity with oppressed peoples.
The author, Shlomo Avineri, suggests in his conclusion that those on the left who have essentially ignored the plight of the Kurds might have some pangs of conscience:
That there were in 1939—and are today—more Arabs than Jews tells us a great deal about world attitudes toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. That there are so many more Arabs (and Turks) than Kurds has determined attitudes toward the Kurdish people. The issue is, obviously, not only numbers. It is also a matter of the power of Arab—and Muslim—states. It entails concern for oil and Turkey’s strategic location. And finally, it concerns the fact that the Kurds are not only a small people, they also do not have powerful friends. They are a nation without many cousins abroad or fraternal allies.
One can understand why governments and chancellors respond to these dilemmas with realpolitik, but it is a scandal that liberal, left-wing opinion, supposedly motivated by humanistic and universal values has traditionally ignored the case of the Kurds. How often have left-wing intellectuals and protesters who condemn Israeli policies—sometimes rightly, sometimes less so—mobilized on behalf of the Kurds and against their oppressors—Saddam’s Iraq, but also Turkey?
This is a stain on the record of the European and American left. The only consolation may be that the present geopolitical situation, brought about by the toppling of Saddam, may perhaps give the Kurds in Iraq, for the first time in history, a place in the sun, either in a federal, democratic Iraq or, ultimately, in a state of their own.
Should this happen, Kurdish self-determination would not be due to the support of the left, but to the questionable politics of the Bush administration. Perhaps some people on the left ought to examine their consciences. Those of us who share a belief in Hegel’s “cunning of reason”—that is, the idea that great historical consequences don’t always come from the intentions of historical actors—may, once again, and against our moral preference, be vindicated.
Avineri only vaguely touches on the reasons behind the left's relative silence about the Kurds, but I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that a good portion of the European and American left defines itself in opposition to American "imperialism" rather than in solidarity with oppressed peoples.
posted by Kate Marie | 3:42 PM | Permalink
|
24 comments
24 Comments:
The Kurds have gotten the short end of the shaft from the entire spectrum of American politics. Few on the right wept tears over them when the Reagan and Bush administration were selling weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. The Reagan administration tried to squelch reports that Hussein had used gas against Kurdish civilians, and the first Bush administrations wooed Saddam up to the very eve of the first Gulf War
I believe your point is pretty much covered in the article.
In any event, I didn't (and the article doesn't) make any claims that the American "right" has treated the Kurds any better than the American "left." Perhaps I'm wrong, but I assumed that, since Dissent is more of a left-leaning magazine, the author was also left-leaning and was -- in his conclusion -- chastising his own for a failure to rise above the realpolitick that had governed our treatment (or non-treatment, as the case may be) of the Kurds.
When one looks at the demographics of the area, carving out the nation of Kurdistan seems to be a logical solution. However, Turkey will never allow it. But in refusing it, they invited further animosity and unrest. The borders of Iraq are essentially made up. Maybe the answer over there is ultimately to partition the country along ethnic lines and build walls. Since it isn't the US, it wouldn't violate equal protection.
Kate Marie,
Avineri barely scratches the surface of the Reagan and Bush administrations' complicity in the plight of Iraq's Kurds during the 1980's. Ironically, many of the very chemicals that were used to poison Halabja were likely sold to Iraq by the US, which then moved to cover up stories of the massacre.
Avineri's assertion that neglect of the Kurds can be put down the the fact that "Iran, Iraq, and Turkey" have friends on the left is patently absurd. Avineri singles out the Kurds as the "big losers" in the struggle for national self-determination, but this is also a drastic distortion. The Kurds are only one of a myriad peoples whose dreams of sovereignty have been deferred- the Shan, the Karen, the Acenese, the Cham, the Chechens, the Basques, the Tamils, the Uighurs, the Tibetans- the list goes on and on and on and on and on. Asserting that this is somehow a left-right partisan issue is preposterous. The entire world needs to rethink the question of national sovereignty and how it may be peacefully adjudicated, otherwise the prospect that international terrorism will someday abate is a pipe dream.
Stewdog,
The partition of Iraq is not a viable option, any move to enforce such a resolution would fatally undermine the project of Iraqi reconstruction and lead to all-out civil war. One of the most tragic ironies of the current situation is that if the Kurds are ultimately determined to secede from Iraq they may become violently hostile to the US very quickly, and our soldiers' most stalwart allies in the region will join the ranks of their lethal opponents.
Madman,
Sometimes I get the impression we're reading different articles. I'd say the reason that Avineri "barely scratches the surface" of Reagan/Bush administration complicity in the plight of the Kurds is that it's not the focus of the article. The point is made, however, and your insistence on making it and making it again strikes me as sort of defensive. If you want me to make a blanket disclaimer for every mention of the left's hypocrisy (which is not even what this article is primarily about) that the right is no better, I'm happy to do it. The left is no *worse* than the right on the issue of the Kurds.
"Avineri's assertion that neglect of the Kurds can be put down the the fact that "Iran, Iraq, and Turkey" have friends on the left is patently absurd."
-- I'm confused. Here's what Avineri says: "Why so much support for the Palestinians and so little support for the Kurds? Certainly the reason is *NOT* that Iran, Iraq, and Turkey have many friends and supporters, especially on the left." (emphasis mine)
Avineri uses the Kurds as an example, and I think it's highly unfair and ungenerous to take his discussion of the Kurds to mean that there have been no other big losers in the struggle for national self-determination. He singles out the Kurds (along with the Armenians) as an example of "big losers" in the particular region which he chooses to focus on.
You seem to be itching for a fight about this for the sole reason that Avineri dared to criticize the left (and the U.N.)along with the right here. It's a stretch, however, to see the article as implying that this is a left/right partisan issue. I think the article argues that the issue of national self-determination has been largely determined by realpolitick and the matter of having friends in high places (that is, among "imperialist" nations) who are interested -- for their own reasons -- in a particular cause. That his conclusion chastises the left (of which I presume he considers himself a member) does not make the issue a left/right partisan one, and I don't think there's anywhere Avineri suggests that it is.
Kate Marie,
Whoops- miss one word and the whole sentence takes on a new meaning. So Avineri was not as out-there as I thought, but he is still out there. Whether he thinks of himself as one of the "left" is beside the point. His main point is that "the left's" criticism of Israeli policy is somehow delegitimized by "their" supposed silence on the issue of the Kurds. Both of these propositions are built on broad generalizations and sketchy reasoning. "The left" does not speak with one voice about Israeli policy, nor has "the left" been universally silent on the issue of Kurdish self-determination.
You may see some criticism of "the right" in his article, but it simply isn't there. Any actions by the Reagans and Bush regimes is excused- "One can understand why governments and chancellors respond to these dilemmas with realpolitik," while the supposed silence of the left about the Kurds is a "scandal."
"Avineri uses the Kurds as an example, and I think it's highly unfair and ungenerous to take his discussion of the Kurds to mean that there have been no other big losers in the struggle for national self-determination. He singles out the Kurds (along with the Armenians) as an example of "big losers" in the particular region which he chooses to focus on."
This is a reading of Avineri's article almost as creative as my ellision of the word "no." How the Armenians rank as "big losers" according to Avineri's analysis is a wonder, as they now have their own state. His discussion of national determination movements leading up to the Kurds spans Europe and the Middle East over the course of two centuries, so the idea that his thesis has a narrow regional "focus" is dubious. Sure, Avineri choses to juxtapose Palestinians to Kurds, but why is that comparison any more intuitive than one between, say, the Kurds and the Karen? The Kurds and the Tibetans?
Avineri's attempt to use the Kurdish question to critique "the left" is disingenuous, moreover, as he purposefully confuses the question of human rights with sovereign rights. No person of conscience should stand by and condone what has been done to Kurdish inviduals by the governments of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. If the world's response to these cruelties has been less than just, how is that the exclusive responsibility of the left? On the other hand, the question of whether the Kurds, among the world's myriad stateless peoples, should have a sovereign nation (and where it should be located, and what its borders should be, and which already existing sovereign nations must see their territory reduced) is exquisitely complex, how is "the left" to blame for failing to untie the Gordian knot? Avineri ends with the observation that this conundrum might "ironically" be resolved by the Bush administration's Iraq policy. As I said to Stewdog, however, that could all go very wrong if Iraq's Kurds are unwilling to compromise their nationalist aspirations.
Madman,
Where in the article does he call the world's response (or non-response) to these cruelties the exclusive responsibility of the left? Could you point me to even one sentence that suggests this?
I guess we just have to disagree about his main point. I thought his main point was to suggest that movements for national self-determination are beholden to the sponsorship of "imperialist" states which are obeying the dictates of realpolitick. The sentence you cite ("One can understand why governments and chancellors respond to these dilemmas with realpolitik") is not an apology for the right but a dimissal, a "what can you expect from nations/governments/leaders that base their foreign policy on narrow national self-interest?" His criticism of the left is a criticism of a movement which supposedly holds itself to higher (or at least different) standards.
