On Being Angry and Dangerous 892


I learn the interesting news that David Aaronovitch tweeted to Joan Smith and Jenny Jones that I am:

“an angry and dangerous man who could as easily be on the far right as the far left”.

I had no idea I was on the far left, though I suppose it is a matter of perspective, and from where Mr Aaronovitch stands I, and a great many others, look awfully far away to the left. I don’t believe you should bomb people for their own good, I don’t believe the people of Palestine should be crushed, I don’t believe the profit motive should dominate the NHS, I think utilities and railways were better in public ownership, I think education should be free. I guess that makes me Joseph Stalin.

But actually I am very flattered. Apparently I am not just angry – since the invasion of Iraq and the banker bailouts everybody should be angry – but “dangerous”. If I can be a danger to the interests represented by a Rupert Murdoch employee like Aaronovitch, I must have done something right in my life. I fear he sadly overrates me; but it does make me feel a little bit warmer, and hold my head that little bit higher.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

892 thoughts on “On Being Angry and Dangerous

1 27 28 29 30
  • Fedup

    This is strange, everyone seems to be in agreement, but for some reason they all seem to be caught up in a state of autism, and incapable of understanding the other.

    Steve Cook sums up Passerby’s comment and then ends with; “Ever more rabidly expressed repetition does not advance an argument, it does not advance the truth as you see it in the minds of others. “

    Jon poses good questions , not all of which get picked up by Passerby, resulting in Jon’s misgiving.

    Poor Technicolour caught up in among the ziofuckwits feels marginalised and doubts whether her thoughts matter?

    Let us approach this from a different view point.

    Why are you all pressing each other for an answer, instead offer your own solutions and then compare the solutions to see which is more appealing and elegant?

    Jon’s questions what are military objectives?

    Easy!
    Resistance. Remember the fact that bullies rely on cooperation of their victims and count on their victim’s fears to not allow these to evolve strategies to counter the bullies. Also the bully mentality fragility is an all too apparent open secret. Hence the very idea of people of the world uniting on the issue of resisting the ziofuckwits expansionism, included through military means, and methods will have the desired outcome; all the bullies efforts have been futile; resistance has not ebbed away but gaining in strength.

    This concept itself will be providing the material that the silent citizenry whom dare not to speak out for fear of being branded traitors to the cause. Fact is the dissidents in the occupied Palestine have a hard time countering the free home give-aways and life style provisions for most of the recipients whom would otherwise not enjoy such a perks, outside of that joint.

    Wars are good for a few classes and not all of them are banksters. Wars are good for the thugs whom may have ended up on death row for murdering innocent people, but during the war time their personality disorder is an asset that propels them forward and upward, along with this class come the carpetbaggers who will make money out of bootlegging the usual commodities to hoarding the said commodities and selling at inflated prices etc.

    The moral voice of the dissidents somehow falls short of the mark, and these poor bastards are let down along with the Palestinians, both suffering in the hands of their tormentors, albeit for different reasons, and through different methods.

    The act of resistance is good for the morale of the dissidents as well as Palestinians. This in reverse is true for the crazy lunatics who were trying to crush all resistance and stop the world from helping, we have seen even the aid flotilla was attacked and stopped from reaching Gazza with the world hand wringing and making nuanced noises about the application of excessive force, not the illegal siege of Gazza.

    The supply of arms and ordnance to the resistance fighters then can be made probable from any number of borders into the area. However there must exist an international will to do so to begin with.

    As Steve Cook has already gone on record to seek peace under the present circumstances is not going to get the ziofuckwits to start changing their mode of operations. These have come used to the mercenary way of life and frankly it seems they have grown to enjoy the power of life and death they wield over their poor captive audiences, whether Jewish or Palestinian.

    I concur with the change of the language concerning this mater, as it is patently evident there is not going to be any change in the status quo any time soon, given the proliferation of the war industry that has come to depend on the ongoing carnage in the Mid East.

    Now are we to collaborate or to bitch and moan about each others comments?

    What are your solutions for this problem that has come to plague the humanity for so long?

  • technicolour

    Honestly, Fedup, no need to feel sorry for Technicolour. He/she/they/I are OK – fed, watered, have seen off attempt to evict family….

    “we have seen even the aid flotilla was attacked and stopped from reaching Gazza with the world hand wringing and making nuanced noises about the application of excessive force, not the illegal siege of Gazza.”

    This is so true. And then the Guardian tried to employ someone who approved of strafing the flotilla, and was forced to back down – and lo! the whole thing was re-concentrated back on the flotilla. Not, as you say, on the siege.

    Hmm. I have my own solution but it mainly revolves around being in Gaza, dressing in a giant Mr Blobby outfit and trying to feed Israeli soldiers tea. Have you watched ‘To shoot an elephant’ yet? It is available on youtube. I think it would change people, but then I am a believer in reality changing people

  • technicolour

    and, of course, this board are generally in agreement on this. Quite apart from Jon’s intelligent questions and engagement, and other people’s heartfelt and interesting contributions, people keep posting awful stuff about Palestine/Gaza/Israel here. I like the idea that we can discuss and move on: keep on moving it on, please.

  • technicolour

    We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the
    whole world–a nation of bullies and bastards who
    would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not
    just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with
    hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and
    that is how history will judge us…No redeeming
    social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or
    we’ll kill you.

    Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who
    among us can be happy and proud of having this
    innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine?
    These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and
    fooled by stupid rich kids like George Bush?
    They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali
    locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for
    all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the
    American character. They are the racists and hate
    mongers among us–they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss
    down the throats of these Nazis.

    And I am too old to worry about whether they like it
    or not. Fuck them.

    -Hunter S. Thompson

  • nuid

    “The supply of arms and ordnance to the resistance fighters then can be made probable from any number of borders into the area. However there must exist an international will to do so to begin with.” — Fedup

    Well, that’s nice and general. Also rather on the long finger.

    In the meantime, maybe getting behind BDS would be a good idea.

    http://www.bdsmovement.net/

    [And Fedup, perhaps you should read up on Northern Ireland and its history. Even Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada is aware of the similarities between Palestine and Northern Ireland, and has written about them himself. (I imagine it’s one of the reasons he comes here quite often.)]

    Steve says,
    “The hard and inescapable truth is that successive Israeli authorities have committed ethnic cleansing and a slow-motion genocide for 70 odd years on the Palestinians and will continue to do so …”

    Yes, well, we were told for decades that Northern Ireland was an intractable problem too.
    “The loyalists will never allow power sharing”
    “The Brits will never give back the six counties”
    “The IRA won’t give up until they do”
    “and was yours a pint of bitter?”

    Are you sure you’re not ‘salving your own conscience’ by telling yourself that nothing can be done about Palestine? That’s what you’re accusing these “bleeding heart liberals” of doing when they/we talk about “peace”. But what about you?

    BDS means we’re not reliant on what the USA does or thinks. We don’t have to wait to see what the USA does or thinks, or whether the whole damn U.S. empire collapses, or how soon.

    -ttp://www.bdsmovement.net/

    -ttp://www.ipsc.ie/campaigns/bds-pledge

    and it beats shouting ‘ziofuckwits’ every two seconds. Hands down.

  • Nextus

    Gosh! What’s the “solution” to one of the most intractable political standoffs of the modern era? Tough one! As we don’t have a time machine to go back 65 years, we have to deal with present political realities and attitudes. The problem is that those attitudes are fundamentally incompatible.

    The main practical obstacle to any “solution” is bigotry, on both sides. Hardline bigots will not accept anything other than their own idealised outcome, and so are opposed to any form of compromise. A negotiated agreement between bigots is a logical impossibility. So the first thing that needs to be dealt with is the bigots. They won’t be persuaded, and can’t be wiped out or exiled, but they must not be ignored. Some clever political manoeuvring is required, by inspirational visionaries. Unfortunately, the visionary leaders may not be able to break through in the current political climate: when any proposed compromise emerges, the hardliners keep resurging. These political movements are cyclical: the trick is to dampen the extent of the reaction each time. I think it’ll require a few political generations yet before a negotiated agreement is conceivably within sight. What form that may take, I couldn’t even suggest. (Unfortunately, my crystal ball was recently swallowed by a large scaly reptile.)

    In the meantime, it’s important to stop the hardline bigotry from spreading or militarising: and that involves a very delicate political dance. Either side can disrupt the process by over-reacting. The Israeli government is nationalistically paranoid and instinctively responds to threat or provocation with hugely disproportionate violence, worsening the situation every time. The rest of the world should be focusing on reining in (and reassuring!) the Israelis. Many nations have tried, but the world’s biggest military bully keeps jumping with almost unconditional support. That needs to stop.

