OPINION & EDITORIAL
Cherry-picking in selective liberalism
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Fayyad Sbaihat:
- Two-state option not viable for Palestine (April 7, 2005)
- American media is in need of reform (April 21, 2005)
- Alliance of misinformed, morally bankrupt supporting Israel (May 5, 2005)
- John Bolton-wrong man for UN ambassador job (March 17, 2005)
- Board of Regents must support divestment (March 3, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Not time for Democrats to waiver after loss (November 11, 2004)
- Democrats choose wisely with Dean (February 17, 2005)
- A Kool compromise (October 19, 2007)
- Democrats wimp out, change little (October 10, 2007)
- Bush erodes civilian military command (March 28, 2007)
by Fayyad Sbaihat
Thursday, December 2, 2004
Democrats must still be in awe over the hard blow that was dealt to them by America on Nov. 2. Understandably, it was strong one, and long time is needed for recovery. To those who may be trying to understand why, here is an opinion: Democrats sold out.
Instead of taking a steadfast stand on the principles that have defined the party for decades, democrats tiptoed around the issues, picking some and dropping others. In the midst of trying to satisfy special-interest groups, they lost their path, confused their base of support, and for the most part, they appeared to be catering to Israel supporters.
The Democrats’ mortal sin is one that many liberals have committed. I call it selective liberalism: standing up for true liberal principles of justice, peace, equality, human and civil rights almost everywhere until it comes to Israel and Palestine, and liberals find themselves in a sudden harmony with George W. Bush, his hawks, and their cohorts of the David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes likes.
Traditionally, the Democratic Party opposed war, particularly unjustified war. However, they caved in and voted in favor of the Iraq war. To put things in perspective, the flawed intelligence of which the pretext for the war consisted was largely Israeli-sourced. And the main hawks advocating the war, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle and Dough Feith among others, are known for their prominence in the pro-Israeli lobbying establishment before their links to the U.S. government. Some, like Pearle, have been indicted of spying on the United States for Israel.
The Democratic Party’s unconditional support for Israel over the years, in the hope of garnering the Jewish vote, flies in the face of its ideals, as this support includes an implicit rejection of the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Convention on Human Rights, international law and basic human and civil needs of Palestinians, including rights to food and education. Yet, it was not until the Democrats moved against the will of their constituents in their support for the war, that they paid for their ignorance so dearly.
The Democratic defeat in the 2000 presidential elections is by no means as humiliating as this year’s. But it should go into history books as the great missed warning sign. The liberal vote went to a third-party candidate, a reminder to the Democrats that they no longer represented their true liberal values. The warning should have served to bring the democrats back to what they stood for, and they almost did, when the nomination of Howard Dean as a presidential candidate seemed imminent.
Dean was the party’s true choice, particularly of its young supporters, who looked toward a bright new future. But his solid opposition to the war and judicious view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict made him an unpopular candidate among the unprincipled leadership of the party and the mass media. Despite his wide public support, he was painted as a lunatic monster in the days of the first state caucuses, eliminating his chances in receiving the nomination.
The flip-flop charge against Kerry is not fictional. He need not vote for and against the war to acquire it; his vote for the war is against the party’s ideals and the voice of his constituents. The Democrats did not miss this fact, but they miscalculated as they assumed they could take for granted the liberal vote, on the account that they are not Bush, and appeal to the center. Well, however hard they tried, they couldn’t out-hawk the hawks. Betrayed, the liberal vote stayed home.
Over his eight years in office, Bill Clinton failed to facilitate a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians because he hesitated to take to the core of the issue, occupation, and solve the problem at the root, for that may have upset his Jewish constituents. He won his second term that way but caused an ever-growing frustration with the Democratic Party.
Florida, the battleground state with the largest “Jewish vote,” did not buy into the Democrats’ claims, and being largely in favor of the war, it voted for the war party. The Democrats lost the bargain; it remains a mystery, however, whether they will accept the truth or ignorantly repeat the same mistake.
