[Peace-discuss] re: hope in dark times

[Tom Mackaman]

Robert,
   
  While I think avoiding debate and discussion is itself an obstacle rather a way forward, on the question of the Democratic Party's position on the crisis--and to quote Van Morrison-- "There's no need for argument.  There's no argument at all."
  
 
  Best regards,
  Tom

Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:
     
  Tom,
   
  You and I obviously have very different views about what constitutes useful activity in the context of the current crisis. We could debate this, but I don't think it would be productive. There is too much else to do. Let us each focus on our own efforts to bring the violence to an end. 
   
  Regards,
   
  Robert Naiman

 
  On 7/21/06, Tom Mackaman <tmackaman at yahoo.com> wrote:       Robert, 
   
  A couple of points must be made about your comment that "a lot of Democrats, actually, are saying and doing good things, not just Hayden and Kucinich."  
   
  1.  Kucinich could not even muster the courage to oppose the Congressional resolution, passed yesterday, that pins ALL blame on Hezzbulah, and essentially asks Israel to continue its bombardment, instead taking the cowardly route of announcing his "presence" for the record. 
   
  2.  Even the model statement you include, from Rep. Kilpatrick, begins with the dishonest statement that both Hezzbulah and Israel are to blame.  It is a sad commentary that even mentioning, and even then in a mealy-mouthed way, that Israel shares a portion of the blame, places Kilpatrick in some sort of fringe within her own party.  In fact, and it is essential that sincere people must not compromise their honesty at all, Israel and the US deserve all of the blame.  These are clearly long-standing Israeli and American aims that simply awaited a pretext.  There is no way that Lebanon could have avoided this.
   
  3.  Who are "a lot" of Democrats?  None of the significant national leaders of the party, none of its Senators.  None of its presidential aspirants!  Only six(!) D Congressmen out of 200+ managed to vote against the obnoxious pro-Israeli resolution.  And even to the extent that there exist a few isolated voices ostensibly opposed to the attack, such as Conyers and Fitzpatrick (but not Kucinich!), one has to ask what role they are serving.  Just as is the case with the purportedly anti-war wing of the Democratic Party, they only serve to perpetuate illusions and to draw the growing anger of worknig people over the wars back into what is, without a doubt, a pro-war and pro-Israeli party.  
   
  If, on the other hand, we mean rank-and-file Democrats, that is average working people, then I'll agree with you.  No doubt typical Democratic Party voters are disgusted by the attack on Lebanon, as much as they are by the war in Iraq.  But this serves to paint up starkly, once again, the deep chasm separating a pro-war, pro-business, party and its dissolving "base."  
   
  I'm sorry Robert, it's a waste of energy to offer a brief for the Democrats on the invasion when they're falling all over themselves to outhawk the Republicans.
   
   
  Best regards,

    Tom  
   
   
   


_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss






-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060721/392ad20f/attachment.html