On elitism, and complacency

You can talk about the doltishness of our president all you want, but you have to acknowledge his power and influence, and that your snarky comments aren't going to change anything when no one is listening. Rather than ignore (with more than a tinge of self-righteousness and elitism) the idiocy and dogmatism of Washington at this completely formative moment in US history, try and be engaged. Rather than throw up your hands and drop out completely as soon as you recognize the emptiness of "official" Washington language, and realize that emptiness does not translate into impotence--parse the rhetoric and recognize its destructiveness. Decades from now, when historians are doing the difficult and vital work of figuring out just what the fuck went wrong with American foreign and domestic policies at the beginning of the 21st century, where do you think they will turn? Just because contributors to a website like Counterpunch, or intrepid journalists like Patrick Cockburn and Robert Fisk, seem to be telling the "right" story in their current work, doesn't mean we can just leave it at that.

Nota bene: despite the repeated use of the second-person pronoun in this post, this really isn't directed toward one person/group of people in particular. Rather, it bemoans a general trend that helps no one understand what is happening in the world around us.

Of course, it's not easy. If you're declaring yourself to be "above" paying attention to a Bush press conference, you're not better off turning to the major American print news outlets.

Coverage in the mainstream media of George Bush's press conference yesterday only serves to highlight, in our opinion, the absolute complicity of the American press in the criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq. In a typically muddled piece of "analysis" printed today, the New York Times's David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker--politely--lend their voices to the growing chorus of those who think that, in the end, George Bush must inhabit an ideologically perverse and analytically barren alternate universe. That this is, at this point, far too easy to suggest, seems not to matter. By sticking, albeit tepidly, to Bush's executive war-speak about what shape the American "mission" will take in a "post-surge" scenario, Sanger and Shanker not only serve to legitimize and reinforce Bush's corrupt Near East agenda; they also (purposely?) obscure their own paper's role in selling the public an unmitigated atrocity. On top of this, their piece ends with a move that could have come from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama themselves: namely, to blame the occupied for the crimes of the occupiers. To say that the government of Nuri al-Maliki just simply won't have the wherewithal, or even the desire, to perform the difficult task of political reconciliation among Shia and Sunnis in Iraq, is to absolve the U.S. government of all wrongdoing in bringing unthinkable death and destruction through an illegal invasion, and a military occupation that is almost five years old.

Yesterday, the editors of the Washington Post accused, it seems, everyone but themselves of "wishful thinking" on Iraq, saying that if Bush seems over-optimistic about the likelihood of the situation in Iraq changing by mid-September, then Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton are, at best, guilty of the same as regarding the consequences of a troop "withdrawal." Borrowing a tactic, it would seem, from Bush's own speechwriters, they stoop even lower than the execrable Times and offer the trillionth repetition of a "stay the course" mantra.

This comes hot on the heels of a Times editorial on Saturday demanding an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Nevermind that whenever ANYONE in the White House, Congress (excepting Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul), or mainstream media talks about "withdrawal," they are being disingenuous, for what they really mean is "redeployment," and a contuining presence of US troops in the Near East and Gulf states. Anthony DiMaggio sees right through the Times' and other mainstream US news publications recent "anti-war" turn on their editorial pages, and asks why it's come about 50 months too late--though this hypocritical about-face did prompt the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal to condemn the Times' "appeasement." The best we can say about these two latter publications is that, hey, at least they're consistent in their support of unbridled aggression to protect U.S. "interests."

Well-Made World 16

Near East

• In a terrifying development, Alan Johnston--now held captive in Gaza for 105 days--has appeared in a new video wearing what is purported to be a bomb-belt, which he says would be detonated if there is any attempt made, either by Hamas or the British, to free him by force. In the video, Johnston is quoted as saying that his "Captors tell me that very promising negotiations were ruined when the Hamas movement and the British government decided to press for a military solution to this kidnapping." This comes as Hamas, trying to show itself capable of exercising a less violent form of control in Gaza, has taken it upon itself to secure Johnston's release. Something No Empires finds interesting is the attempt being made to discredit Hamas both by Fatah capitulationists (backed, of course, by America, Europe, and Israel) and extreme Islamist elements hoping, it would appear, to outflank it.
• No Empires wants to drive home the (obvious) fact that the Hamas government must still be considered to represent the political will of the occupied Palestinian population. Here, Saree Makdisi explains why the "relief" felt in the halls of Western power at the removal of the elected government by "presidential fiat" is certainly not shared by people who once again have, as their "legitimate" leaders, corrupted careerists who have consistently watered-down (if not abandoned wholesale, under American and Israeli pressure) any truly just political solution in Israel/Palestine.
• Despite UN pressure, Israel continues to resist opening the Karni crossing to allow passage of vital supplies. As No Empires readers will recall, Israel has pledged, certainly half-heartedly, to do all it can to facilitate humanitarian aid to Gaza; but not Karni, not yet--despite its being an economic lifeline for Gaza, Israel, true to form, vaguely invokes security concerns. Israel has promised to allow passage of supplies through smaller border crossings instead.

US

• DePaul's Matthew Abraham marvels at his colleagues' deafening silence surrounding the denial of tenure to Norman Finkelstein and Mehren Larudee.
• Last week, both The New York Times and The Washington Post featured op-ed letters by Ahmed Yousef, political adviser to Ismail Haniya. In the Times, Yousef focuses on Hamas' reasons for taking control of Gaza. In the Post, Yousef urges the ever-intractable Bush administration to reverse its policies in Israel/Palestine, noting that "Hamas has a world in common with Fatah and other parties, and they all share the same goals." No Empires thinks these articles might be the most worthwhile op-eds to come out both papers in quite a while, though they have prompted much outrage from authoritarians and fascists who think that "terrorists" should not have a place on the opinion pages of a newspaper.

Europe

• Robert Fisk, in vintage form, absolutely skewers Tony Blair's visit with the Pope, as well as his new job prospect as the Quartet's Middle East peace envoy. Sadly for Mr. Blair, Catholic-in-training or not, no poorly-timed pangs of conscience can undo 10+ years of ignorance, unbridled militarism, and Washington-teat-sucking. A disclaimer: No Empires finds the second article on Blair linked to above, from the Guardian, a journalistic embarrassment and further evidence of the Guardian's noted slide toward liberal apology. However, we do learn that Blair was encouraged to seek out his future role by none other than George W. Bush, who then passed along his suggestions to the UN, without even the slightest regard for the other members of the illustrious "Quartet." We are also told that, though Mr. Blair's popularity may be lacking in the streets of the Arab world--we can only wonder why!--he is held in high esteem by the "Arab political elites": i.e., those like Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah II, and Abu Mazen, who are currently hammering more nails into the coffin of the Palestinian cause, with the help of Ehud Olmert, at Sharm el-Sheikh. Sadly, despite fresh Russian objections, it does appear that Blair's future is certain. Also see Soumaya Ghannoushi on this veritable slap in the face to both justice and sense.
• Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the Israeli government today that Russia, which has not ruled out dealing with Hamas, does not support an Israeli "divide and conquer plan" of isolating Haniya's government and eventually invading Gaza.
• No Empires was not quite surprised to hear that the Indian-born writer Salman Rushie was knighted last week, considering his heart-warming transition from apparent anti-imperialist to UK lapdog in the past six years or so. Following Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa that called for the Rushdie's death, "Sir Salman" railed against "Islamists," backed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supported House of Commons leader Jack Straw in the face of his memorable comments on the Niqab. See Mahir Ali and Priyamvada Gopal on the ridiculousness of "Sir Salman."