There is more freedom to criticize Israel within Israel than there is in the United States. This cycle must be broken out of, and liberals as well as Democrats must be unwavering in their position on their principles. Those who support the human rights of blacks under apartheid, East Timorese, Tibetans and refugees in Darfur, must also stand for the human rights of the Palestinians.
Fayyad Sbaihat (frsbaihat@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in chemical engineering.
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 6:25am):
"The Democrats' mortal sin is one that many liberals have committed. I call it selective liberalism: standing up for true liberal principles of justice, peace, equality, human and civil rights almost everywhere until it comes to Israel and Palestine, and liberals find themselves in a sudden harmony with George W. Bush, his hawks, and their cohorts of the David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes likes."
What? How about standing up for the liberal idea that IT'S WRONG TO BOMB INNOCENT CIVILIANS INTENTIONALLY? How about the liberal idea that PALESTINIAN LEADERS SHOULDN'T LIVE LIKE KINGS BY EMBEZZLING ALL THE FOREIGN AID WHILE THEIR PEOPLE LANGUISH IN POVERTY?
"The Democratic Party's unconditional support for Israel over the years, in the hope of garnering the Jewish vote, flies in the face of its ideals, as this support includes an implicit rejection of the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Convention on Human Rights, international law and basic human and civil needs of Palestinians, including rights to food and education. Yet, it was not until the Democrats moved against the will of their constituents in their support for the war, that they paid for their ignorance so dearly."
Oh, please! Jews vote Democratic because they believe in helping the poor, separation of Church and State, and strong public educational systems, all of which the Republican Party has opposed traditionally. Meanwhile, it is George W. Bush and company who oppose the UN and all it stands for, while Democrats demand giving it consideration. It is the Palestinians who violate the Geneva Conventions by transporting suicide bombers in ambulances, hiding their self-proclaimed soldiers and their weapons in mosques, schools, hospitals, and other places likely to cause massive casualties among innocent civilians. It is the Palestinians who write in their textbooks that all Jews (not just Israelis) deserve to die. And it is the leaders of the Palestinians who keep their people in poverty, while siphoning off all foreign aid to their own Swiss bank accounts -- how else does Suha Arafat get $22 million a month and a luxury apartment in Paris while the average Palestinian survives on a few hundred dollars a year?
"Dean was the party's true choice, particularly of its young supporters, who looked toward a bright new future."
Are you familiar with the primary process? Dean didn't even come close to winning a single primary, with the exception of Vermont. That means that Democrats strongly preferred OTHER CANDIDATES -- not just the party leaders, but rank and file Democrats too. After all, in the primaries, their votes count just as much.
"Florida, the battleground state with the largest "Jewish vote," did not buy into the Democrats' claims, and being largely in favor of the war, it voted for the war party."
Fayyad, you're an idiot. There are more Jews in both New York and California than in Florida, and both those states voted for Kerry. And in any case, about 3/4 of American Jews voted for Kerry, compared with about 20% for Bush, and that trend was consistent even in Florida.
"Those who support the human rights of blacks under apartheid, East Timorese, Tibetans and refugees in Darfur, must also stand for the human rights of the Palestinians."
And the human rights of Israelis? You clearly stand opposed to their human rights. You clearly stand with those who want to kill all Israelis. Your twisted logic in this article demonstrates that you are in no position to report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in any objective manner. Your "facts" are merely opinions dressed up in hateful rhetoric.
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 8:05am):
Good article, and I agree with the concept of a Democratic party sellout. I think it's important, however, that Palestinian activists make it clear that being a Zionist today is, in fact, against the interest of the Jewish people.
I know that many of my fellow Jews have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that could be construed as remotely anti-Israel, while in fact the maintenance of the Israeli state under its current neofascist Likud bloc regime is polarizing the middle east against the Jews. It may sound like completely idealistic bullcrap, but it is possible for Jews and Muslims to coexist peacefully (and very successfully) in the middle east. However, the last time that happened was before the era of Western imperialism, the force that is truly tearing apart that area of the world.
