Ali Abunimah: "Israel Lurches into Fascism"

Ali Abunimah, writing for Electronic Intifada, an educational activist website covering Palestinian affairs, supplements my latest analysis of Israeli politics with his own editorial on the topic.

Mr. Abunimah continues where I left off: a discussion of the much wider rightward trend on the Israeli political scene beyond the overtly fascist icons like Avigdor Lieberman. In his words:

"...it's too easy to make [Lieberman] the bogeyman. Israel's narrow political spectrum now consists at one end of the former 'peace camp' that never halted the violent expropriation of Palestinian land for Jewish settlements and boasts with pride of the war crimes in Gaza, and at the other, a surging far-right whose 'solutions' vary from apartheid to outright ethnic cleansing."

The latter is a clear reference to the Likud, Shas (an ultra-Orthodox religious party), Yisrael Beiteinu, and other nationalist parties. The former refers to the Labor Party, led by former Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who in his capacity spearheaded the slaughter of Gaza; as well as Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's Kadima, the centrist inheritor of Ariel Sharon's legacy. Together these parties constitute virtually the entire Knesset; with disgracefully few exceptions, all Israeli parties are anti-Palestinian.

However, I'm skeptical of Abunimah's ultimate conclusion that a two-state solution cannot work. Obviously, a two-state solution imposes impractical geographical constraints on any Palestinian state, which is why a Bosnia-style, federated, two-part single state would be preferable under ideal conditions. But Abunimah seems to underestimate how long it will take before a single-state solution becomes feasible, given the mutual animosity and distrust on both sides. 

For now, the best we can do is encourage a more rational politics in Israel (and in Palestine as well) to foster a peaceful coexistence. 

- CHM

Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Film

Richard Wolff, professor of economics at UMass-Amherst, ☭, has come out with an interesting alternative perspective on the economic crisis in his new documentary, Capitalism Hits the Fan, based on his book of the same name. You can get a full-length (albeit low-quality) preview here.

I don't agree with everything Wolff has to say. In particular, I'm more optimistic about re-regulating the economy (though I appreciate his point on the topic). But in general I think he's on to something.

That's all for now.

- CHM

An Unsettling Trend

By Chase Mechanick

I'd like to introduce you to one of the more disturbing politicians in modern history. 

He was a vitriolic speaker who led a small but growing right-of-center, nationalist, populist party in an otherwise democratic country at the time: Germany. 

Despite being foreign-born himself, his major policy angle had been a lamentation of the ethnic and cultural miscegenation of his country and a call for the restoration of "German values." He had been quoted as saying, "I very much favor democracy, but when there is a contradiction between democratic and German values, the German ... values are more important."

Can you guess who it is yet? Maybe a couple more hints will help.

He proposed that his country's Jewish minority be forced to take what he called a "declaration of loyalty to the State of Germany as a German state" as well as to its "symbols" and "authority," and also be forced to "serve in the army or do national service." If any one of them refuses, his citizenship will be revoked, along with all of his accompanying civil rights and legal benefits. 

He advocated an expansionist policy that would annex German-majority enclaves in neighboring nations through military occupation, ignoring the outcry from the rest of the civilized world. He had accused Jewish parliament members of "treachery," openly calling for their execution in some cases. Regarding several of his country's Jewish prisoners, he once joked, "it would be better to drown these prisoners in the Baltic Sea, if possible."

Any guesses? Nope, it's not Hitler. Actually, the man's name is Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, which came in third place after Kadima and Likud in Israel's parliamentary elections last week (even beating former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's Labor Party, the dominant party in the country for 30 years). All of the aforementioned quotes and policies are literally his, with only arbitrary and inconsequential alteration undertaken by your humble author. Simply replace the words "Germany" with "Israel," "German" with "Jewish," "Jewish" with "Arab," and "Baltic Sea" with "Dead Sea." 

In other words, this man believes that Israel should be preserved as a "Jewish" state. He believes Arab citizens should take an "oath of loyalty" to the Jewish state and serve in the Jewish army, or lose citizenship. He believes Jewish-majority enclaves (read "settlements") should be annexed from neighboring countries (read "Palestine"), despite the fact that these settlements are in violation of the Geneva Convention and are ritually scolded by the international community. It is worth noting that Mr. Lieberman himself personally resides in one of the West Bank settlements, and would have no occasion to evacuate his own home.