    Shipping arms to the Palestinians is no solution at all. The inevitable result would be much more killing and injury – ultimately giving Israel an excuse to decimate the Palestinian infrastructure and oppress the population even further. It’s already happened to varying degrees several times, resulting in the present dire circumstances.

    The “solution” to conflict does not lie down the path of violence. Political resistance, yes, by all means; even external protection. But not launching counter-attacks.

    Accordingly, to anyone who advocates increasing violence while refusing to negotiate on their own ideological outcome, I say: “You’re not the solution; you’re actually the problem.”

  • technicolour

    Nextus: “Gosh! What’s the “solution” to one of the most intractable political standoffs of the modern era?”

    Fucking stop fucking killing people and fucking starving them. That’s the fucking ‘solution’.

  • Jon

    Nuid, yes, I thought it would die out. What have I done?! 🙂

    My purpose was trying to get Fedup and/or Passerby to ponder on the existence of “good Israelis” or “good Jewish people”, and that it is possible to hold such thoughts at the same time as condemning the cruelty of the occupation. But the anti-racism we might recommend for the Palestinians (Tech is entirely right that this would require the most remarkable generosity of spirit and emotional strength) must begin at home.

  • technicolour

    Well, perhaps, Jon, we’ve wandered from that onto ‘what can we do’ and I for one am way grateful for everyone’s input into this discussion, because we should be furious.

  • Jon

    @Nextus, think that we must be careful not to imply that the fault is half-and-half on either side – only one country is occupying another! That said, I am not a fan of blame – it is strongly allied to retribution, and of course the area has seen tit-for-tat reprisals on a pretty continuous basis. I hope blame can be put to one side, if possible, during negotiations.

    A Truth and Reconciliation Commission should be set up, post-peace, so that blame (in as much as it needs to be discussed) can be dissolved in the balm of public opportunities to explain what happened to ordinary people, on both sides.

  • Nextus

    @Techni: Ahem. Of course I’m well aware of the Gaza siege. It’s a case in point: a hugely disproportionate “response” from the Israelis, which inevitably worsened the situation and hardened attitudes. That pattern has to stop. What else do want me to say? It really has to fucking stop! OK. (That’s what I meant, fwiw.)

    Fucking stop fucking killing people and fucking starving them. That’s the fucking ‘solution’.

    It’s that simple, is it?? How are you going to achieve that, then? Just pop up at the border and preach the message so that people can listen and understand your superior wisdom?? Be my guest. Sadly, it won’t work.

    Stopping the killing is only part of the solution. With so much “passion” around, and people feeling mortally aggrieved that they haven’t achieved their political goals, how are you going to stop the violence kicking off again? You’ll need to change attitudes, won’t you?

  • Jon

    @technicolour – oh yes, not trying to discourage the discussion from going places – let it wander where it may! I agree, we should be furious. My criticism of Passerby was, in part, about being productively furious i.e. what should we do?

    Things like BDS – thanks Nuid – are a good step I think. Also, boycotts of Israeli abroad, such as cultural events used by the Israeli state for PR purposes. However I am in two minds about academic boycotts, as academia is often a place where dissent against (Israeli) state/propaganda can be fostered.

    I would write more, but must go to bed; suggest everyone living less than a couple of hours from the Greenwich line does so also!

  • Nextus

    Jon: “@Nextus, think that we must be careful not to imply that the fault is half-and-half on either side – only one country is occupying another!”

    Yes, absolutely. I’d be embarrassed if people thought I was recommending a half-and-half solution, although I can see why it reads that way. Sorry. It’s certainly not what I meant by “compromise”. I didn’t mean a mathematical mean or mid-way position: only bending to some degree from a position of absolute “victory”: i.e. dispossessing and exiling all Palestinians (the hardline Israeli objective) vs wiping Israel off the map (the hardline Palestinian objective). Moving away from the hardline absolute, in other words.

    A half-and-half compromise on land and borders would legitimise Israeli aggression. If no integration was possible, I think there would need to be a retreat to 1967 boundaries, and probably 1948, at the very least. But a change in attitude would be necessary as well, otherwise it would entail even greater fortification.