Judaism abhorrs the concept of hate and discrimination, after all we have been victims of it for centuries. What the hawkish members of the Israeli community are doing is incredibly racist and shows that they obviously have not learned from their recent past. It was so hard for me to admit to myself that someone who practices the Jewish faith could be so hateful against an entire people, however it is the politics of fear that polarize both the Israelis and the Palestinians against one another and fuel intense hatred on both sides.
I don't want to see any more deaths in Israel/Palestine, and I'm sure no one on either side (and I hate referring to it as "sides", we are all human beings after all) wants to see more death either. However as long as they allow their leaders to rally them around a flag of hatred and fear, the killing will continue.
-Lydia Barbash-Riley
barbashriley@wisc.edu
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 8:11am):
"I don't want to see any more deaths in Israel/Palestine, and I'm sure no one on either side (and I hate referring to it as "sides", we are all human beings after all) wants to see more death either."
Really? Is that why Hamas calls for genocide against Jews? Or why the Palestinian Authority charter still calls for all the Jews to be driven into the see? Or why Palestinian schools and mosques still encourage children to participate in "martyrdom" operations?
lenny sheps (December 2, 2004 @ 1:40pm):
What did Sbaihat do to become a staff writer at this paper? He never discusses anything else. From the paper's point of view he can't be a good asset, since it's clear that he only does one thing - rant against Israel. Serious readers have got to be turned off by this - both because they desire variety in opinion pieces, and because his accusations and conspiracy theories are so preposterous.
There's no way to respond to his nauseating drivel rationally, just as you can't argue rationally with a lunatic. But he's no lunatic. He cunningly plays on the liberal frustration to further his single-minded agenda: to deny Israel's legitimacy and to paint the Jews as the wicked force behind all the evils of the world. He's a part of a well-oiled propaganda campaign. They hold conferences and go to workshops, where they strategize how best to turn the Worlds opinion against a tiny country in the Middle East and against a tiny nation. And all along they hope and wait for the day they can finally erase Jews from Earth with impunity.
I think the Herald would benefit from looking for less radical staff writers.
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 3:56pm):
fascinating. absolutely fascinating. Zionists claiming that the Palestine Solidarity Movement is a "well-oiled propaganda campaign"? Then what the hell do you call the Israeli military? "Well-oiled" works on far too many levels to allow Sheps to keep it for his own campaign. Yes. I like that. The Well-Oiled Israeli Military - the killing machine that never rusts. It's Perfect.
If Sheps can't handle an anti-Zionist opinion once every two weeks then Sheps clearly has never been to Israel. At least in Israel there is accepted public debate about the character of the Israeli state. There is more openness to discussion of the Palestinian liberation movement (and that's what it is... no matter which side you're on) in the Israeli press than in the American press, by any measure.
If you think that Sbaihat's article was too "radical" for the Badger Herald then try looking at the Op-page editor's filth published today as well. Sbaihat called for the Democratic Party to tack away from the hard Right Zionist movement... not exactly revolutionary Sheps. But Mac called Gay sex tantamount to incest.
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 3:59pm):
Zionism is racist, from love-me-i'm-a-liberal-can't-we-just-go-back-to-1967-borders liberal zionist to the most reactionary "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population"-Zionists (That's from the Koenig Report... but most Zionists haven't read it... it's easier that way... ignorance is bliss)
One state, equal rights for all. that's the goal... no peace until we get it.
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 4:47pm):
What the hell are you smiling at? Jerk..
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 4:49pm):
Sheps, Did you read the last paragraph? it claims that it's Ok to cretcize Israel in Israel, but too many people jump to say that doing say is taboo in the US, how silly.
Oh, wait, that's what you are doing.
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 5:15pm):
You are doing no different than what you claim the Zionist conspiracy in the US is doing by saying that the Zionists in the US can not speak out against anti-Zionism. You arent promoting free speech by saying you can only say things against Israel. You are promoting free speech when you quit backing people like Lenny Sheps into a corner everytime he voices his pro-Israel opinion.
