__________
(extracts)
The west must be wary of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood
The Brotherhood's aim is to take over the Egyptian state through the democratic process – and then bring an end to democracy
...The Brotherhood also presumably wants to avoid deterring the secular middle class from participating in the popular upsurge, a participation that gives the popular revolt cachet abroad as well as at home (and in the greater Arab world). A display of Islamist leadership at the head of the crowds would alienate much of that middle class. So the Brotherhood has kept virtually out of sight.
...For now, the Brotherhood will be satisfied with toppling the hated Mubarak regime...But once the campaigning for these elections gets under way, we will see the country awash with Muslim Brotherhood activists and placards, broadcasts and sermons; perhaps even a measure of intimidation and violence...It is possible that the movement will follow the model of Turkey's Islamists and try to follow democratic norms
...observers in the west should not delude themselves. This is not a movement for which democracy has any appeal, worth or value. Its leaders see democratic processes merely as means to an end, an end that includes an end to democracy.
And since we're on The Guardian, this came up:
Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein instructed the Government Press Office Thursday to summon the Guardian’s correspondent in Israel to protest a letter to the editor that Edelstein said encouraged Palestinian terrorism.
The letter in the UK newspaper, written by Ted Honderich of London, criticized Israel for turning down alleged Palestinian offers revealed by the Guardian last week. He wrote that Israel’s “taking from the Palestinians” part of what he called “their historic homeland” justified Palestinian acts of violence.
“The Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism within historic Palestine against neo-Zionism,” Honderich wrote. “Terrorism, as in this case, can as exactly be self-defence, a freedom struggle, martyrdom, the conclusion of an argument based on true humanity.”
The letter:
Ted, the dear, is a philospher. He holds opinions. He has descriubed the UK Daily Telegraph as a
neo-Zionist newspaper
"Neo-Zionism" is a key term in his philosophy. As here:
That is not all you should do in connection with neo-Zionism. You should take every rational step against it. You should not be quiet about the violation of the Palestinians because you are Jewish. You should get hold of Michael Neumann's book The Case Against Israel. You should support the simple solution to the simple Palestinian problem -- the immediate and unnegotiated withdrawal of Israel from all of what remains to the Palestinians of their homeland. All of us should join those in the Church of England who want to divest from the company that makes the caterpillar bulldozers that destroy the homes and lives of Palestinians. All of us should take part in all forms of boycott against retail stores and other businesses dealing with neo-Zionist Israel, civil disobedience, non-cooperation, not voting, picketing, ostracism, naming, symbolic public acts, strikes and whatever else is rational against neo-Zionism. We should see the need for a new disrespect, especially disrespect for a compliant political class..
And he ties it in to a general conceptualization:
...there is a big difference between Zionism and neo-Zionism. I do not mean to add something to one of their definitions, which you will remember, but rather to remind you that the first, Zionism, has actually been achieved.
Taken as the project of the founding and security of Israel in its original borders, 80% of Palestine, Zionism is a fact. It is a notably settled and secure fact, about as much so as most such national facts. There is well-known pretence to the contrary by neo-Zionism, of course. But a nuclear power, a military power greater than all others but three in the world, a nation guaranteed by the world's only superpower, is not about to be driven into the sea, whatever ritualistic threats may be heard from a speechifying head of another state. Any other idea, founded on whatever ritual speech or document, is absurd illusion or culpable abuse of truth.
It follows, if any argument is needed, that an indubitable element in the explanation of the war against Iraq, neo-conservative support of Israel, was precisely neo-Zionism. It seems there is a general truth here...
And then, Honderich goes off the deep end of radical progressivism:-
No decent morality, no morality above contempt, could justify our leaders and political parties who embarked on war. They have been deficient in moral intelligence. The morality of humanity condemns them absolutely. It places them on a level with bin Laden. It brings them together with Sharon. It joins them to Saddam Hussein. Bush and Blair are greater contributors than these to the killings.
They are also in that company for other reasons. They are there for their earlier contributions in the history that led to the war. They are there, in particular, for the fact of neo-Zionism, without which the war on Iraq would not have happened. Neo-Zionism stands in connection with it. They are there for not having got around to learning from the fact of 9/11. That failure in moral intelligence was also a necessary condition of the war on Iraq...
Now do you grasp his "Neo-Zionism"? It's a slur. It pejorative. And it is anti-Zionism.
He has been accused by Anthony Alcok of antisemitism, pure Jew-hate.
This isn't the first time he has sought to justify Arab terror. In 2006, he published this:
...So we need a fundamental principle to tell us when democracy is right and which human rights to defend. For me that is the Principle of Humanity. Take rational steps to get and keep people out of bad lives.
It gives you a conclusion about neo-Zionism, Israel's expanding since 1967 into the last fifth of the Palestinian homeland. The Palestinians have a moral right in historic Palestine, including Israel, to their terrorism against that ethnic cleansing.
Is saying the Palestinians have this moral right just a defiant way of expressing sympathy with the Palestinians? It's more.
What is a moral right? It's something confirmed by the fundamental moral principle. Also, if you really have a moral right to some end, and only one means of getting there, you have a moral right to the means. Everybody believes the Palestinians have a right to a viable state.
Is there some better way than terrorism? I don't think so. Terrorism is necessary. They have no alternative. The idea that neo-Zionism would have given in without the threat of violence is nonsense.
That is philosophy? Morality?
^
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment