Saturday, August 05, 2006
Islamophobia?
Mato Ska of New Mexico sent a note to the Green National Committee, copied behind the "Read more!" link, in which he says that supporters of Islamic fundamentalists must accept the truth about their agendas and tactics. What do you think?
As the recent events in Lebanon demonstrate, the GPUS is hardly in a position to define for the US a diplomatic solution. The provocations and assaults by Hezbollah and the Israeli responses are oblivious to any and all efforts in international diplomacy. The reactionary Islamic Republic of Iran continues to feed the fires of religious war and continues to lead the world closer to an international conflict in the region. We could stand to learn from the international statements of the Green Party of Iran and the Green Party of Israel, but instead many prefer to make this issue the keystone issue in defining the GPUS. This is fraught with many consequences for the future. Aligning with non-Greens politically re-defines our own role and unity with Greens around the world, and presumes greater wisdom and common values with political parties other then Greens in the world. The current positions being promoted by the GPUS on the Middle East are clearly at variance with the position approved by the Global Greens in 2002 put forward by the GPUS .
For one it promotes an Islamist political agenda on the GPUS, without analyses or definition of the political forces in the region. For another, it does not define a position that is clearly reflective of Green voters, but succumbs to the positions of a few activists and the positions of advocacy groups. Finally, it does not attempt to define what the role of the US should be in the current situation in a comprehensive manner. The US has delivered weapons but has not intervened in the conflict. It appears as though there are some who are advocating US military intervention in defense of Hezbollah, or at the least fail to address the issue with a premise that
the most recent provocations were in fact initiated by Hezbollah. There is no question that there is much to be said about Israel's over-reaction. But, there is in the unstated premise of a one-state solution an underlying agreement with the rejection of the state of Israel. I have worked to support the Palestinian struggle long enough to recognize the justice of its demands for land, democratic rights and national independence. I have also been able to see in recent years the array of agendas and personalities within political Islamism and have willingly accepted the imperative to make decisions based on their program and agenda.
It is not only naive to disregard the political character of those who promote a religious war between Jews and Moslems, it irresponsible to feign ignorance as to the consequences of a victory for the warlords and mullahs. No, this is not Islamo-fascism. It is Shari'a and it deserves not an ounce of support, critical or otherwise from Greens. The effort to define an underdog or to oppose the imperial policies of the US are all well and good. Unless the proposition becomes the support for tyrannical despots, whether Franco in Spain or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In that case, it is consistent with our struggle to promote human rights around the world to include in all our public conversations and positions the critique of political Islamists and a more considered appraisal of the consequences of international support for them.
Reflexive responses opposing US foreign policy cannot begin to adequately address the complexities in the region. The statement by Joschka Fischer has delineated a vision of a Green policy in the diplomatic arena. The response of some to just write off Fischer's statement because it does not match up to their preconceived configuration of the region simply negates the willingness to move beyond a sect mentality in which PC obfuscates any conversation. One need not agree with all elements to it, but to negate its contribution to the international discussion is to go back to a period when the "left" sects dominated discussions in the US on international policies and negated the development of any opposition political party and to fail to look at both the situation in the Middle East and the Green Party's own bases of support as guides to our policy formulation. Somehow, the EU Greens felt sufficiently confident of Fischer's credentials, as a former Foreign Minister of Germany, and abilities that they recommended him as a mediator in the conflict. And our wisdom and experience in the international arena comes from ....where exactly?
It is time to pull back and stay within our own reach. We are moving closer to the precipice of the party's demise with our presumptions and erroneous characterizations. Is it really worth the damage now being wrought? What will it do to resolve the conflict? What will it do to promote peace? What will it do to demonstrate the capacity of the GPUS to lead the American government for a better future for the world?
Mato Ska
Delegate
NMGP
On a personal note, Mato Ska used to answer my email when I was supporting his positions. Not so much now.
As the recent events in Lebanon demonstrate, the GPUS is hardly in a position to define for the US a diplomatic solution. The provocations and assaults by Hezbollah and the Israeli responses are oblivious to any and all efforts in international diplomacy. The reactionary Islamic Republic of Iran continues to feed the fires of religious war and continues to lead the world closer to an international conflict in the region. We could stand to learn from the international statements of the Green Party of Iran and the Green Party of Israel, but instead many prefer to make this issue the keystone issue in defining the GPUS. This is fraught with many consequences for the future. Aligning with non-Greens politically re-defines our own role and unity with Greens around the world, and presumes greater wisdom and common values with political parties other then Greens in the world. The current positions being promoted by the GPUS on the Middle East are clearly at variance with the position approved by the Global Greens in 2002 put forward by the GPUS .