PS: The Israeli military is not "well-oiled." The Palestinians and the Arab nations are "well-oiled" because they are the ones who control the global economy with their monopoloy over the world's energy....Just showing how it is not a liberal stance to support the Saudis and their pawns (the Palestinians) because it is the Saudis who control the economy of the world and it is Israel who is stuck in the middle of that Islamic fundamentalist hell-hole.
By no means are the Arabs the under-dog in this conflict.
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 5:17pm):
Fayyad, you have consistently made a well-grounded case for giving up on the Palestinians. The rest of the Arab world doesn't care about them. They just want the Palestinians to stay in Israel to be a thorn in the side of Jews, just so they can have something to bitch about.
Another thing: Since Israel is the only thing you can write about, it's obvious that you have a one-track mind. The truth is most people see no reason to give a shit about the Palestinians because they consider it an unworthy cause. Why go to bat for a bunch of terrorists? The Palestinians raise their kids to hate Jews and Allah-knows-who-else. Give us one good reason why we should care about them. One good reason, pal!
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 6:16pm):
"The Palestinians raise their kids to hate Jews and Allah-knows-who-else."
How about Americans? When the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were burning and thousands of innocent Americans were being murdered, Reuters news teams -- no friends of Israel or America themselves -- filmed scores of Palestinians dancing in celebration in the streets. The Palestinian security services then threatened the lives of the Reuters crews, who had to flee the country.
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 10:36pm):
Lenny
Get a grip dude. No one wants to erase the Jews from the Earth as you're saying. If you bother reading about what Fayyad is working for, it's mostly about creating a bi-national state... a state for two peoples. But this cannot happen while the Palestinians are living miserabley under an occupation that has been going on for 37 years and their human rights are denied. So anyone can see that Israel (NOT the Jews) is an evil that has to be dealt with. And Israel has no legitimacy to occupy a nation and take their land for building settlements for Israelis. The Israelis came from Europe and needed a place away from oppression, that's fine. No one is telling them to go anywhere. But to take the land of people who were already there, that is not legitimate. Finally, you complain about Sbaihat "never" discussing anything else. First of all, that's what activists do, fight for a certain cause. Plus, have you read his article on stem cell research? I didn't think so.
Anonymous (December 2, 2004 @ 11:07pm):
"The truth is most people see no reason to give a shit about the Palestinians because they consider it an unworthy cause."
Whoever said this, think about the Jews when they were oppressd in Europe and imagine if someone said something like this about them, how would you feel? You should walk around with a white hood on your head, burn a couple of crosses here and there, because what you said is a good indication of your belief that a group of people is not as worthy as humans than others, which makes you another Hitler. As for your claim that Palestinians raise their kids to hate Jews (in Israel), this just makes me laugh. When a child is born under a brutal occupation that treats his people like animals, you think he needs someone to teach him haterade? They learn it on their own from their life experience. Do you think a black kid over 50 years ago (and to a lesser extend today) needed to "learn" to hate the white man? No, they lived and saw how the blacks where treated and they learned how to hate on their own. That's what you get when you have oppression. And by the way, go check the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, weekly supplement, Sept. 20, 1974, titled "Israeli Hate Literature for Children" in which the editor shows how these books encourage hate and contempt for Palestinians. And that was back in '74. There are also Israeli psychology professors who wrote articles on the animosity the Israeli kids are being taught towards Arabs in general. So before you throw comments like that, go educate yourself on some of these issues instead of being so subjective about them.
lenny sheps (December 3, 2004 @ 4:18pm):
Interesting, indeed. So many accusations, I don't know who to respond to.
Number one, I have been to Israel. I have relatives that are serving in the IDF right now, and I can tell you, they are no killing machines. They tell me about how they are getting shot at from darkened windows, and in most cases they are not allowed to respond, because the rest of the world will consider it "disproportionate".
