First, the background: the French revolution and nationalism - assimilated Jews were infected by nationalism (who wasn't)? They wanted their own state: against the wishes of the pious Jews - there's a book by Max Simon Nordau [The Project Gutenberg EBook of Zionism and Anti-Semitism, by Max Simon Nordau and Gustav Gottheil, EBook #24186, first published in 1902], which says it very well:
"The premises of political Zionism are that there is a Jewish nation. This is just the point denied by the assimilation Jews [that is, those who believed in assimilation rather than separation], and the spiritless, unctuous, prating rabbis in their pay. Dr. Herzl saw that the first task he had to fulfill was the organizing of a manifestation which should bring before the world, and the Jewish people itself, in modern, comprehensible form the fact of its national existence. He convoked a Zionist congress, which in spite of the most furious attacks and most unscrupulous acts of violence,--the Jewish community of Munich where the congress was originally intended to be held protested against its meeting in that town,--assembled for the first time in Basel, the end of August, 1897, and consisted of two hundred and four selected representatives of the Zionist Jews of both hemispheres."
Here, we see civil society at work: civil society is the bane of civilisation. A determined group of people can hold an entire nation hostage, and generate violence (the expert on Civil society, John Keene, emphasises this point about violence).
There were other associations: the English evangelicals, the financiers, et al.
Today, civil society in America - the AIAPAC, evangelical Christians, the media - have demonised the Arabs (a major aspect of nationalism: according to Keene, The Other is everything and nothing. Nationalism needs enemies - this is an important point.)
It is fascinating how Zionist civil society in America gradually extended its grip - the early Jewish writers used to suppress their Jewish identity (in Dangling Man, only one brief paragraph is about the speaker's Jewishness; later, Saul Bellow would openly wear his Zionist heart on his sleeve - he admits in a short story that he hadn't thought Israel a great idea at one time).
Is Israel a democracy? Very much so! The relationship between democracy, violence and nationalism is deep - but is whispered only in academic circles.
But one thing's for sure - Judaism is not Zionism; they are two antithetical religions.
,
Thursday, February 12, 2009
"We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"
I remember, back in the late '90s, I submitted an article to the Daily Star, the last line of which Mahfuz Anam refused to publish – and I refused to alter. His sub-editor, Modon Shahu, called me once day and urged me to change the line.
He chuckled and said: "We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"
My piece finally appeared, but – lo and behold! – when I opened the paper, I did a double-take: instead of my last line
"We can either have democracy or safety, but not both";
instead of this last line, the wise Mahfuz Anam or one of his lackeys printed the final paragraph in the picture scanned from the paper above.
Pause and ponder the implications of the sub-editor's statement and the self-censorship of the Daily Star (we were taught that only military rulers imposed censorship!).
The battle-cry of The Daily Star is "Committed to the People's Right to Know"; also, "Journalism Without Fear or Favour". Add "Not" before the first, and change "Without" to "With" in the second shibboleth, and you have an accurate idea of the newspaper's ethos.
When a newspaper knows what people want, and what they are saying, it is its duty to report that. Instead, we have a so-called newspaper in cahoots with western donors and NGOs, trying to force-feed democracy down our collective throat.
Well, we finally regurgitated on January 11, 2007 – the day democracy ended: the conclusion of a sixteen-year-old nightmare. But the nightmare has been resumed, for it seems that without a certain politician, the daughter of a certain father, in short, without a certain dynasty, there can be no democracy in Bangladesh.
And that's not a democracy, but a caricature.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Die Nasty: The Sins of the Fathers
The sins of the parents visit the child.
Consider the fate of Benazir Bhutto. She was warned not to come to Pakistan. It was almost like a Greek chorus hissing disapproval, yet powerless to do anything. She was destined to death.
For the sins of her father.
At an Oxford debate, an opponent described her father's calling as that of “a tradesman of some description. A butcher, I gather.” She looked like she had been slapped across her mug.
The speaker was referring to the genocide of 1971 for which half the blame must rest with her father.
The other half must rest with the other demagogue elected from East Pakistan – Sheikh Mujib. Together, they destroyed the lives of hundreds and thousands of people. And both men died violent, unnatural deaths. I was fifteen when Sheikh Mujib was killed – and I still remember the nationwide jubilation at his passing.
When there's no other way to remove a dynasty –the ballot cannot do that – there remains only one way: the bullet.
Sheikh Hasina has received intelligence report that she is on an international terrorist hit list. They say there have been 21 attempts on her life – which if true, reflects very badly on the military prowess of the jihadis. Kidding aside, how long does Sheikh Hasina have – a year, two years?
I'm not a betting man, but if I were to wager a significant amount, I would take a punt on 1 year – that is, 2009. Before the year's out, she'll be out. Of course I could be wrong about the timing, but it's a foregone conclusion. Just a matter of time.
And then? The dynasty will renew itself, and there will be more assassinations...nemesis, like evil, never tires.
Consider the fate of Benazir Bhutto. She was warned not to come to Pakistan. It was almost like a Greek chorus hissing disapproval, yet powerless to do anything. She was destined to death.
For the sins of her father.
At an Oxford debate, an opponent described her father's calling as that of “a tradesman of some description. A butcher, I gather.” She looked like she had been slapped across her mug.
The speaker was referring to the genocide of 1971 for which half the blame must rest with her father.
The other half must rest with the other demagogue elected from East Pakistan – Sheikh Mujib. Together, they destroyed the lives of hundreds and thousands of people. And both men died violent, unnatural deaths. I was fifteen when Sheikh Mujib was killed – and I still remember the nationwide jubilation at his passing.
When there's no other way to remove a dynasty –the ballot cannot do that – there remains only one way: the bullet.
Sheikh Hasina has received intelligence report that she is on an international terrorist hit list. They say there have been 21 attempts on her life – which if true, reflects very badly on the military prowess of the jihadis. Kidding aside, how long does Sheikh Hasina have – a year, two years?
I'm not a betting man, but if I were to wager a significant amount, I would take a punt on 1 year – that is, 2009. Before the year's out, she'll be out. Of course I could be wrong about the timing, but it's a foregone conclusion. Just a matter of time.
And then? The dynasty will renew itself, and there will be more assassinations...nemesis, like evil, never tires.
jamhoorie islamie iran zindabad
The Iranian mullahs may sometimes do what appears silly – such as clamping down on 'bad hijab'; but we must keep in mind that the elite of Iran are very pro-Israel, pro-American and anti-Palestinian (I know, I have many friends among them); and if you look at a military map of the Middle East, you'll find that the only country that has no US military bases is Iran.
Iran has been a close friend of the Palestinians, and the Iranian elite (those tempted to show off their coloured hair in public) hate the mullahs for it.
When American presidents wish to be popular, they kill civilians in a distant country; when Iran's mullahs wish to be popular, they crack down on the elite. Which one is worse?
Far from demonising Iran, we should appreciate its lone attempt to help Muslim countries: it took in Afghan refugees, despite its own economic problems and despite the drugs that came in their wake; it has financed and aided Hamas and Hezbollah, offering the only resistance to Israel's expansionism. It is in constant threat of being bombed by Israel and/or the US.
Iran's planes frequently crash - why? Because America won't let it buy the parts it needs to keep them safe. Despite American and European intransigence, Iran has a great record in promoting health and education. Today, more women are enrolled in universities than during the Shah's time.
I for one know that if Bangladesh is ever bombed by the west, only one country will come to our aid - Iran
Iran has been a close friend of the Palestinians, and the Iranian elite (those tempted to show off their coloured hair in public) hate the mullahs for it.
When American presidents wish to be popular, they kill civilians in a distant country; when Iran's mullahs wish to be popular, they crack down on the elite. Which one is worse?
Far from demonising Iran, we should appreciate its lone attempt to help Muslim countries: it took in Afghan refugees, despite its own economic problems and despite the drugs that came in their wake; it has financed and aided Hamas and Hezbollah, offering the only resistance to Israel's expansionism. It is in constant threat of being bombed by Israel and/or the US.
Iran's planes frequently crash - why? Because America won't let it buy the parts it needs to keep them safe. Despite American and European intransigence, Iran has a great record in promoting health and education. Today, more women are enrolled in universities than during the Shah's time.
I for one know that if Bangladesh is ever bombed by the west, only one country will come to our aid - Iran
Friday, February 6, 2009
government-academic complex in America
"And in a speech in Washington, DC, on November 18th Eric Shmidt, chief executive of Google, an internet giant, claimed that government-funded research done in university laboratories was 'the core aspect of America's competitiveness'. Without a dramatic increase in investment in such research, and in maths and science education, Americans risked becoming mere 'captive consumers' at the mercy of rising Asian powers, he argued."
The Economist, 22nd November 2008, p 67
So, what does American capitalism rest on? The private sector? Not quite.
Innovation – the seminal fluid of capitalism – issues from Uncle Sam: it is his largess bestowed on the military-industrial-academic (MIA) complex that allows the latter to churn out new innovation (like the internet, for instance, courtesy of DARPA) that then stimulates the civilian sector.
And who provides the mass education in science and maths required by the MIA? Uncle Sam again, but in this respect he's been doing a terrible job lately. The best education is going to the richest: now, that's no way to run a mass-market capitalism!
It is a paradox that a CEO of a private sector firm, Google ('Don't Be Evil), wants the government to fund research: this clearly shows how corporations rely on the government, especially when they squeal that they are not getting enough.
The Economist, 22nd November 2008, p 67
So, what does American capitalism rest on? The private sector? Not quite.
Innovation – the seminal fluid of capitalism – issues from Uncle Sam: it is his largess bestowed on the military-industrial-academic (MIA) complex that allows the latter to churn out new innovation (like the internet, for instance, courtesy of DARPA) that then stimulates the civilian sector.
And who provides the mass education in science and maths required by the MIA? Uncle Sam again, but in this respect he's been doing a terrible job lately. The best education is going to the richest: now, that's no way to run a mass-market capitalism!
It is a paradox that a CEO of a private sector firm, Google ('Don't Be Evil), wants the government to fund research: this clearly shows how corporations rely on the government, especially when they squeal that they are not getting enough.
sharia, monarchy and moolah
One thing always intrigues me.
Many of my (highly educated) compatriots – and relatives - live in the United Arab Emirates for years, then either come back with plenty of money or use some of that money to buy a citizenship in Canada.
Not only do my compatriots troop down to the UAE lured by the moolah, an army of Americans and Europeans regularly head to these rainbow-ends every month.
Come to think of it, I have known may western expatriates who have been loth to leave Bangladesh – for here they get a mansion, servants, chauffeur, and all mod cons. Back home, they'd have to live in a cramped little apartment.
Now, getting back to my relatives: these moolah-seekers never complain about the UAE. I am most surprised at the total absence of complaint regarding the sharia law.
These good, unhypocritical folk don't mind the monarchy either.
Take my uncle: he and his whole family battened on the oil-proceeds of the emirates, then emigrated to the freer climes in the west, from where he harrumphs and humphs and hoomphs about the evils of autocracy: having made his pile under autocracy and the sharia law, he finds it convenient to sound like an American.
Corruption is part of human nature: no amount of legislation or moralistic preaching or fire-and-brimstone sermons are going to rid corruption from our genes (not even in science fiction).
Many of my (highly educated) compatriots – and relatives - live in the United Arab Emirates for years, then either come back with plenty of money or use some of that money to buy a citizenship in Canada.
Not only do my compatriots troop down to the UAE lured by the moolah, an army of Americans and Europeans regularly head to these rainbow-ends every month.
Come to think of it, I have known may western expatriates who have been loth to leave Bangladesh – for here they get a mansion, servants, chauffeur, and all mod cons. Back home, they'd have to live in a cramped little apartment.
Now, getting back to my relatives: these moolah-seekers never complain about the UAE. I am most surprised at the total absence of complaint regarding the sharia law.
These good, unhypocritical folk don't mind the monarchy either.
Take my uncle: he and his whole family battened on the oil-proceeds of the emirates, then emigrated to the freer climes in the west, from where he harrumphs and humphs and hoomphs about the evils of autocracy: having made his pile under autocracy and the sharia law, he finds it convenient to sound like an American.
Corruption is part of human nature: no amount of legislation or moralistic preaching or fire-and-brimstone sermons are going to rid corruption from our genes (not even in science fiction).
Monday, February 2, 2009
war before election, like foreplay before the act
Pre-election bombing of 'the enemy' is a tried, tested and successful strategy in politics. The latest episode is the Gaza killings. According to Gwynne Dyer: "The war is being fought now largely to shift the opinion polls in favour of the ruling parties before the election."
The same strategy was used by Boris Yeltsin when his popularity flagged: he bombed Chechnya, and started the first Chechen War. The second Chechen war was intended to catapult Vladimir Putin into the presidency – which it did.
The major reason for George 'warmonger' Bush to invaded Iraq was to galvanize 4 million Christian evangelical voters, who, his Svengali, Karl Rove, had figured out had stayed home in 2000. The evangelicals duly cheered – and he won handily in 2004.
Notice the enthusiasm with which young Sinhalese are queuing up to join the army against the Tamils. Rajapakse's popularity soars with every bullet fired.
For the enduring popularity of war, look no further than the Great Republic, the beacon on the hill, of which Scott nearing wrote in 1921 in his book "The American Empire": " The "Historical Register of the United States Army" (F. B. Heitman, Washington, Govt. Print., 1903, vol. 2, pp. 298-300) contains a list of 114 wars in which the United States has been engaged since 1775. The publication likewise presents a list of 8600 battles and engagements incident to these 114 wars. Two of these wars were with England, one with Mexico and one with Spain. These, together with the Civil War and the War with Germany, constitute the major struggles in which the United States has been engaged. In addition to these six great wars there were the numerous wars with the Indians, the last of which (with the Chippewa) occurred in 1898. Some of these Indian "wars" were mere policing expeditions. Others, like the wars with the Northwest Indians, with the Seminoles and with the Apaches, lasted for years and involved a considerable outlay of life and money."
Neither was Europe immune to elections and war. The historian, J.M.Roberts observed: "When it started, the Great War, which was to reveal itself as the most democratic in history in its nature, may well also have been the most popular ever."
The same strategy was used by Boris Yeltsin when his popularity flagged: he bombed Chechnya, and started the first Chechen War. The second Chechen war was intended to catapult Vladimir Putin into the presidency – which it did.
The major reason for George 'warmonger' Bush to invaded Iraq was to galvanize 4 million Christian evangelical voters, who, his Svengali, Karl Rove, had figured out had stayed home in 2000. The evangelicals duly cheered – and he won handily in 2004.
Notice the enthusiasm with which young Sinhalese are queuing up to join the army against the Tamils. Rajapakse's popularity soars with every bullet fired.
For the enduring popularity of war, look no further than the Great Republic, the beacon on the hill, of which Scott nearing wrote in 1921 in his book "The American Empire": " The "Historical Register of the United States Army" (F. B. Heitman, Washington, Govt. Print., 1903, vol. 2, pp. 298-300) contains a list of 114 wars in which the United States has been engaged since 1775. The publication likewise presents a list of 8600 battles and engagements incident to these 114 wars. Two of these wars were with England, one with Mexico and one with Spain. These, together with the Civil War and the War with Germany, constitute the major struggles in which the United States has been engaged. In addition to these six great wars there were the numerous wars with the Indians, the last of which (with the Chippewa) occurred in 1898. Some of these Indian "wars" were mere policing expeditions. Others, like the wars with the Northwest Indians, with the Seminoles and with the Apaches, lasted for years and involved a considerable outlay of life and money."
Neither was Europe immune to elections and war. The historian, J.M.Roberts observed: "When it started, the Great War, which was to reveal itself as the most democratic in history in its nature, may well also have been the most popular ever."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