His campaign slogan was conspicuously racist: "Only Lieberman Understands Arabic," implying that only Lieberman realizes the insidious threat posed by the 20% of Israeli citizens who are of Arab origin. Imagine if Hillary Clinton adopted a campaign slogan that was this blatantly racist toward African-Americans, who comprise only about 13% of the U.S. population. She'd rightfully be forced to resign. But evidently racism isn't as much of a stigma in Israeli politics.

Lieberman has called for the execution of any member of the Knesset who has met with the Hamas government. In other words, if you're an MK who thought it was a good idea to try and negotiate directly with the freely elected government of the Palestinian territories, then too bad: Mr. Lieberman thinks that you deserve to die. And the Dead Sea joke referred to a plan by Ariel Sharon in 2003 to give amnesty to some 350 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli captivity. Apparently Mr. Lieberman thinks that just liquidating them all is a better idea.

Most troubling of all is that this unstable man, who has a truly medieval perspective on human rights, will have a hugely influential role in the next governing coalition. He will be in an opportune position to start implementing his radical program, and the electoral success of the right-winged bloc gives this dangerous movement all the popular mandate it needs.

And this is only one segment of Israel's much broader trend towards nationalist chauvinism, expressed by continuing territorial acquisitions in the West Bank, humiliating checkpoints, segregated roads, "security" barriers, economic blockade, a flagrantly criminal war in the Gaza Strip, an apartheid-style national ID card that clearly distinguishes Jews from non-Jews (the Teudat Zehut), and most recently a failed attempt to ban Arab parties from running in the 2009 parliamentary elections.

Most of these policies, contrary to feeble claims by the Israelis, have absolutely nothing to do with "self-defense" or "national security." Where they do produce marginal security benefits, as with the checkpoints, roads, and barriers, these are heavily outweighed by their humanitarian toll.

What is remarkable is that, in any other civilized country, these kinds of policies would not pass by even the most elementary human rights standards. But Israel is a special case. It has evolved into a sort of "black hole" for human rights in the developed world, immune to any real international scrutiny, thanks to diplomatic coddling and aggressive military support by the United States. 

There are some out there who may believe that elements of fascism could not possibly take hold through the ballot itself, especially in a liberal democracy such as Israel. But as we all know, history proves them gravely wrong.

Looking to the past is the key to the future.

I'm a lover of history, nothing excites me more than trivia and mostly useless historical facts. Did you know LBJ once gave an interview to a reporter while taking a shit? Great president. But history is far more useful than knowing about Taft getting stuck in a bathtub, it gives us insight to the future. The only reason we're at this point and stage of society is because 1 , 5, 10, 20 years ago something happened.It isn't something irrelevant, but perhaps it becomes more relevant every day. We humans tend to forget too easily. But we must remember where we came from, how we got here. So while perusing Youtube I found this gem. Notice how awkward Bush Senior was in answering this question. Kind of reminds me of the son. It was more than apparent he had no connection with the common man/woman. Bill Clinton was the Barack Obama of 1992. He was CHANGE. In fact, 1992 was like 2008, a recession year, Bush had just gotten out of a Gulf War, the economy was falling apart. And there is Bill Clinton, a womanizer but an exemplary ex-president. I also found the vice-presidential debate, which is also interesting just to see Dan Quale's amazing self.I find it funny how Al Gore made fun of him for comparing himself to JFK and then the idiot is stupid enough to say "Remember the last time someone did that? Remember what they said?" . LOL.







Also watch Clinton Kick Fox's ASS!

A perspective on the financial crisis

By Chase Mechanick

That we are in the throes of one of the most serious economic depressions in decades is no longer in serious dispute. Even the free-market ideologues who apologized for the peril that an untamed financial structure necessarily introduces are now coming to terms with their fatal error. The crisis finally marks the induction of laissez-faire finance (and, more generally, the neoliberal brand of capitalism) into the list of "tried-and-failed" theories of social organization. Like Soviet (big-C) Communism, or "Fordist" or Keynesian economics, it has followed a familiar historical arc. It was created in the midst of a crisis of faith in the existing social order, baptized by profound social transformation, adopted as policy by many cockeyed national governments, and then finally discredited by a disaster of its own making. What the tragedy of Stalin was for Communism, or the inability of the national governments to adapt to the mammoth scale of capitalist rapacity was for Fordism, the current financial eruption is for the idea of neoliberalism. 