Number two, I'm fine with criticizing Israel. However, if you read Sbaihats article again, you'll notice that he is implying that Israel is to blame for the Iraq war. That's not criticism, that's libel. Also, he says in multiple places that the US Jews are responsible for things like the failure of the Democratic Party and (again) the Iraq war. This is not criticism - this is a vile lie. Sbaihat has used similar statements in the past, basically saying that Jews control the US and everyone suffers for it. I can't accept that kind of insinuation as legitimate debate - on the contrary, it shows hateful and malicious intent.
Number three, whatever incitement is present in Israel, it pales in comparison to the incitement coming from the Palestinians and much of the Arab World. Again, this is not just my opinion, it's an easily checked fact. The Arab press, TV, religious sermons, and books are full of Jew-hatred of the worst kind. Google Palestine Media Watch for lots of examples. From personal experience I can tell you, there is nothing even close to that in Israel.
Number four, when you talk about European Jews occupying someone elses land, please recall that they fought and won no less than five major defensive wars in as many decades, besides constant and sustained harrassment from all the borders. There must be a penalty for attacking a country, like the Arabs did multiple times.
Someone told me to "get a grip, dude", because "no one wants to erase the Jews from the Earth". Well, open your eyes and ears. The Arabs are trying to tell you something. From the PLO charter to Arafat's heated "we know only one word - jihad, jihad, jihad", to the infamous 3 NOs (no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no peace with Israel), they are not hiding it. Go to www.memri.org and look up the friday sermons from the official Palestinian TV. All you have to do is to listen to what they are saying instead of burying your head in the sand.
Anonymous (December 5, 2004 @ 12:01pm):
memri is a covert ops website that was made by Israeli intelligence officers.
You want real understanding, check out www.ifamericansknew.org
lenny sheps (December 5, 2004 @ 10:29pm):
please, don't make me laugh. Memri is not a covert anything. They don't make this stuff up, the Friday sermons are on tape, along with a multitude of other material.
As for the the ifamericansknew, it's a joke. So what if 65 UN resolutions target Israel? There has never been a body so one-sided and biased as the UN. This is the organization that refuses to deal with Darfur, refused to deal with Rwanda, when a real genocide happened. This is the organization that lets the worst human rights abusers sit on the comission for Human rights.
Anonymous (December 27, 2004 @ 2:09pm):
Fayyad Sbaihat'S COLUMN ON CHERRY PICKING LIBERAL ISSUES TO SUPPORT IS INCORRECT IN ALMOST EVERY DETAIL. LET ME ADDRESS JUST THREE. HIS ASSERTION THAT "LIBERALISM" REQUIRES ONE TO SUPPORT PALESTINIAN ARAB TERRORISM AND MASS MURDERER OVER DEMOCRATIC, TOLERANT, MUTLTI CULTURAL, MULTI ETHNIC AND MULTI RELIGIOUS ISRAEL IS A PERVERSION OF THE VERY CONCEPT OF LIBERALISM. HIS ASSERTION THAT THE CURE FOR SUCH PALESTINIAN ARAB TERRORISM AND MASS MURDER IS TO END THE "OCCUPATION", WHILE NEGLECTING TO MENTION THAT SUCH TERRORISM AND MASS MURDER LONG PRECEDED ANY OCCUPATION, THAT THE OCCUPATION HAD ESSENTIALLY ENDED PRIOR TO THE LATEST INTIFADA AND THAT THE ITIFADA ITSELF REQUIRED A "REOCCUPATION" OF PLACES FROM WHICH ISRAEL HAD WITHDRAWN, IS YET ANOTHER DECEIT. FINALLY, THE TRULY BIZARRE ASSERTION THAT MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GEORGE BUSH THAN JOHN KERRY BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY PRO PALESTINIAN. IS THE COROLARY THERE THAT PEOPLE VOTED FOR GEORGE BUSH BECAUSE HE WAS SUFFICIENTLY PRO PALSETINIAN. GIBBERISH. INDEED, HIS FACTS ARE INCORRECT OR SIMPLY MADE UP. HIS ANALYSIS IS ILLOGOICAL AT BEST AND HIS CONCLUSIONS ARE DEAD WRONG. WE ARE LEFT SOLELY WITH ANASSERTION OF HIS OWN OPINION THAT HE FAVORS "PALESTINE" AND DOES NOT FAVOR ISRAEL OR AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL. SO WHAT?
