Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Dave Kersting: COMPARING VIETNAM AND IRAQ
...the invasion of Iraq is an odd revival of that old, discredited system - brought about by the historic aberration of Zionism - a last-gasp, pendulum-swing of Eastern European racism, transposed to Palestine, in the dying days of Turkish, British, and French Middle East colonialism. The corporations, and our Republicans, could do much better through straight-up business with thriving Middle East countries than by plundering toxic wastelands full of bitter enemies, and they know it. Zionism is the deciding factor: the ONLY interest anywhere that openly demands ethnic conquest in Palestine - and thus the subjugation of all Middle East populations. That is why we see this wild, regressive resurgence of open racism, against Arabs and Muslims.
COMPARING VIETNAM AND IRAQ
Someone wrote:
> The primary comparison is that the
> invasion/occupation of both Vietnam and Iraq by the USA, France and Britain
> was/is European powers colonializing to steal resources and spread white
> power.
Dave Kersting replies:
The colonial similarities between the invasions of Iraq and Vietnam are obvious and superficial.
The key to ending our wars on the Middle East is found in three or four main DIFFERENCES between this "quagmire" and Vietnam.
ONE: The moral-ethical argument against war on the Middle East is infinitely easier to win - or will be when we finally get desperate and realize it.
If, during our Vietnam War protest-years, we had woken up one morning to find that the president, his entire cabinet, and all US military leaders had admitted that the only real excuse for "suppressing insurgents" in Southeast Asia was the "need" to create an ethnically defined settler-state in the region, for one select ethnic group to be imported from all over the world, we would have thought we had died and gone to heaven.
The entire debate would have been over. The grossest, plainest - racist - wrong would have been OUT IN THE OPEN, and all the "necessary" atrocities and interventions (like an openly racist wall) would have been recognized, in the historic pattern, as only too "necessary" for racism: recognized, in fact, as the substance of racism and the reason we had learned to reject it unequivocally.
Yet, precisely the same wrong - in Zionist Israel's demand for an officially "Jewish" settler-state, created and constantly expanding through undeniable ethnic-cleansing - is politely ignored by the "anti-war" coalitions. THIS "peace movement" chooses not to USE the morally bulletproof anti-racist argument, because it would "alienate" those "peace activists" who wish us to believe that peace is NOT ANATHEMA to violent racism, but can actually be won by continued "Jewish" supremacy - the forced perpetuation of violent ethnic-cleansing - in most of Palestine.
In fact, the steady erosion of progressive sensibilities about racism, since the Vietnam, Civil Rights, and Free Speech decade, has been largely caused by constant excuses for Zionism and relentless exceptions made for Zionist aspersions against "Arabs" and "the Arabs."
Now, in order to protect "Jewish" supremacy in Palestine, we must AVOID pointing out that it is the primary destabilizer of the Middle East and the main reason we have special problems with Iraq, Afghanistan, and "Arab terrorists" in the first place. Having deleted the dream argument of a progressive lifetime, we cannot present a coherent case against war on Iraq or any Middle East country.
TWO: The drive for racist conquest in Palestine is a POPULAR, rather than primarily corporate drive. Many hundreds of thousands of Americans, including many "in" the peace movement, adamantly demand "Jewish" supremacy in Palestine: an officially racist "Jewish" definition for Israel, despite any qualms about the "necessary" atrocities.
This particular "peace movement" thinks it has to form "coalitions" that must include direct supporters of the plainly racist policies that would provide our best arguments - if the openly-declared racists "in the movement" would only let us speak out against that racism. But we have to keep quiet about it - and elect not to use our very best anti-war argument, because we are afraid of "losing" the racists who want a "Two-State peace" for Israel: that is, "peace" AND perpetuated ethnic-supremacy in most of Palestine.
Obviously, any anti-war argument against the Zionist racism at the root of the Middle East debacle would spill over against the racist intentions of the "peace" Zionists - Michael Lerner, for example, and countless others, preemptively occupying leadership positions in the "peace and justice" movement.
