Have you ever wondered why so-called “peace activists” usually focus on the “rights” of the PLO Arabs, and not on people in need elsewhere in the world (who don’t murder innocent people)? Don’t worry..dAWK (der Angry White Kid) has the answers!
Anyone with experience doing social justice work is most likely familiar with the following retort from those who disagree with your area of focus: “Well, there are horrible things happening in ________, I don’t see you protesting that.” The implication of course being that you aren’t genuinely concerned with whatever is occurring in a given area but in fact you choose it for some ulterior motive.This is an argument (or more appropriately, a ruse) most commonly used by the right to target the left, mainly on Iraq and Israel/Palestine. (However it’s certainly not limited to that…..Of course the people who ask why you’re not focusing on Darfur don’t actually care about Darfur themselves, they just use it as a way to imply that, a) if you’re talking about Iraq it’s actually because you’re anti-American, b) if you’re talking about Israel/Palestine, it’s because you’re anti-Jewish, and/or c) in both cases it’s because you’re a terror apologist.—-As everyone knows, it is impossible for one person to act on every single case of injustice in the world. No matter what you’re doing, someone can always point out something else and ask you why you’re not working on that.—-It’s a disarming and last ditch tactic aimed to catch you off guard and, more importantly, take the focus away from the actual matter at hand.—-An attempt to place value judgments on values that they don’t even hold and are trying to prove that you don’t hold is a straw man argument by someone with no legitimate leg left to stand on. Perhaps they fear finding themselves opposed to people who base their stands on justice and human rights. If they organized a petition or protest for Darfur or Jewish refugees, I’d sign it or be there; but would they be there for Iraq or Palestine? If not, then whose rhetoric is empty?
In other words, dAWK finds such questions to be disingeneous. I would be interested, though, in knowing why dAWk focuses so much energy on the PLO Arab issue, especially since a) the PLO Arabs are, and have never been, a distinct nation b) the PLO Arabs have constantly refused to live in peace with Israel, and, instead, pursue a policy of terrorism. Why not, say, support the Tibetans in their peaceful struggle against China? This is a legitimate question, which shouldn’t be shrugged off.
In any event, this is what the peace loving dAWK, who cares for all the downtrodden of humanity (but can’t be there for everyone, since there is only so much dAWK to go around), had to say today, regarding the recent developments in Lebanon:
I couldn’t help but smile today as I opened the paper and saw that one-eighth of the entire population of Lebanon came out to demonstrate support for Syria yesterday. The demonstration of at least 500,000 dwarfed by tremendous margins any previous demonstration that called for the removal of Syrian troops.The media and the right must be shocked. Wasn’t there some popular uprising happening in Lebanon? Where did all these pro-Syrian people come from? If there is no actual revolt in Lebanon, then what about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Palestine? Could it be that Bush doesn’t deserve any of the credit that is being heaped on him at the moment? Could it be that Paul Wolfowitz, contrary to what the New York Times’ David Brooks says, isn’t the greatest policy maker ever?The problem with the media and its pundits is that they have the perspective of an ostrich with its head in the sand. Let’s take a look at the actual events and see how unilateral preemptive war is specifically not responsible.
In other words, dAWK is happy about the pro-Syrian protests in Lebanon (organized by the terrorist group Hezbollah), since that shows that Bush and his administration are wrong. So what if the Lebanese people are living under Syrian occupation. So what if most Lebanese people would like to live free of Syrian rule. As long as Bush is wrong! Besides, dAWK doesn’t believe that too many Lebanese oppose living under occupation.
The protests against Syria in Lebanon represent at the very most the view of half the population of Lebanon. They were promoted by right-wing war criminals who mobilized popular fear and outrage over a bombing that brought back images of Lebanon’s horrific civil war. They pinned the blame on Syria and channeled people’s anger towards that country.
What’s a few million people? I would be interested in knowing how dAWK concludes that “at the very most half the population” oppose Syrian rule, but even if this was correct, isn’t he concerned that half the population is living under an occupation they oppose? So much for being a “champion of the underdog”. Furthermore, the people aren’t capable of being horrified and shocked by the callous murder of their former leader, without the prompting of shady “right-wing war criminals”? (no doubt, he is referring to “neocons”). In any event, someone who actually knows what they are talking about had this to say:
Most Lebanese were angered by Syria’s presence long before the Hariri assassination brought that rage to a boil. Ordinary Syrians don’t profit much from the deal that has allowed the Assad regime to rape Lebanon’s economy since the civil war ended 15 years ago.
I am also curious as to who dAWK thinks is behind the Hariri assassination if he doesn’t believe Syria is (which he seems to be implying).
I can also point to many PLO Arabs who would glady live under Israeli rule. Yet dAWK believes that Israeli rule is fundamentally wrong. So why does he take delight in Syrian rule over Lebanon?
Could it be that dAWK is another example of those people who claim they would take a bullet for all underdogs of the world, yet really are hoping that only Israelis take bullets? Or is he really just a misguided ignoramus?
The cafe is closing so I gotta run and this post isn’t as well-developed as it should be. People with more Middle East knowledge, feel free to elaborate.
He might be a bit of both.
