Since many leftists, especially in this area, seems determined to celebrate Rachel Corrie, it is time to draw the obvious parallel. In my first substantive post, I made a simple and irrefutable argument: The best description for the Palestinian Authority is "fascist". (Now, given the rise of Hamas, we might say that it is Islamo-fascist, a word I usually try to avoid.)
The connection between the PA and fascism is not just a matter of similar beliefs and a taste for the same evil book, Hitler's Mein Kampf. There are also indirect historical links between the two. (If you are curious about those links, you might start by looking up the "Grand Mufti".)
So what person in the fascist movement most closely parallels Rachel Corrie? There may be more exact parallels, but the most famous would be Horst Wessel, a Nazi who was murdered by German Communists. The parallel is, admittedly, inexact. Wessel was murdered; Corrie died accidentally (though I am sure there are conspiracy theorists who claim otherwise). But both of them died violently, and both were martyrs to a fascist cause.
It is not pleasant to make these quite obvious points about the Corrie's cause. But if peace is to be achieved in the Middle East, we must face facts. And among those facts are that the Palestinian Authority can fairly be described as fascist, and that Rachel Corrie was fighting for them. We can be saddened by her death, as I am, without ignoring those two facts.
(I do not know whether Corrie understood her cause, or whether she was a "useful idiot". I hope it was the latter, but the hatred for Israel and the rise of fascist ideas on the left mean that we can not entirely exclude the former without more evidence than I have seen.)
Posted by Jim Miller at March 16, 2006 03:55 PM | Email ThisIs Palestine a state? No.
Does Palestine have what could be considered strong business leadership? No.
Fascism is also often described as a radical response to socialist or communist ideals, hence the link to big business. So, if the PA is a fascist group, does that make Israel a communist state?
The fact is, the Israeli government was sponsoring the demolition of Palestinian homes in order to rebuild them as Israeli settlements. It was in this sense that Rachael Corrie was actively using her own body as a shield against such destruction.
Why don't you have the guts to address this aspect, rather than skewing the issue into an idiotic argument that Corrie was supporting a fascist regime?
Posted by: Chris on March 16, 2006 05:49 PM"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
That was a very good description of the Palestinian Authority in 2002; it's a very good description of the Palestinian Authority now. Was Arafat a dictator? Of course. Were there stringent economic controls? Yes, though somewhat tempered by the massive corruption. Was opposition suppressed by terror and censorship? Yes. Did Arafat follow a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism? Of course. At least when he was speaking in Arabic.
This is, I grant, unpleasant, but it is not really difficult intellectually. Before you comment again, please take some time to read some of the material linked to.
Posted by: Jim Miller on March 16, 2006 06:37 PMthe definition of Fascism you provide is a common colloquial representation of the term, one that takes some general aspects of totalitarianism, but omits the main and most important one - the linking of the state to the highest commercial interests available. However, I will concede your common representation of the word for the sake of argument:
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator -
Arafat, like him or not, was an elected leader. A gangster? Yes. Corrupt? Most certainly. A dictator? I don't know. You're making the argument (actually, you haven't made an argument, you've simply made a statement), show me how Arafat would qualify as a dictator. Given that the Israeli government exhibits much greater control, both physically and economically over the Palestinians, I would argue it is impossible for the PA to have dictatorial control. They simply don't have enough power.
2. stringent socioeconomic controls -
Again, I would argue Israel itself has much greater economic control over the Palestinians. They are the ones that control the check-points that workers MUST go through every day to get to and from work. Did Arafat profit personally from his role? Absolutely. But is this fascism, or simply corruption? I'd say corruption.
3. suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship -
What opposition are you talking about? And in what way were they suppressed or censored?
4. typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism -
There is no nation of Palestine, therefor there is no nationalism. Koreans and Japanese can both be belligerently nationalistic from time to time, are they fascist governments? I don't think so. Racism? Racism exists everywhere. Pat Robertson calling the Muslim religion Satanic is particularly racist in my opinion, but I don't think its fascist.
Also, you wrote, "This is, I grant, unpleasant, but it is not really difficult intellectually. Before you comment again, please take some time to read some of the material linked to."
Unpleasant? I have no idea what you mean.