THREE: This "peace movement" suffers a neurotic identity crisis, based on the petty unrealism of life-long addiction to the media: the prime-time "progressive" life-style includes all the politically-correct rhetoric needed for "anti-war rallies", but it certainly does not suggest that the image of "peace activist" should include any objection to the flaming racism that is POPULAR NOW, in our time and place.
In the process, we have also politely "forgotten" that violent racism has a terrible effect, "even" on those who supposedly benefit from it. Our indulgent discretion for our Zionist friends, which leads us into the catastrophe we see growing by the day and by the year, is not kind or sympathetic: it is timid, patronizing, apathetic, and ominous with the latent psychic flip-flop of hypocritical blame.
A viable peace movement, able to create any notable pressure for peace, must consist of people who LOUDLY OPPOSE the racism at the root of a racist war. Real peace activists need to distinguish themselves from openly-declared racists, who demand our quiet support for a new and "understandable" kind of violent prejudice - and get upset if we call it "racism."
A fourth difference is a bit more complex and possibly debatable:
The invasion of Vietnam was an extension of a long-established colonial momentum - France, Japan, Japan/US/Britain, France, and finally the US alone. Even at that time, the old colonial system of military bargain-hunting was a dying anachronism, an inefficient means toward corporate profit, which IS the driving force of imperialism.
In contrast, the invasion of Iraq is an odd revival of that old, discredited system - brought about by the historic aberration of Zionism - a last-gasp, pendulum-swing of Eastern European racism, transposed to Palestine, in the dying days of Turkish, British, and French Middle East colonialism.
The corporations, and our Republicans, could do much better through straight-up business with thriving Middle East countries than by plundering toxic wastelands full of bitter enemies, and they know it.
Zionism is the deciding factor: the ONLY interest anywhere that openly demands ethnic conquest in Palestine - and thus the subjugation of all Middle East populations. That is why we see this wild, regressive resurgence of open racism, against Arabs and Muslims.
The corporations must - MUST (in order to survive against those who do) - make as much profit from this rotten situation as they can. They cannot sway the Zionists to give up their demand for "Jewish" conquest in Palestine, because Zionism is nothing BUT whatever course gives its top leaders THEIR OWN PERSONAL POWER, and they know how to exploit and inflame Jewish fears, while presenting themselves as the "defenders" - against the human rights of the victims.
No US politician can speak against Zionism, and no corporate leader would be wise to stand against it either - not when there is so much to be gained by cooperating with Zionists, rather than suicidally opposing them.
The best proof of Zionist influence in US government and business is the fact that even the peace movement cannot speak against Zionist interests - even when Zionist policies provide us with the best anti-war arguments we could ever dream of.
If WE do not lead the struggle against open racism, we must not expect George Bush, Viacom, and the Carlysle Group to do it for us.
And even if the Zionists really were just pawns of "white" (or international) corporate imperialism, we would still oppose the imperialist schemes best by addressing them where they are most flagrant and inexcusable in their violations of every decent and legal standard - in the OPEN ethnic cleansing of helpless, civilian Palestine.
Whoever is responsible for that most-glaring, most anti-constitutional, most counter-progressive, and most morally vulnerable salient of provocation and belligerence against the entire Arab, Muslim, and equality-loving world, the problem WILL continue to get worse, until WE finally get realistic.
We should be demanding equality in Israel-Palestine anyway - all claims weighed distinctly without the slightest regard for the ethnicity, religion, gender, etc., of the claimants. It is absurd to think we should work backwards toward expressly racist "two-state" apartheid "peace."
Nothing could be more obvious.
Someone wrote:
> The primary comparison is that the
> invasion/occupation of both Vietnam and Iraq by the USA, France and Britain
> was/is European powers colonializing to steal resources and spread white
> power.
Dave Kersting replies:
The colonial similarities between the invasions of Iraq and Vietnam are obvious and superficial.