  • Jon

    @Nextus, no I didn’t mean that – I meant that that our language can accidentally imply that the blame for the situation is equal. Although I am sure you (or most people here) do not have such a view, the British public mostly believe it as a result of the poor quality of the broadcast/printed news they receive. (The Glasgow Media Group, recently recommended on this site by Suhayl, has done some very interesting studies on this).

    Since I think the blame lies substantially (but not entirely) with the Israelis, which is why I am in favour of removing the “blame question” from the negotiations as much as possible, and deferring it to a non-violent point after accords have been signed. It is better for immediate Palestinian security needs not to require the complete humbling of Israel, even though the Palestinians probably have a deep (and understandable) psychological need for it.

  • Nextus

    On reflection, I’m sorry for sounding so “dispassionate” and even-handed: I agree that’s highly inappropriate in this context. (Maybe this is one situation where the lack of pejorative language causes even greater offence!) Just to be clear, imho the Palestinian sense of fury and resentment is entirely justified. My tentative point is that channelling it into contrary violence (as some seemed to recommend above) would worsen the situation and lead to further death, injury and oppression. Yet what other option do the Palestinians realistically have?

    I’m all for the Israelis spontaneously undergoing a total change of policy, ending oppression, withdrawing to 1947 borders and continuing to negotiate a withdrawal, regardless of humiliation and security risks. I can’t see that happening, though, and I can’t believe anyone else is really naive enough to think it could.

    Perhaps, then, the only thing the Palestinians can do is defend themselves by launching more and fiercer counter-attacks, sourcing more arms, killing more people, prompting further retaliation, etc, in the hope that they can eventually hammer the Israelis into submission – without the US coming to their aid. Is that possible, or even conceivable? Of course not! Even if it were, it would be wholly unethical, and would hardly herald lasting world peace.

    Unless these hardline attitudes change, there will be no solution. The change can’t happen overnight. It needs vision, co-ordinated responses, and a great deal of time.

    In my view the majority of “blame” lies with the minds behind the Balfour Declaration and UN Partition Plan. From that point on, the situation gets ethically complex. Nonetheless, Israel has been by far the greatest aggressor and oppressor, and the US shoulders a heavy responsibility for influencing Israeli policy. To be more outspoken, I think that anyone voluntarily espousing the label “Zionist” is by definition a hardline bigot (aka “fuckwit”, arguably). Moreover, Jewish settlers are complicit in an aggressive and illegal landgrab. I also think people who vote for Likud and Shas are (at best) morally misguided. The same can be said about Kadima’s “forward-thinking” plans to reinforce internal borders within which they can crack down with even greater exclusion and security measures, all the while strangling and starving the Palestianians. So, yes, I think the moral compass strongly favours the Palestinian position. Unfortunately, it doesn’t necessarily point to a practical solution. Trying to push in that direction using military force, backed by Hizbollah and Iran, would only cause further havoc and destruction across the world stage. That way lies armageddon.

    I appreciate the mere suggestion of any other way forward could injure emotional sensitivities and prompt a slanging match. I’ve found the discussion useful so far, but maybe there are more appropriate forums.

  • Steve Cook

    “@Nextus

    ….The Israeli government is nationalistically paranoid and instinctively responds to threat or provocation with hugely disproportionate violence, worsening the situation every time. The rest of the world should be focusing on reining in (and reassuring!) the Israelis…”

    You’re kidding, right?

    The problem with successive Israeli governments is not their nationalistic, paranoid response to provocation (though all of that is undoubtably true). The problem with successive Israeli governments is that they keep stealing (and continue to steal) other people’s land and key resources.

    The have been reassured for over 70 years. Ther simple truth is they must be stopped and whether that happens depends on changes in the policies of some very big global players. To date, there has been no sign of that.

  • Steve Cook

    Nextus, I have just subsequently read your later qualifications to that post and so I’d like to temper my initial response to it (above) in light of those later readings.

  • nuid

    “whether that happens depends on changes in the policies of some very big global players”

    No, Steve, not necessarily. The main point about BDS is that it is not controlled by governments, can’t be stopped by governments, and doesn’t depend on governments anywhere, outside of Israel. It’s a movement of ordinary people and depends on ordinary people. In fact, wasn’t there a crazy law passed in Israel only recently forbidding the “good Israelis” that Jon talks about from taking part in a boycott? How they’ll enforce that law is another question entirely.