Difficult intellectually? You haven't said anything intellectual. You've made a blanket statement that you haven't backed up with evidence. Linking to a Wikipedia entry of one individual Palestinian is not demonstrative of anything.
Finally, for the sake of argument I will briefly accept the idea that Arafat and the PA were a fascist regime. What does this have to do with Rachael Corrie, who was a member of International Solidarity Movement. Do you have any evidentiary link between the two?
Before you post blanket statements as if they are actual arguments again, please take some time to back up what you say.
Posted by: Chris on March 16, 2006 09:22 PMdictator:
NOUN: 1a. An absolute ruler. b. A tyrant; a despot
Chris, I think Arafat qualifies.
tyrant:
1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions. 2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. 3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
despot:
1. A ruler with absolute power. 2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.
Do you honestly think Arafat ruled without restriction? The PA was only able to form because of the agreements at Oslo. How many dictators are "allowed" to exist because of the decisions of other foreign leaders? Say what you will about the guy, he was a gangster, he was a horribly corrupt, profited personally off the suffering of Palestinians, all I would agree with. He was also immensely popular, most "harsh" and "cruel" leaders are not. If you want to say that he was a terrorist, again I'd agree with you, but as a leader of his own people, I doubt that he was terribly harsh or cruel.
At any rate, this whole conversation, and the whole reason for Jim Miller's original post, in my opinion is to obfuscate the fact that Israel has been at times overly militaristic when dealing with the Palestinians and the occupied territories. Rather than debate the morality of bulldozing homes and replacing them with more Israeli settlements, the post has the effect of creating a false assertion (I would call it a false argument, except he makes no argument and provides no evidence) that Rachael Corrie was a fascist. And inherent in this is the idea that if she was a fascist then we can easily dismiss the fact that she went and risked her life in the first place. I'm not saying that we all have to agree that what she was doing was proper or good, or that she was a hero in any way. And I won't try to change any minds in this regard. But the girl had guts. She put her money where her mouth was, and she risked her life for something that she believed in. She may have been naive, she may have been foolish, but please don't be so disrespectful to assinuate that she was in any way linked to the PA, or that her intentions had anything to do with fascism.
My question is, why hasn't there been more outcry on this blog and in other R circles against the Democrats' shameless political pandering and overt racial and religious stereotyping on the Dubai Ports issue?
Their acts constituted an organized, government-sponsored and highly nefarious movement by people who should know better and actually have influence on world events (unlike Corrie's individual act as a private citizen, whatever you think of it) that will have extremely long-ranging and adverse consequences on the US War on Terror.
The Democrats' political pandering on the Dubai Ports issue - now that it something to be both highly disgusted about and vocally opposed to.
Posted by: LoneWolf on March 17, 2006 06:50 AMA very interesting read...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=21701&p=1
A very interesting read...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=21701&p=1
"My question is, why hasn't there been more outcry on this blog and in other R circles against the Democrats' shameless political pandering and overt racial and religious stereotyping on the Dubai Ports issue?"
Because the subject matter here is generally limited to the politics of this area. I would not have put up this post here, if I had not seen several pieces on Rachel Corrie in our local papers,
I have written on the Dubai deal on my own site, (which covers a broader array of subjects) a number of times, and plan at least one more post there on the subject.
Posted by: Jim Miller on March 17, 2006 09:24 AMWhat happened to Rachel is unfortunate, but for the press and her parents to present her as a martyr for a noble cause is ridiculous. No parent wants to outlive their child, but in their case their daughter consciously made a decision that ended her life. Rachel was not restrained in any way and what her parents are not talking about is how NONE of the "oppressed" Palestinians came to Rachel's aid and pull her from the path of the bulldozer, choosing instead to watch her get flattened from the sidelines.
Posted by: Burdabee on March 17, 2006 09:27 AM"What many of the leftwing loonies gloss over is that 1)Rachel had plenty of opportunity to get out of harm's way. Palestinians do not give their victims this option"
First, I thought it was liberals who were supposed to be so "shrill". Am I really a loony because I disagree with the radical opinion that Rachie Corrie was a fascist? Isn't it Jim's perogative to argue his case thoroughly if he's going to make such a claim? As of yet, he hasn't.
