I kinda forgot about this series of blog posts, but luckily, reality didn't forget about me. The latest less-than-good-faith-fest began with a post from erstwhile House candidate Kat Abughazaleh:
To be clear, the statement from Abughazaleh (who is of Palestinian descent) is both clearly earnest and correct. Now that the previously hegemonic bipartisan support for Israel is no more, the most infamous organization in the Israel lobby has changed the bulk of their tactics from classical lobbying to campaign finance. And because they're smart enough to understand their growing unpopularity, they have employed varying methods depending on the situation to further their ends. In the case of the Michigan primary mentioned above, it's a classic two-horse race, which has allowed AIPAC to go all-in on the unabashedly Zionist candidate. The relative complexity of Abughazaleh's race led to different tactics, where the primary focus of their effort was multiple smaller actions that all served to minimize her chances of winning. In these and many other such instances AIPAC is hardly alone in trying to use large reserves of cash to buy elections in the broader interests of the capital class. But when Palestine is a particularly salient issue in a given race, it's clear that AIPAC goes the extra mile to enforce their will.
As you might expect, many of the squishier liberals who opposed Abughazaleh's campaign took issue with this. These objections came in two basic flavors. One of these was barely indistinguishable from gutter racism:
As is generally the case with racism (and most all reactionary thought), the foundations of such thought are based on rank ignorance. Resnikoff's clarification ("they did not") makes it clear that he disagrees with the plain reality of AIPAC influence on Abughazaleh's candidacy. Because he either denies this reality wholesale or is simply ignorant and does not seek to investigate further, all he is left with is accusing her of something far more pernicious than making a simple factual statement. In turn, I am not sure how I am supposed to interpret this unless we judge Resnikoff as making racist assumptions about someone of Palestinian descent.
The other flavor of this objection was less obviously disgusting, but perhaps more insidious. I will give you two guesses who was in this camp (but you'll only need one):
There is some of the same ignorance of reality displayed by Resnikoff here, but Stancil is more careful with his words and at least avoids accusing Abughazaleh of anything specific (or even mentioning her directly). Still, there is an appeal to suspicion here that any mention of the actions of an organization that Stancil admits is bad is itself cause for concern. It's a case of taking the heckler's veto to the extreme by making up a heckler to be afraid of, and then getting mad at someone else because you got scared. This sort of attitude is ultimately self-defeating not just because it seeks to stop you from saying what you mean, but because it performs its own sort of soft denialism, where the supposedly wrong word choice of those opposing genocide is rendered more meaningful than the actions of the genocidal state itself.
In the end, I don't expect Resnikoff, Stancil, or any of the other luminaries of public thought I've detailed in this series to change their ways. As long as there is an ascendant left, those opposed to such a political current will continue to oppose it in ever more tortured ways. What I do ask of those on the left is to understand that you will always be subject to these appeals to suspicion from your political enemies, and as such, to act accordingly. Tell the truth, plainly and clearly, and don't let the bastards get to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment