ANTIWAR.COM -- Justin Raimundo "Growing Up: The AntiWar Movement grows beyond the usual shibboleths" Part 2
antiwar.com
Leftists in the antiwar movement should take to heart the tactics employed by the parent party of Sam Marcy and the WWP during the Vietnam war era. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), once the main Trotskyist group in the U.S., helped to build a massive movement in opposition to the Vietnam intervention, in which eventually millions of Americans united around a single issue: bring the troops home now. The Trots went up against every grouplet of New Left know-it-alls, who thought they were going to hitch up the antiwar movement to their revolutionary bandwagon, and they largely succeeded, or at least they fought the "multi-issue" self-styled radicals to a standstill. As Fred Halsted, a leader of the SWP and the antiwar movement, put it in Out Now, still the best blow-by-blow account of the Vietnam era opposition:
"Numerous unaffiliated radicals made the mistake of treating the antiwar movement as an embryonic revolutionary party or trying to convert it into a leftist political formation according to their specifications. To whatever extent they succeeded with any formation, it simply ceased to be an effective antiwar mobilizer."
It's a pertinent lesson for today. The Times goes on to cite one activist who helped organize a protest in her Northwest Washington neighborhood in "in part to provide an outlet for those who felt uncomfortable attending the Answer-sponsored rally. 'I felt like it was important just to go and be counted," Karen Guberman said, 'but many of my friends felt they couldn't count on what was going to be said, and so we did this very specific thing.'"
Instead of going around ANSWER, however, the antiwar mainstream now appears to be going over its head: the February 15 rallies (Feb. 16 in San Francisco) scheduled by United for Peace are shaping up as a very different and far broader venue for peace activists to make their case. While ANSWER has endorsed the February actions, "it is not yet clear what role it will play in shaping the tone," the Times informs us. The paper quotes Leslie Cogan, a UFP organizer, as saying "We want our speakers making a clear link to the issue."
Now that is something to look forward to, and I have a suggestion. Why don't they invite Brendan O'Neil to speak? He has an interesting piece in the Christian Science Monitor, one that challenges the familiar "war for oil" argument that infatuates the left-wing opposition to the exclusion of all other explanations. He trenchantly points out that this very same analysis has been hauled out to "explain" every war in the post-cold war era, from Kosovo to Somalia and Afghanistan. While acknowledging that oil is a factor, O'Neill rightly points out that this "one-size-fits-all" template obscures more than it explains:
"Instead of coming to terms with the forces driving Western intervention in each case, sections of the antiwar movement opted for a one-size-fits-all explanation, superimposing the 'war for oil' script on often complex conflicts."
This one-dimensional analysis fails to account for a number of other, often far more significant factors weighing in for war, such as religion, ideology, domestic politics, and the personal loyalties and idiosyncrasies of politicians. There is also an ideological motive for the "it's all about oil" mantra:
"The well-rehearsed oil argument attempts to make war a simple issue of good versus evil, with oil-greedy imperialists on one side and defenseless civilians on the other. This presents the world as we might prefer it to be, where it's easy to know whom we should oppose, rather than as the world really is – where wars are weird, confusing, and often fought for no obvious material or economic gain."
What would be interesting to hear is what, exactly, are these weird, confusing, and not-so-obvious motives behind the rush to war. O'Neill doesn't say in his article, but, as my regular readers know, I have my own theories on that subject, and, speaking of Israel….
The worldwide campaign to conjure up a rising tide of "anti-Semitism" in Europe as a natural outgrowth of rising antiwar sentiment took a weird turn the other day when French police called into question the recent stabbing of Rabbi Gabriel Farhi. This incident, you'll recall, was supposed to herald a "wave" of "anti-Semitism," allegedly tied in to the anti-Israel boycott and growing opposition in Europe to Ariel Sharon's ongoing conquest of the occupied territories. Every political leader in France condemned the attack, descrying the "bigotry" and "hate" that no doubt motivated it: except, it seems, that the wound may have been self inflicted. Ha'aretz reports:
"The French Jewish community is in an uproar over allegations that Reform Rabbi Gabriel Farhi, who was stabbed on January 3, may in fact have faked the stabbing. The allegations surfaced in a report this week by the weekly magazine Marianne, which was then picked up by Le Figaro. The journal reported that police officers investigating the stabbing said it is not clear whether Farhi was actually stabbed by an unknown assailant, and they are not ruling out the possibility that Farhi in fact stabbed himself."
Faked "hate crimes" are nothing new. Remember Tawana Brawley? Al Sharpton would rather you didn't. But surely a lot more politicians, pundits, and professional victimologists of all persuasions were taken in this time around. What I want to know is this: will Rabbi Farhi be prosecuted if and when it is proved that he committed a hate crime against himself?
The evidence doesn't look good for the Rabbi and his supporters:
"'I've seen assaults and stabbings as part of my job, but I must say that this was a rather strange stabbing,' Marianne quoted the officer who led the investigating team as saying. A few days later, the doctor who examined Farhi submitted a report to the police in which he wrote that 'the wound does not match the rabbi's version of the assault.'"
The report, we are told, has "stunned French Jewry" – but what about the legions of politicians (four former prime ministers), not to mention the pundits, who piously proclaimed that the stabbing of Farhi signified the parlous moral condition of Europe? One hopes they are not too stunned to ask why someone would pull such a stunt at this particular moment in history. |