Second, Corrie had every opportunity to get out of the way. But that denies the reason she was there, which was to "BLOCK" the bulldozer. You can't really block a bulldozer if you get out of the way, can you? The defense of the bulldoze driver is that he didn't see her, which may very well be true, and it may not. The fact is, I don't know because I wasn't there, and neither were you.
Third, "Palestinians do not give their victims the option". Really? Does this include the 20% of Palestinians who are Israeli citizens? Does this include the 3.5 million Palestinians who are NOT suicide bombers? I wonder what LoneWolf above would think of your "overt racial and religious stereotyping."
You also wrote "The Palestinians have one goal and that is to eliminate Israel. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool."
Again, does this include the 20% of Israli citizens who are Palestinian Arabs? I won't deny that there are radicals who feel this way {In fact, there are radical Americans who feel the same way. David Duke, anyone? And which party did he belong to?). But, there are also radicals on the Israeli side who would like to do the same to the Palestinians:
Golda Meir once said, "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." (Statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.)
The above is not an uncommon sentiment in Israel, unfortunately. There is also a fair number of people who believe in a forceable "transfer" of all Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza, and into Jordan, where they would certainly be even more persecuted and many slaughtered, as happened in previous transfers.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29671
If it's wrong to want to "push" Israeli into the sea, then isn't it as equally wrong to want to "push" Palestinians into the desert?
Finally, for the checkpoints and the violence. The violence is and always has been on both sides. It occured long before the creation of the checkpoints, and if the Palestinians are the only aggressors, why is it they're being killed at a rate of nearly 3 to 1?
Posted by: Chris on March 17, 2006 04:01 PMHow deceived do you have to be when possibly your professors at Evergreen College talk you into going to a dangerous place to side with terrorists and it ends in your death??
Posted by: Misty on March 17, 2006 11:48 PMI'm not going to even begin addressing the bulk of your paragraph. Let's just say we're in disagreement.
I will answer the question in your final paragraph. Why are Palestineans being killed at a rate of 3 to 1? For the same reason the AIF are in Iraq are being killed at a rate of 15 to 1. Because Islamic terrorists are crappy fighters, cowards and can't stand a straight up fight. Ask a soldier who's been back from Iraq.
If you've seen the way one of them "aims" their AK-47s you'll know why.
So instead of fighting soldiers like men, they have to resort to blowing up non-combatants. They kill innocents in Isreal. They do the same in Iraq.
Just listen to what Democrat former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark had to say at the funeral of Slobodan Milosevic, the deposed Serbian dictator. Milosevic is known as "The Butcher of the Balkans" for waging three genocidal wars against Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Over 250,000 people, mainly Muslims, died in these wars. Milosevic was on trial before the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague, when he died of a heart attack last week.
Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general and longtime Milosevic supporter who is now on Saddam Hussein's defense team, drew cheers by telling the crowd: "History will prove that Slobodan Milosevic was right."
But some drivers passing by the square honked car horns and made obscene gestures at the Milosevic supporters, underscoring the disgust many Serbs feel toward the late autocratic leader.
"All of Belgrade's squares would be too small for all the victims of Milosevic and his rule," said Foreign Minister Vuk Draskovic, who was twice targeted for assassination by the Milosevic regime. "A murderer and his crimes were glorified today."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_re_eu/milosevic;_ylt=AnMNdhgoOlzwzPOMZDrxz5Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Where is the OUTRAGE from Democrat leaders about the atrocious comments by their former Attorney General Ramsey Clark? Saying that "History will prove that Slobodan Milosevic was right", is equivalent to saying that history will prove Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, or Pol Pot right.
But what do you expect from a party headed by the likes of Howard Dean and Dwight Pelz, who believe that history will prove Fidel Castro right?
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 18, 2006 02:59 PMYour description of Ramsey Clark was slightly off. Instead of "Democrat former U.S. Attorney General," you should have said "former Democrat U.S. Attorney General." The Democratic party, which I'm NOT a member of by the way, has nothing to do with Clark and vice versa. And unless I'm mistaken, he isn't "their (the Democtrats) former Attorney General" he's OUR (all Americans) former Attorney General. Or do you think Bush is only YOUR president? At any rate, I'm glad you're outraged. You should be.
Posted by: Chris on March 18, 2006 03:57 PM