Capitalism is plagued by an endemic propensity to crisis. The specific mechanisms that precipitated the current collapse - Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS), Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO), credit default swaps and other complex derivatives, etc. - are indeed unique to our era. But the basic cause of the collapse - the over-expansion of capital beyond what the forces of consumption and exchange are capable of sustaining - remains the same. 

To be sure, private industry often causes these over-expansions, and almost always encourages them. But they are also frequently the end-result of a feverish policy of state investment. Consider the British economic crisis of 1825, attributed to frantic investments by the government of Britain in railroads, canals, and other infrastructure beyond what the system was able to bear. An easy monetary policy by the Bank of England is also blamed. Some may look at the roots of the present crisis in quasi-government institutions (like this one, this one, and most of all, this one) and claim that government, and not capitalism, is the culprit - as if the two were somehow dialectically contraposed. In fact, the crisis is portrayed as a deviation from capitalism. Ignoring for a moment the glaring problems with this claim (in fact, it was the deregulation movement and the emergence of shadow banking that exaggerated the problem), the historical record tells us that crises caused by government intervention within a capitalist context are nothing new. On the contrary, they are a fundamental, systemic part of capitalism.

Rosa Luxemburg, ☭, wrote more than a hundred years ago on the unsustainable nature of the financial system in her pamphlet, Reform or Revolution. Her remarks prove quite prescient today: 

"To begin with, [credit] increases disproportionately the capacity of the extension of production and thus constitutes an inner motive force that is constantly pushing production to exceed the limits of the market. But credit strikes from two sides. After having (as a factor of the process of production) provoked overproduction, credit (as a factor of exchange) destroys, during the crisis, the very productive forces it itself created. At the first symptom of the crisis, credit melts away. It abandons exchange where it would still be found indispensable, and appearing instead, ineffective and useless, there where some exchange still continues, it reduces to a minimum the consumption capacity of the market."

More from Mrs. Luxemburg:

"[Credit] constitutes the technical means of making available to an entrepreneur the capital of other owners. It stimulates at the same time the bold and unscrupulous utilisation of the property of others. That is, it leads to speculation. Credit not only aggravates the crisis in its capacity as a dissembled means of exchange, it also helps to bring and extend the crisis by transforming all exchange into an extremely complex and artificial mechanism that, having a minimum of metallic money as a real base, is easily disarranged at the slightest occasion."

And finally, a remark that is extremely a propos to our present situation:

"...[Credit] aggravates the antagonism existing between social character of production and private capitalist ownership by rendering necessary the intervention of the State in production."

Some liberal economists claim that Obama's injection of $819 billion (yes, with a "B") into a hodgepodge of social projects will be enough to "beat the system." Some even think that the stimulus is too small. The plan may stave off the crisis for awhile, or prolong its trough so as to insulate us from a steep landing. But printing money is not the panacea that it is made out to be; history tells us that we need to rethink the way finance is conducted.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

I've always been a hater of the American media, but in particular Fox News. No other media giant is more ridiculously and conspicuously pro-Republican and just flat out bigots. The video below shows the lowest blow that just made me want to throw a shoe at my screen for watching it. Ralph Nader is an exemplary American, defender of the poor and the consumer. To attack him and presume his racism was the lowest possible, most base, most animal of all moves. In the clip it didn't matter what Nader said or what was meant by the metaphor; the importance was that he used a racially sensitive word and Fox jumped in to be the "moral" high ground. Well FUCK political sensitivity, FUCK political correctness.

Nader is right. Obama WILL have to choose between being a leader, innovator and CHANGE or more of the same. Between bowing down to the huge lobbies and agendas or choosing for what is best for the most people. But really Fox, really? The hypocrisy and bigotry in that news anchor's face is the look of intolerance, of stupidity. And that bitch at the end DECLARING the end of Nader's career. Who are you? GAHHH, this video gets me so mad, I can't even express it.

I Hate Fox News.

It's not over.

Below are the videos of a panel that was held at the University of Chicago on January 7th, 2009. Please check it out.

  

Ali Abunimah, Palestinian journalist and all around awesome.

Proffessor Meirsheimer, I can't wait to take his class!

Norman Finkelstien, self-hating Jew, very, very against Israel's action, I probably liked him the least but still worth seeing. 

And I found this article in an Israeli newspaper. You Judge for yourself.