The key to ending our wars on the Middle East is found in three or four main DIFFERENCES between this "quagmire" and Vietnam.
ONE: The moral-ethical argument against war on the Middle East is infinitely easier to win - or will be when we finally get desperate and realize it.
If, during our Vietnam War protest-years, we had woken up one morning to find that the president, his entire cabinet, and all US military leaders had admitted that the only real excuse for "suppressing insurgents" in Southeast Asia was the "need" to create an ethnically defined settler-state in the region, for one select ethnic group to be imported from all over the world, we would have thought we had died and gone to heaven.
The entire debate would have been over. The grossest, plainest - racist - wrong would have been OUT IN THE OPEN, and all the "necessary" atrocities and interventions (like an openly racist wall) would have been recognized, in the historic pattern, as only too "necessary" for racism: recognized, in fact, as the substance of racism and the reason we had learned to reject it unequivocally.
Yet, precisely the same wrong - in Zionist Israel's demand for an officially "Jewish" settler-state, created and constantly expanding through undeniable ethnic-cleansing - is politely ignored by the "anti-war" coalitions. THIS "peace movement" chooses not to USE the morally bulletproof anti-racist argument, because it would "alienate" those "peace activists" who wish us to believe that peace is NOT ANATHEMA to violent racism, but can actually be won by continued "Jewish" supremacy - the forced perpetuation of violent ethnic-cleansing - in most of Palestine.
In fact, the steady erosion of progressive sensibilities about racism, since the Vietnam, Civil Rights, and Free Speech decade, has been largely caused by constant excuses for Zionism and relentless exceptions made for Zionist aspersions against "Arabs" and "the Arabs."
Now, in order to protect "Jewish" supremacy in Palestine, we must AVOID pointing out that it is the primary destabilizer of the Middle East and the main reason we have special problems with Iraq, Afghanistan, and "Arab terrorists" in the first place. Having deleted the dream argument of a progressive lifetime, we cannot present a coherent case against war on Iraq or any Middle East country.
TWO: The drive for racist conquest in Palestine is a POPULAR, rather than primarily corporate drive. Many hundreds of thousands of Americans, including many "in" the peace movement, adamantly demand "Jewish" supremacy in Palestine: an officially racist "Jewish" definition for Israel, despite any qualms about the "necessary" atrocities.
This particular "peace movement" thinks it has to form "coalitions" that must include direct supporters of the plainly racist policies that would provide our best arguments - if the openly-declared racists "in the movement" would only let us speak out against that racism. But we have to keep quiet about it - and elect not to use our very best anti-war argument, because we are afraid of "losing" the racists who want a "Two-State peace" for Israel: that is, "peace" AND perpetuated ethnic-supremacy in most of Palestine.
Obviously, any anti-war argument against the Zionist racism at the root of the Middle East debacle would spill over against the racist intentions of the "peace" Zionists - Michael Lerner, for example, and countless others, preemptively occupying leadership positions in the "peace and justice" movement.
THREE: This "peace movement" suffers a neurotic identity crisis, based on the petty unrealism of life-long addiction to the media: the prime-time "progressive" life-style includes all the politically-correct rhetoric needed for "anti-war rallies", but it certainly does not suggest that the image of "peace activist" should include any objection to the flaming racism that is POPULAR NOW, in our time and place.
In the process, we have also politely "forgotten" that violent racism has a terrible effect, "even" on those who supposedly benefit from it. Our indulgent discretion for our Zionist friends, which leads us into the catastrophe we see growing by the day and by the year, is not kind or sympathetic: it is timid, patronizing, apathetic, and ominous with the latent psychic flip-flop of hypocritical blame.
A viable peace movement, able to create any notable pressure for peace, must consist of people who LOUDLY OPPOSE the racism at the root of a racist war. Real peace activists need to distinguish themselves from openly-declared racists, who demand our quiet support for a new and "understandable" kind of violent prejudice - and get upset if we call it "racism."
