NP Left responses "disgraceful" says Hitchens

[barbara100 at jps.net]

Jbor wrote:
>Sometimes it's phrased: "if you're not with us you're agin' us". But it's
to
> the same purport.

The only person I've heard say (in so many words) "either you're with us or
against us" is our US President.  And he's no Leftist.  "What has been
announced is a virtual declaration of war against all who do not join
Washington in its resort to violence, however it chooses. The nations of the
world face a 'stark choice': join us in our crusade or 'face the certain
prospect of death and destruction' (RW Apple, NYTimes, Sept. 14). Bush's
rhetoric of Sept. 20 forcefully reiterates that stance. Taken literally,
it's virtually a declaration of war against much of the world." (Noam
Chomsky interview, www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm)
"If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may come
under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If Pakistan does
submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the government will be
overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who in this case will have
nuclear weapons." (Noam Chomsky interview, www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm)

Jbor wrote:
> The point I draw from the article, and agree with, is that the Left has
> offered no solutions, no practical alternatives, only antagonism and
> diatribe.

Maybe you've been deleting Doug's NPs too.  I've been hearing lots of
solutions coming from the Left, along with calls for 'understanding' the
reasons behind terrorist attacks and anti-American sentiment here and around
the world:

"Anyone who is even semi-sane will try to look into the reasons for a
terrorist attack. Unless your goal is to ensure that violence escalates and
there are more such attacks, unless that's your goal, what you will do is
try to think through what lies behind this." (Noam Chomsky interview,
www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm)

"Noam Chomsky: Personally I don't think and have never thought that we
should discontinue support of Israel. I am very critical of their policy
towards Israel but that's in part because I think it's very harmful to the
people of Israel. It happens to support the government, but it's harmful to
the people in my opinion. What we should do, I think, is join what has been
a very broad international consensus for about 25 years now, which calls for
a two state settlement on the internationally recognized borders (that means
pre-June 1967) in recognizing the rights and guaranteeing the security of
all states in the region including Israel and a Palestinian state. That has
been the overwhelming position of the entire world for 25 years. In fact,
the resolution to that effect was vetoed by the United States at the
Security Council 25 years ago and Washington has been blocking similar
initiatives ever since, still is. I don't think that that is moral or wise.

"Meanwhile the U.S. has provided the means for Israel to continue its
settlements in the territories under military occupation, and many serious
abuses, all of which are in violation of international law and conventions,
particularly the Geneva conventions of 1949. Again, there is a near
universal international consensus on that. In fact, Israel is usually the
only country that votes against. The United States usually abstains because
it doesn't want to take a position so dramatically opposed to central
elements on international law. But it's still providing a means for that to
continue. Unfortunately, most of this is not reported here, or if it is,
it's reported very inaccurately. But surely people who see it with their own
eyes know all about it. And around most of the world it's pretty well
understood. We do not help ourselves by hiding our heads in the sand. There
is a rich, uncontroversial documentary record on this and we should pay
attention to it. What the U.S. ought to do is join the international
consensus instead of blocking it. Now, by now that's much harder than say,
10 years ago." (Noam Chomsky interview, www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm)

Other solutions I've heard proposed that might go a long way in changing the
negative perceptions of the US by so many in the mid-east region are lifting
economic sanctions (like in Iraq for example) and limiting/eliminating
support (both military and economic) for oppressive regimes in the region
(Saudi Arabia and Israel to name two).

You may not see them, but there are solutions being discussed and proposed
by the Left.




----- Original Message -----
From: jbor <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: NP Left responses "disgraceful" says Hitchens


> on 14/10/01 8:39 PM, Phil Wise at philwise at paradise.net.nz wrote:
>
> > Sigh. That may be an accurate characterisation of Hitchens's view, but
it
> > doesn't make him right (and once again, the example of Hitchens is
asserted
> > and not demonstrated).  One point to make is that in any movement that
has a
> > high proportion of idealistic young people among its members, so that it
> > will be reasonably easy to find silly statements from some people.  But
my
> > point in responding in the first place was that Mr Mc's piece was full
of
> > anti-this bluster, spitefulness, and clearly no dialogue with
alternative
> > views, since his audience apparently "knows" that the "left" is bankrupt
> > without having to be told in what way, exactly.
>
> The "Left consensus" that the article is talking about is against
> globalisation and against the military campaign in Afghanistan. These are
> the "alternative views" that the article addresses, as clearly stated in
the
> opening paragraph. The linked interview demonstrates the shift in
Hitchens'
> position.
>
> > The "left bloc" has never responded to anything, as far as I can tell,
with
> > "if you don't agree, then you're a fascist" rhetoric.
>
> Sometimes it's phrased: "if you're not with us you're agin' us". But it's
to
> the same purport.
>
> > Maybe some individual
> > voices that don't know what they are talking about.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > However, attacks from
> > the "right" (and I don't mean you here, I refer to pundits who are
> > publishing, and I'll take your word that you're not among any
"conservative
> > readership") have had a significant minority accusing the "left" and
those
> > who don't agree of hatred of America or some such, a similar rhetorical
> > dishonesty.  It is bullshit, to be frank.
>
> The point I draw from the article, and agree with, is that the Left has
> offered no solutions, no practical alternatives, only antagonism and
> diatribe.
>
> > But if you said that they hated
> > many of America's actions overseas, and that they don't trust the same
> > corporations that put their money in after the Government's bulldozed
> > striking Tanzanarian miners into a pit to suddenly become the savour of
the
> > workers and the poor, or after a CIA sponsored massacre of hundreds of
> > thousands of Indonesian leftists, then you'd largely be right.  There's
a
> > huge and multifaceted difference between hating that sort of shit and
hating
> > "America".  To conflate the two is a cheap shot in this climate.
>
> Isn't this exactly what bin Laden is doing? But while none of this is
being
> argued, it does strike me that all that the Left seem capable of, as far
> you're characterising them here at least, is hate.
>
>
>