08 17 05

The news of the day, I suppose, is the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza – one of those things that’s understandable, unavoidable, and unwise all at once. Perhaps it was a waste of resources to defend 8500 settlers living next to 1.5 million Muslim refugees; unfortunately you can’t give up the land without the sweet lads at Hamas claiming victory and wishing to press their momentum. I have no doubt that Gaza will be a launch pad for more attacks, and I don’t doubt that whatever economic conditions exist there today will exist in 10 years – and they’ll still be blamed on occupation. Should the rockets continue to fly out of Gaza in a year – and they will - it’ll be blamed on occupation of the West Bank. And if they give up the West Bank, they’ll be hammered for having occupied them in the first place. And so on until the tender moral sensibilities of our betters are salved with the destruction of Israel by Iranian nukes, which, while contrary to the spirit of international law, certainly does put a period to this vexatious interval.

I exaggerate, of course, but not by much; I think many on the progressive left would not be troubled much if Israel just “went away,” somehow. If anything it would save them the trouble of defending a culture that got the West Bank and Gaza and continued to wage war. One suspects that they know that the militant elements of the Palestinian society will not be placated by anything less than a Jew-free Middle East, but that messy fact can be filed away with the many uncomfortable truths one absorbs to achieve the greater good.

What that greater good is, I haven’t the faintest idea. Possibly the idea that colonialism will be dealt a great symbolic victory, and the architects will be the sort of guys who send good-looking emissaries to anti-WTO rallies who will pass out scarves so pale scabby Swedish Gen-Y dole-suckers can pretend they’re part of a world-wide Resistance Against Ending Up Old And Uncool, Like My Dad. What is Hamas, after all, if not the Weather Underground of the Middle East? Even better: they provide social services, don’t you know. They’re not going to put up a Wal-Mart in Gaza. Anyway, the Jews started it all.

They always start it, don’t you know.

It would certainly be interesting to see how the EU would have reacted if Iranian mullahs had been shouting DEATH TO BERLIN for 20 years, no?

But that’s not the main story. The main story is Cindy Sheehan. I discovered today that I’m on the Cindy Sheehan media email list, complete with invites to join the teleconferences.

Reaction to flag and cross destruction at Camp Casey

Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed last year in Iraq, will hold a telephone press conference today from Crawford, TX, with other mothers whose sons were killed in Iraq.

They will discuss the candlelight vigils that will take place across the country on Wednesday night, as well as the progress of their campaign to meet with President Bush and get questions about why their sons went to war.

WHO: Cindy Sheehan and other mothers and family members of soldiers killed or serving in Iraq

WHAT: Telephone Press Conference

WHEN: Tuesday, August 16, 2005, 1pm Eastern, 12 noon Central

Nationwide vigils are being organized by: MoveOn.org Political Action, True Majority and Democracy For America.


Note: “Their campaign to meet with President Bush and get questions about why their sons went to war.” I think they mean “get answers.” But if one still needs to understand the rationale for the Iraq campaign at this point, then one is willfully obtuse. Note: getting answers with which you do not agree still constitutes getting an answer.

It finally struck me tonight what has come to gall me most about the ghoulish mummery of the moveon.org et al types who’ve glommed on to this woman. Besides the infantilization of the soldier, who was not a man acting of his own free will but a child seduced by American myths spoonfed to his gaping maw by his mother. Besides the thick-headed bullet-proof talking points about shifting rationales, besides the dunderheaded believe that the Iraqi people about whom they purport to care so much would be better if the US bugged out, besides the gleeful desire to see Bush get a black eye even if it made America look tired and timorous, a weak horse with a sagging spine. Besides all that. Imagine if she was a pissed-off mom who wanted to meet with Bush to demand that he talk to her about her plans to help the troops – Care packages from Soldier’s Angels, more PR about their accomplishments, tax breaks for families whose breadwinners have been deployed, more post-service benefits, better VA funding. You could put together quite a list of demands, and if she was sufficiently aggravated with the President, the press would be just as happy to cover her. After all, it’s the fact that he doesn’t meet with her that keeps this story alive, no?

She probably would have as much support from the pull-out organizations; they’d love to show how much they support the troops, after all. But no. No, she yammers on about oil and Israel. Big help, she is. Big help.

Incidentally, the speech where she complained about teaching her son that America was a good thing? It was taken from a rally for a lawyer convicted of helping the blank-eyed imp who helped engineer the first bombing of the WTC. The next guy who got up to speak was a defender of cop-killer St. Mumia. Then came the blind sheik’s lawyer. Lovely people. I’ve no doubt they all watched the TV footage of IDF soldiers removing settlers from Gaza, heard about the rocket attacks – unhelpful, really – and shrugged. It’s a start.

What’s the saying? Next year in Jerusalem.

(perm link.)