In a 214-page book on the ideology and roots of Islamic totalitarianism, in
which he bitterly condemns a range of Muslim targets and sections of the
European Left, the self-described liberal Paul Berman devotes precisely two
lines to suggesting that America should act against the manias of the
ultra- Right in Israel. Elsewhere, he espouses without qualification the
view that all blame for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process in 200001 lies with the Palestinians.(10)
With such uneven treatment of the Israeli-Palestine issue, these writers
discredit themselves in the eyes of Muslims and Europeans, and worse. By
suggesting to Muslims and others that on this issue, liberal intellectuals
in the United Statesthe supposed role model of international democracyare
motivated not by genuine democratic idealism but by ethnic chauvinism, they
undermine not only American prestige in the world but the democratic model
they are seeking to propagate.
Unfortunately, this mixture of belief in spreading democracy with the
worship of American national power has proved exceptionally appealing to a
large number of leading American intellectuals who still vote Democrat and
regard themselves as liberal internationalists. Their merging with the
neoconservatives has also been facilitated by the fact that the quagmire in
Iraq has made the neoconservatives themselves somewhat more moderate.
The result is an effective consensus that spans dominant elements of both
main parties, which sharply restricts debate within the United States. In
consequence, while the debacle in Iraq has made Washington more cautious,
it has not necessarily made it any wiser. And if there were to be another
terrorist attack like 9/11, there would be a strong risk of the United
States reacting in the same way.
full: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2928
--
www.marxmail.org