    “The Israeli establishment is growing increasingly concerned with the growth of the BDS movement. Israeli President Shimon Peres recently cited fear of the impacts of BDS as a reason to “make peace”. Meanwhile, top Israeli business leaders have launched their own “peace initative” out of fear of the impact of BDS. Some Zionist leaders are also starting to call for change in Israeli policies out of fear of BDS. The leading Israeli think tank the Reut Institute has spoken of BDS as a “strategic threat”, prompting the Israeli government to pass a draconian law forbidding any citizen from supporting BDS or any partial boycott. There is a real and growing fear within Israel that it is becoming a pariah state in the way that South Africa once was.”

    Occupied Palestine, 9 July 2012

    http://www.bdsmovement.net/2012/bds-at-7-9206

    (further links in the text there)

  • nuid

    “Shipping arms to the Palestinians is no solution at all. The inevitable result would be much more killing and injury” — Nextus

    That would be my thinking too. Anyone getting involved in sending arms to the Palestinians could be the cause of another Cast Lead. Worse, even. I would think that promoting BDS would be far more productive, and of far less risk to the Palestinian people.

  • DoNNyDarKo

    The IDF bravely defending Israel once again. Not content with cleansing the population & olive trees , sheep have also become targets.
    http://www.imemc.org/article/64170

    What is going on in Palestine is a 60 – 70 year genocide. What Balfour declared and the UN mandated has long been forgotten along with the Oslo accords.The Palestinians have been disposessed of what was left to them in 1947 under the watchful eye of the US controlled UN.
    Arming the Palestinians wouldn’t help as long as they are fighting both the US and racist Israel.
    Israel need to be disposessed of what they have stolen and the Palestinians permitted to build a land for their people without restriction. Why the UN does not feel that Palestinians deserve human dignity I don’t know. The same reasons they don’t feel it necessary to sanction Israel for their crimes against humanity and unwillingness to become a civilised nation.
    Gaza and the West bank have become reservations for the indigenous population and will ultimately suffer the same fate as the American Indian, whilst israel demolishes the past and removes the evidence that they existed.

  • technicolour

    “Shipping arms to the Palestinians is no solution at all. The inevitable result would be much more killing and injury” — Nextus

    Can’t see how it wouldn’t be, either. Thanks, Nextus and Nuid.

    Steve, South Africa managed to kick out their murderous elite. Sanctions were part of the answer there.

  • Jon

    @Nextus, thanks. I agree entirely that Israel won’t undergo a spontaneous change of mind – I think this will have to come through increased pressure from the global citizenry, perhaps in the same way as apartheid fell. As Nuid says, boycotts and other movements that are not controlled by governments may be able to lead the way morally. The US/UK establishments would be (on present form at least) the last to ‘see the light’, but if the worldwide pressure is strong enough, they might have to eventually.

    I totally agree about non-violent solutions in the political context. Any attempts at concerted military aggression against Israel would play into the hands of the Israeli propagandists who shout about ‘wiping off maps’, even if the military objectives were just the 67 or 48 borders. Their certain military response needs to be factored in, and it would kill many innocent people.

    On boycotts, one of the criticisms of them is that the targets are not asked whether they agree with them (they can in theory wreak economic damage upon the people who the movement claims to be fighting for). However I seem to remember reading that in the case of BDS, such a consultation had been done, and the answer from Palestinian groups was that yes, it was worth trying. Can you shed any light on this, Nuid?

  • Steve Cook

    @Technicolour

    “Shipping arms to the Palestinians is no solution at all. The inevitable result would be much more killing and injury” — Nextus

    Can’t see how it wouldn’t be, either. Thanks, Nextus and Nuid.

    Steve, South Africa managed to kick out their murderous elite. Sanctions were part of the answer there.”

    I agree, sanction are definitely an important part of bringing a rouge state to heel. Which is why the USA-driven UN has never backed their use with Israel as far as I know.

  • Steve Cook

    The bottom line is that the Israeli government will do precisely shit to change its ways in response to the pleadings of Western liberals just so long as it can be sure that Western governments will back it. Therefore, the only way that Israel will alter course is if those Western governments change their backing of it. Thererfore, if we want to change Israel’s policies we have to change the policies of our own governments. And they are not going to do that unless we force their backs firmly against the wall or unless some other geopolitical factor casues them to re-assess their position.

1 27 28 29 30