Why such a fuss over what's, to my mind, a fairly simple point? The left is no better than the right in its selective championing of oppressed peoples. And no, the left isn't monolithic, but neither is the right.
Look, here's the paragraph, from the beginning of the article, which I would argue contains the main point:
"Izetbegovic put his finger on an aspect of modern history that many prefer to overlook: for a national movement to be successful, it needs geopolitical allies. National movements that lack them—for reasons of history, geography, or consanguinity—usually fail. Those allies are usually imperial powers, and so every war for national liberation is intertwined with realpolitik, a reality that usually makes the spokespeople of national movements uneasy, and makes the proponents of the right to national self-determination."
But maybe he's just a sloppy writer, and he saved his main point for last. If so, though, where exactly is that point contained?
Kate Marie,
I guess my distillation of the main point is based on 1)the title of the essay: "Self-Determination and Realpolitik, Reflections on Kurds and Palestinians," and this passage from the conclusion:
"How often have left-wing intellectuals and protesters who condemn Israeli policies—sometimes rightly, sometimes less so—mobilized on behalf of the Kurds and against their oppressors—Saddam’s Iraq, but also Turkey?
This is a stain on the record of the European and American left."
If Avineri's main point is that "national movements that have geopolitical allies succeed" why isolate the Kurds and Palestinians? Surely these groups do little to support his thesis. The Palestinians have had more and stronger geopolitical allies than the Kurds for much longer, yet they are no further along the path to nationhood. The Jews are a tiny minority in the world and though they have a powerful ally in the US now, they had no true "allies" in the classical sense on achieving nationhood in 1948, only the wounded conscience of a post-Holocaust world to propel them to nationhood.
In the final analysis Avineri's "geopolitical allies" assertion is a self-evident tautology: Only those nations that have already become nations can decide what nations are really nations. This conundrum, and the irrationalities and tragic consequences that arise from it, are a functional byproduct of the nation-state system that controls virtually every habitable square foot of territory on the planet. The fallacies and disfunctionalities of that system transcend partisan politics and simply can not be used, as Avineri would, to "tar" one side of the political spectrum or the other. Avineri is discussing a serious problem upon which much of the future peace and security of the planet depends, his adulteration of it with partisan politics is not helpful or wise.
So to criticize the left's selective and hypocritical response to plight of oppressed people's is necessarily partisan politics? I assume the same holds true, then, when "leftists" criticize the right for the same thing.
Kate Marie,
If imagining into existence a monolithic "left" and labelling that phantasm's response to the plight of oppressed peoples "selective and hypocritical" is not partisan politics I don't know what is. If this "left" defines itself in response to American imperialism then it resembles you in that you seem to define yourself in response to it.
Even if we accept Avineri's first principles, that support for Palestinian statehood is somehow a "left" issue and that the "left" has been inconsistent in failing to extend its support to the Kurds, the "left" can still claim moral superiority over the "right," as it has at least championed one oppressed group to the "right's" zero.
All this is moot, however, as Avineri's first principles are built on rotten logic. He relies on a confusion of human rights and sovereign rights which is either ignorant, intellectually lazy, or purposefully disingenuous. Avineri writes as if the greater breadth and depth of international support for Palestinian over Kurdish statehood is a complete mystery, but the answer to why this would be so is so blatantly obvious as to cast suspicion on either Avineri's competency or sincerity.
"If imagining into existence a monolithic 'left' and labelling that phantasm's response to the plight of oppressed peoples 'selective and hypocritical' is not partisan politics I don't know what is. If this 'left' defines itself in response to American imperialism then it resembles you in that you seem to define yourself in response to it."
-- Oh, come on, Madman, this is just patently absurd, to use a phrase you seem to be fond of -- and this from someone who has argued (without much evidence) that the Bush adminstration's support for Israel is due to the influence of some monolothic and easily-labelled "Christian right." No group which adheres to the broad outlines of left or right is monolithic, but it seems to me rather ridiculous to suggest that any attempt to define a group's general principles and to criticize its inconsistent application of/adherence to those principles is automatically out of bounds or unacceptably partisan. Or shall we do away with labels and definitions altogether? I *do*, by the way, define my positions *partly* in response to the left, just as you define yourself and your positions *partly* in response to the right. If you take issue with Geras's characterization of the left as having an unhealthy obsession with anti-American-imperialism, such that it vitiates their response to extremely important issues, make your case and respond to his points. But Geras is an academic and a man of the left, so his attempts to define and criticize a movement with which he himself has been intimately associated seem to me entirely reasonable.
"... the "left" can still claim moral superiority over the "right," as it has at least championed one oppressed group to the "right's" zero."
-- Whatever, sure. Can we subtract points for the "left's" long love affair with communist dictators and police states? Do some members of the right (like Wolfowitz and the evil neo-cons) get points for championing the victims in Bosnia and Kosovo -- and for being longtime supporters of democratic reform in the Middle East? Must every attempt by a member of the right or left to "take stock" of the imperfections, hypocrisy, and moral blindness of their own movements be verboten because it represents, somehow, a descent into partisan politics?
"Avineri writes as if the greater breadth and depth of international support for Palestinian over Kurdish statehood is a complete mystery, but the answer to why this would be so is so blatantly obvious as to cast suspicion on either Avineri's competency or sincerity."
-- I don't think he writes as if it were a mystery at all, but you're welcome to your own reading of the text, I suppose, as I don't have time to enjoin the battle over textual interpretation. What he does consider a mystery is the greater breadth and depth of "leftist" support for Palestinian over Kurdish statehood. Since you have it all figured out, why don't you explain it for me?
I'm kind of baffled by your response to this, though. I've read plenty of stuff from right-wingers taking their own movement to task for their history of support for the status quo (and murderous tyrants) in the Middle East. Has the right been monolithic on this issue? Of course not. Is it only members of the "right" who have ignored the plight of minorities and oppressed groups in the Middle East and elsewhere? Of course not. Am I, however, outraged by reasonable attempts to characterize and criticize "right-wing" thinking? Not at all.
Kate Marie,
I never said something as foolish as calling the Bush administration's policies "support" of Israel. True support of Israel would look very different. Nor have I ever trivialized or caricaturized the views of Christian conservatives the way you do "the left." Your impulse to poo-poo the notion that a large segment of faith-based voters' devotion to a concept of "Greater Israel" has some impact on the policies of the administration to whose accession they were indispensible betrays a deep secularist bias in your thinking.
"No group which adheres to the broad outlines of left or right is monolithic, but it seems to me rather ridiculous to suggest that any attempt to define a group's general principles and to criticize its inconsistent application of/adherence to those principles is automatically out of bounds or unacceptably partisan."
How about "divisive and not really useful in addressing the problems that face us as a nation?" It's very difficult to perceive where, amid all your weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about the wrongs of the "left," where you mark a correct path of action.
"-- Whatever, sure. Can we subtract points for the "left's" long love affair with communist dictators and police states? Do some members of the right (like Wolfowitz and the evil neo-cons) get points for championing the victims in Bosnia and Kosovo -- and for being longtime supporters of democratic reform in the Middle East?"
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. You are willing to see shades of nuance and multiplicity of perspective in the right that you refuse to the "left." If we are to play the generalization game, can the "right" really be given any credit for proactive policies in Bosnia and Kosovo after the obtuse obstructionism of congressional Republicans in the face of those actions? Can you think of no "leftists" who were outspoken and self-sacrificing in their defiance of Communism?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Doesn't sound like the wooing words of a lover to me.
"I don't think he writes as if it were a mystery at all, but you're welcome to your own reading of the text, I suppose, as I don't have time to enjoin the battle over textual interpretation. What he does consider a mystery is the greater breadth and depth of "leftist" support for Palestinian over Kurdish statehood. Since you have it all figured out, why don't you explain it for me?"
Oh, I see, the "left's" support for Palestinian over Kurdish statehood is a mystery because somehow only the left comes under the onus of supporting national self-determination? Or is Avineri (or are you) claiming that there has been some kind of clamoring on the "right" for Kurdish statehood?