For one it promotes an Islamist political agenda on the GPUS, without analyses or definition of the political forces in the region. For another, it does not define a position that is clearly reflective of Green voters, but succumbs to the positions of a few activists and the positions of advocacy groups. Finally, it does not attempt to define what the role of the US should be in the current situation in a comprehensive manner. The US has delivered weapons but has not intervened in the conflict. It appears as though there are some who are advocating US military intervention in defense of Hezbollah, or at the least fail to address the issue with a premise that
the most recent provocations were in fact initiated by Hezbollah. There is no question that there is much to be said about Israel's over-reaction. But, there is in the unstated premise of a one-state solution an underlying agreement with the rejection of the state of Israel. I have worked to support the Palestinian struggle long enough to recognize the justice of its demands for land, democratic rights and national independence. I have also been able to see in recent years the array of agendas and personalities within political Islamism and have willingly accepted the imperative to make decisions based on their program and agenda.
It is not only naive to disregard the political character of those who promote a religious war between Jews and Moslems, it irresponsible to feign ignorance as to the consequences of a victory for the warlords and mullahs. No, this is not Islamo-fascism. It is Shari'a and it deserves not an ounce of support, critical or otherwise from Greens. The effort to define an underdog or to oppose the imperial policies of the US are all well and good. Unless the proposition becomes the support for tyrannical despots, whether Franco in Spain or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In that case, it is consistent with our struggle to promote human rights around the world to include in all our public conversations and positions the critique of political Islamists and a more considered appraisal of the consequences of international support for them.
Reflexive responses opposing US foreign policy cannot begin to adequately address the complexities in the region. The statement by Joschka Fischer has delineated a vision of a Green policy in the diplomatic arena. The response of some to just write off Fischer's statement because it does not match up to their preconceived configuration of the region simply negates the willingness to move beyond a sect mentality in which PC obfuscates any conversation. One need not agree with all elements to it, but to negate its contribution to the international discussion is to go back to a period when the "left" sects dominated discussions in the US on international policies and negated the development of any opposition political party and to fail to look at both the situation in the Middle East and the Green Party's own bases of support as guides to our policy formulation. Somehow, the EU Greens felt sufficiently confident of Fischer's credentials, as a former Foreign Minister of Germany, and abilities that they recommended him as a mediator in the conflict. And our wisdom and experience in the international arena comes from ....where exactly?
It is time to pull back and stay within our own reach. We are moving closer to the precipice of the party's demise with our presumptions and erroneous characterizations. Is it really worth the damage now being wrought? What will it do to resolve the conflict? What will it do to promote peace? What will it do to demonstrate the capacity of the GPUS to lead the American government for a better future for the world?
Mato Ska
Delegate
NMGP
On a personal note, Mato Ska used to answer my email when I was supporting his positions. Not so much now.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 3:31 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
This is purely bigoted and ignorant-
Mato Ska, AKA Martin Zehr, claims that religious war against Jews is not islamofascism, it is Sharia (i.e., Islamic law.)
Ignorant. Ignorant. Ignorant. Islam recognizes Jews as people of the book, and requires that Jews be allowed to live in islamic communities. Jews and Muslims lived harmoniously side-by-side for hundreds of years before the region was polarized by zionist expansionism. This is not opinion, this is a matter of history.
Mato Ska, AKA Martin Zehr, claims that religious war against Jews is not islamofascism, it is Sharia (i.e., Islamic law.)
Ignorant. Ignorant. Ignorant. Islam recognizes Jews as people of the book, and requires that Jews be allowed to live in islamic communities. Jews and Muslims lived harmoniously side-by-side for hundreds of years before the region was polarized by zionist expansionism. This is not opinion, this is a matter of history.
# posted by 
: 10:39 PM
: 10:39 PM
It is always good to see a thorough intellectual refutation after spending time putting down my thoughts. But, clearly some people are inclined not to interact openly but prefer to have only one perspective accepted. End of discussion. Be that as it may, there are many things about the world that I wish weren't true. And many things that I am open to hearing from others. Being called ignorant was never big on either list. What is at stake is a healthy dialogue and sound discourse between opposing viewpoints. Being a supporter of the PLO means I am not opposed to the fundamental struggle for land, democratic rights and independence for the Palestinian people. Having seen the consequences to secular progressives in Iran and Afghanistan has led me to a keen awareness of the substance of the politics of political Islamists. Name calling only tries to hide the reality and attempts to obscure the real record of these forces. The are forces such as RAWA http://www.rawa.org , WCPI http://www.wpiraq.net/english/ and http://www.wpiran.org/English/english.htm , Iranian Women's network Association (Shabakeh) http://www.shabakeh.de/en/ and Peoples' Mujahadeen who likewise grasp the political issues confronting the peoples of the region.Assertions of history without a demonstration of what is being addressed is just so much smoke and mirrors.
Mato Ska
P.S. Sorry if I missed a chance to respond to you. Got no problem with having people who don't agree with me.
Post a Comment
Mato Ska
P.S. Sorry if I missed a chance to respond to you. Got no problem with having people who don't agree with me.
# posted by : 12:26 PM
: 12:26 PM << Home