KENNETH PERLMAN
CHICAGO
Anonymous (December 27, 2004 @ 2:10pm):
Fayyad Sbaihat'S COLUMN ON CHERRY PICKING LIBERAL ISSUES TO SUPPORT IS INCORRECT IN ALMOST EVERY DETAIL. LET ME ADDRESS JUST THREE. HIS ASSERTION THAT "LIBERALISM" REQUIRES ONE TO SUPPORT PALESTINIAN ARAB TERRORISM AND MASS MURDERER OVER DEMOCRATIC, TOLERANT, MUTLTI CULTURAL, MULTI ETHNIC AND MULTI RELIGIOUS ISRAEL IS A PERVERSION OF THE VERY CONCEPT OF LIBERALISM. HIS ASSERTION THAT THE CURE FOR SUCH PALESTINIAN ARAB TERRORISM AND MASS MURDER IS TO END THE "OCCUPATION", WHILE NEGLECTING TO MENTION THAT SUCH TERRORISM AND MASS MURDER LONG PRECEDED ANY OCCUPATION, THAT THE OCCUPATION HAD ESSENTIALLY ENDED PRIOR TO THE LATEST INTIFADA AND THAT THE ITIFADA ITSELF REQUIRED A "REOCCUPATION" OF PLACES FROM WHICH ISRAEL HAD WITHDRAWN, IS YET ANOTHER DECEIT. FINALLY, THE TRULY BIZARRE ASSERTION THAT MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GEORGE BUSH THAN JOHN KERRY BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY PRO PALESTINIAN. IS THE COROLARY THERE THAT PEOPLE VOTED FOR GEORGE BUSH BECAUSE HE WAS SUFFICIENTLY PRO PALSETINIAN. GIBBERISH. INDEED, HIS FACTS ARE INCORRECT OR SIMPLY MADE UP. HIS ANALYSIS IS ILLOGOICAL AT BEST AND HIS CONCLUSIONS ARE DEAD WRONG. WE ARE LEFT SOLELY WITH ANASSERTION OF HIS OWN OPINION THAT HE FAVORS "PALESTINE" AND DOES NOT FAVOR ISRAEL OR AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL. SO WHAT?
KENNETH PERLMAN
CHICAGO
Anonymous (December 27, 2004 @ 2:22pm):
Fayyad and his band of terrorist loving friends are planning on meeting some time over winter break on our campus, despite the administration's claims to the contrary. Don't let these bastards abuse our university the way they did Rutgers, Michigan, and Duke!
Anonymous (January 7, 2005 @ 8:20pm):
Where exactly is "Palestine?" Oh, that's right it doesn't exist just like a "Palestinian" people don't exist. What is the "Palestinian" language, culture, or society? Everyone should wake up to the fact that the Arabs made up a phony "Palestinian" people to steal land from the Jews.
The Jews are the only real indigenous people of Israel. There is tons of archeological evidence to show this is true. Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" should stop lying and accept to live in peace with the Jews or go back to their homeland of Arabia.
I'n not Jewish but I'm an indgenous person of America who supports the only indigenoous people in the world whose land is being stolen with help from world leaders.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/palestine.htm
Anonymous (February 14, 2005 @ 7:42pm):
Making any subject a sacred cow makes it more difficult to solve any problems related to it. Criticism of Israel is considered anti-semitic in this country, just as any criticism of the war in Iraq is considered unpatriotic. It's a great way to cut off discussion, but it doesn't help solve anything.