Avineri would have us believe that because (so he maintains) the Kurds were given guarantees of statehood in the same round of post-WWI treaties as the Palestinians that these two cases must have the same urgency and that anyone who supports one but not the other is hypocritical. This notion is undermined, however, by Avineri's own admission that these questions are decided as much by pragmatic conditions as by law. The violation of the Kurd's civil rights is certainly as or more egregious an injustice as the violation of Palestinian rights, but it is a pure fallacy to argue on that basis that the case for Kurdish statehood is as urgent or strong as the case for Palestinian statehood. No government of any territory in which Kurds reside will deny them citizenship- though the Kurds as a people have no state no Kurd is left without one. One can very consistently believe and advocate for Kurds to be given the full rights of citizenship within their home nations while maintaining that any attempt to create a Kurdish state is pragmatically impossible and would lead to tragic consequences. The case of the Palestinians does not allow for such a position, however. The Palestinians resident within the Occupied Territories are stateless persons, they have been suspended in a state of legal limbo since 1967. Their case is perhaps unique in the world. The problems attendant upon the creation of a Kurdish state are manifold, the potential for tragedy is eminent. In the case of the Palestinians the only way to avoid tragedy and secure peace is statehood. One can be a proponent of Palestinian statehood as much out of concern for Israel as the Palestinians themselves, moreover- another factor which no doubt contributes greatly to the breadth and depth of support for Palestinian statehood on all parts of the political spectrum.
"Nor have I ever trivialized or caricaturized the views of Christian conservatives the way you do "the left." Your impulse to poo-poo the notion that a large segment of faith-based voters' devotion to a concept of "Greater Israel" has some impact on the policies of the administration to whose accession they were indispensible betrays a deep secularist bias in your thinking."
-- What is this large segment? What denominations do they belong to? What do they teach about "Greater Israel"? Have there been some studies conducted as to the importance of this issue in their voting? What do they think about Bush's support for Palestinian statehood (as far as I know, he's the first American president to call for a Palestinian state)? You want to be able -- based on a rather generalized characterization of the "Christian right" and their belief in "greater Israel" -- to attribute to it some influence on the Bush adminstration with regard to Israel, but you are unwilling to entertain the notion that there is a "large segment" of the left whose antipathy to America and Israel overrides all other humanitarian and moral concerns.
"It's very difficult to perceive where, amid all your weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about the wrongs of the "left," where you mark a correct path of action."
-- That seems pretty disingenuous to me. As an intellectual historian, you are more aware than anyone of the impact of ideas. It seems rather thin-skinned, not to mention inconsistent, of you to suggest that analyzing or criticizing the ideas of the "left" is nothing more than weeping and wailing.
"Oh, I see, the "left's" support for Palestinian over Kurdish statehood is a mystery because somehow only the left comes under the onus of supporting national self-determination?"
-- No, the right's lack of support for Kurdish self-determination can be chalked up (according to Avineri) to realpolitick, but the left's relative silence about the plight of the Kurds is more mysterious because the left is supposedly animated by different principles.
"Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. You are willing to see shades of nuance and multiplicity of perspective in the right that you refuse to the 'left.'"
-- How many times have I said that neither group is monolithic or un-nuanced (if that's a word)? My point is that that fact shouldn't, in my opinion, preclude us from trying to analyze/criticize the ideas that -- in general -- animates both groups.
P.S. There aren't very many criteria by which JFK counts as a "man of the left" these days.
Kate Marie,
"-- What is this large segment? What denominations do they belong to? What do they teach about "Greater Israel"? Have there been some studies conducted as to the importance of this issue in their voting? What do they think about Bush's support for Palestinian statehood (as far as I know, he's the first American president to call for a Palestinian state)?"
Type the words "Christian Zionism" into Google and see what comes up.
"Type the words "Christian Zionism" into Google and see what comes up."
-- Well, *that's* nuanced and scientific.
P.S. "No, the right's lack of support for Kurdish self-determination can be chalked up (according to Avineri) to realpolitick, but the left's relative silence about the plight of the Kurds is more mysterious because the left is supposedly animated by different principles. "
So the "right" is the party of realpolitik while the "left" is the party of ideals? Are you comfortable with that characterization? Besides which, I've shown that (right or left) one can support Palestinian statehood but not Kurdish on principled humanitarian grounds, so Avineri's assertion is baseless.
Am I comfortable with that characterization of the right? No, but I'm not having a hissy fit about it, either. I can accept that Avineri is broadly characterizing the right, and, while I may not agree with it, it doesn't somehow render his entire article disingenuous, insincere, absurd, baseless, stupid, etc.
Kate Marie,
"'Type the words 'Christian Zionism' into Google and see what comes up.'
-- Well, *that's* nuanced and scientific."
Did you do it, or skip straight to sarcasm? The time-stamp shows an elapsed time of 5 minutes between my suggestion and your response, so that doesn't allow for much nuance or science. If you do so you'll find dozens and dozens of very detailed sites. It might be worth a glance before you write off the idea.
I confess I skipped straight to sarcasm, but the point of my sarcasm was that a Google search isn't very scientific in any case. Or do you want to try typing "leftist anti-Semitism" and "leftist anti-Americanism" into Google and see what you get?
P.S. I did actually try the Google experiment after I replied sarcastically to you, and I found some interesting sites, but I don't know what that proves. Since you are the one who originally made the argument about the influence of the Christian right on Bush's policies toward Israel, I would expect you to be able to direct me to some sites that might answer my questions. Is Bush himself a Christian Zionist? What percentage of the "religious right" are also "Christian Zionists"? Of those who are, how many actually rank Bush's policies toward Israel high on their list of priorities, such that they would be influenced to vote/not vote based on Bush's stance? [I would guess that abortion and same-sex marriage are much higher on their list of priorities, but who knows?]
Sigh. But *that's* not even my point. My point is that when you characterize the "Christian right" in a way that I don't agree with, I don't claim that, because the "Christian right" isn't monolithic, it's somehow absurd or illegitimate to try to characterize them at all.
Kate Marie,
A Google search for "Christian Zionism" yields "about" 37,500 results. A Google search for "leftist anti-Semitism" yields 1,230, "leftist anti-Americanism" yields 375. The first two results in the "Christian Zionism" search are websites set up by organizations that openly identify themselves as Christian Zionists. None of the results for your searches are comparable. Is this very nuanced? No, but it is quantifiable empirical evidence of a kind.
Sigh. But that is not even my point. You asked a lot of interesting questions- my point in asking you to perform a Google search was that all of the answers are readily available. You say that I should be able to direct you to sites that answer your questions, and so I did...unless you are too busy to point and click a few times. The fourth site on the Google search, www.christianzionism.org, was set up by Christian groups dedicated to challenging the influence of Christian Zionism. It contains this article:
Onward Christian Soldiers?
Religion and the Bush Doctrine.
by James L. Guth, Lyman A. Kellstedt, John C. Green, and Corwin E. Smidt
from Christianity Today
July 30
During the past four years a growing number of political analysts have connected the emerging "Bush Doctrine" in foreign policy to the influence of evangelical Protestants. For example, one recent review claimed that the influence of Christian evangelicals now extends to many essential matters of foreign policy, quite apart from the Middle East. Dogmatic, unilateralist, and radically nationalistic, this influence ignores international law and is particularly hostile to international organizations.
The same site has an itinerary of a conference on Christian Zionism, listing its participants and the books on the subject they have authored. It also links to numerous articles on the subject.
What does all this prove? At the very least it proves that Christian Zionism is not the phantasm you seem to have believed it to be.
As for my characterizing "the Christian right," just when have I done it? I seem to remember suggesting that Christian right influece has something to do with Bush foreign policy, but that doesn't in any way preclude the possibility of the Christian right being diverse. I've never said anything like "the Christian right's romance with the notion of Greater Israel is a disgrace." Your sigh registers a very nuanced point now, but you originally thought that the very suggestion that Christian Zionism was a significant political movement was a distortion. To me that goes hand in hand with your tendency to blanket-characterize the left in illustrating just how much you view the political field through the prism of your own biases and assumptions.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Your sigh registers a very nuanced point now, but you originally thought that the very suggestion that Christian Zionism was a significant political movement was a distortion. To me that goes hand in hand with your tendency to blanket-characterize the left in illustrating just how much you view the political field through the prism of your own biases and assumptions."
-- No, Madman. I never claimed that "Christian Zionism" was a phantasm, and I never claimed that the very notion that Christian Zionism was a significant political movement was a distortion (though, again, the article you quote isn't really much proof of anything). I claimed that you were being inconsistent in your accusation of "blanket characterizations." I stand by that claim, as I stand by my claim that a significant portion of the left had a long love affair with communist dictators and police states.
Madman of Chu on Christian Zionism
"The most intense adherents to this form of misperception in the United States are evangelical Christians. Indeed, their engagement with Zionism has been so intense in recent decades that they can be perceived as a new and influential species of Zionist who have transformed the ecumenical culture of Zionism itself."
-- "Evangelical Christians" are not a monolithic group, but it so happens that I don't have an aneurism when you make this statement, as I assume *some* (maybe even a large number) of evengelicals fit the bill here. Now if I were to say, "The most intense adherents to this form of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in the U.S. and Europe are leftists," you want to be able to "weep and wail" about blanket characterizations.
Post a Comment
<< Home