A fourth difference is a bit more complex and possibly debatable:
The invasion of Vietnam was an extension of a long-established colonial momentum - France, Japan, Japan/US/Britain, France, and finally the US alone. Even at that time, the old colonial system of military bargain-hunting was a dying anachronism, an inefficient means toward corporate profit, which IS the driving force of imperialism.
In contrast, the invasion of Iraq is an odd revival of that old, discredited system - brought about by the historic aberration of Zionism - a last-gasp, pendulum-swing of Eastern European racism, transposed to Palestine, in the dying days of Turkish, British, and French Middle East colonialism.
The corporations, and our Republicans, could do much better through straight-up business with thriving Middle East countries than by plundering toxic wastelands full of bitter enemies, and they know it.
Zionism is the deciding factor: the ONLY interest anywhere that openly demands ethnic conquest in Palestine - and thus the subjugation of all Middle East populations. That is why we see this wild, regressive resurgence of open racism, against Arabs and Muslims.
The corporations must - MUST (in order to survive against those who do) - make as much profit from this rotten situation as they can. They cannot sway the Zionists to give up their demand for "Jewish" conquest in Palestine, because Zionism is nothing BUT whatever course gives its top leaders THEIR OWN PERSONAL POWER, and they know how to exploit and inflame Jewish fears, while presenting themselves as the "defenders" - against the human rights of the victims.
No US politician can speak against Zionism, and no corporate leader would be wise to stand against it either - not when there is so much to be gained by cooperating with Zionists, rather than suicidally opposing them.
The best proof of Zionist influence in US government and business is the fact that even the peace movement cannot speak against Zionist interests - even when Zionist policies provide us with the best anti-war arguments we could ever dream of.
If WE do not lead the struggle against open racism, we must not expect George Bush, Viacom, and the Carlysle Group to do it for us.
And even if the Zionists really were just pawns of "white" (or international) corporate imperialism, we would still oppose the imperialist schemes best by addressing them where they are most flagrant and inexcusable in their violations of every decent and legal standard - in the OPEN ethnic cleansing of helpless, civilian Palestine.
Whoever is responsible for that most-glaring, most anti-constitutional, most counter-progressive, and most morally vulnerable salient of provocation and belligerence against the entire Arab, Muslim, and equality-loving world, the problem WILL continue to get worse, until WE finally get realistic.
We should be demanding equality in Israel-Palestine anyway - all claims weighed distinctly without the slightest regard for the ethnicity, religion, gender, etc., of the claimants. It is absurd to think we should work backwards toward expressly racist "two-state" apartheid "peace."
Nothing could be more obvious.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
We placed sanctions and a boycott on South Africa for God's sake, yet we cannot even end our aid to an openly racist state like Israel where the term EQUALITY FOR ALL is anathema to many but a very few principled people.
Even when our enormous aid which insures the continuation of Israeli racism entails dangers to us and unending wars and the deaths of tens of thousand of Arab civilians a year, the peace movement still does not take ending this aid seriously.
There are a few who do (like Nessie, Dave Kersting, and the very few activists speaking out against aid and for boycotts), but just like in Israel, the mainstream of the peace movement only gives lip service to the issue without addressing the underlying problem which is our billions in aid and unconditional support (including a "defense" of Israel directly should it once again invade one of its neighbors and finds itself in trouble).
How can the right pretend to hate Saudi Arabia when it backs Bush? Bush's familly has a long history of personal connections with the Saudi monarchy. My guess is that the Saudi government wants the hatred since it plays well at home. As long as right wingers in the US yell about Saudi Arabia, its easy for the royal familly to make itself look it would help the Palestinians if only it could. Criticism of Saudi Arabia by conservatives would be a little more believable if Saudi Arabia were not so obviously proBush (hell, the Saudis were even willing to hike up oil prices this summer so it can drop them a month before the election and make sure their friend Bush stays in power)