13 Aug 2003 @ 17:21, by Bruce Kodish
A recent article, 'What is a neo-conservative anyway?" by Jim Lobe seems to me like a good piece in many ways, although it represents a caricature.
Remove the absolutism with which Lobe broad-brushes 'neo-conservatives'--e.g. , "all negotiation with opponents is appeasement," "all attempts at making peace are utopian and unrealistic," "the moral goodness of U.S. government policy is unquestionable"-- and Lobe might classify me as a neo-conservative.
Not that I call myself that. Sometimes I call myself a liberal conservative. Sometimes I call myself a conservative liberal. Sometimes a classical liberal, a radical centrist or a wayward libertarian. Ultimately, the labels seem meaningless and silly if taken too seriously.
I do consider that I've become more open and tolerant since I've begun to look at the National Review, Commentary, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page occasionally and find that sometimes some of the writers make some excellent points (to me). On the other hand, I've begun to notice a lot more of self-righteous BS when I crack open the Nation, and the L.A. Times, for example, both of which I used to subscribe to.
Since I support Israel as a Jewish State (not as theocracy but as a refuge for Jews of whatever religious viewpoint), consider Oslo (which I once supported) a dangerous folly, and oppose the current "Road Map" process; some people who consider themselves progressive don't seem to have much use for me anymore. I didn't intend to leave the 'Left'. It seems that the 'Left' left me.
For example, re Israel, I enthusiastically supported the organization Peace Now, thirty years ago. Now, after many years of research and contemplation I've concluded that there exists very little likelihood of a second Palestinian Arab State existing in peace with Israel and Jordan. I consider Peace Now, as presently constituted, mostly a forum for deluded utopians--of which there exist many in the Jewish community, including Israel. The urge for peace now--at any price?--seems likely to lead to greater bloodshed by showing Palestinian extremists that their war of attrition against Israeli civilians and non-cooperative Palestinian Arabs can succeed, and by reducing Israel's defensible borders. The actual conditions for the desired peace do not exist, in my opinion, if Arafat and cronies remain in power and the various Palestinian Militias are not disarmed and destroyed as functioning entities.
So I negatively evaluate Bush's policies with different--much different--standards from those who call themselves 'progressives'. For me Bush's follies include telegraphing his 'punch' to Saddam Hussein by a year and a half (if he was going to do something--he might have done better to strike with little warning), not doing what was necessary to get European support for a post-Saddam Iraq (that would probably have meant not invading Iraq when he did), and now, pushing the so-called Road Map--nigh guaranteed, I believe, to bring more suffering to both sides of the conflict.
Have I misevaluated the Road Map? I don't think so. If you're interested in the possibilities for peace in the Middle East, I suggest that you check out the website, www.therightroadtopeace.com which seems to me to provide a much better and more realistic approach to peace than anything else on the table--one very different from that of Bush, Sharon, et al although it seems likely to appall 'progressive' Israelis, Europeans, Americans, etc.
Tough.
|
|