[Debate] Trita Parsi on Libya, Syria, and Iran
critical.montages at gmail.com
Tue Aug 30 14:10:00 BST 2011
I don't recall anyone here agitating for an overthrow of the Gaddafi
regime before this year, or agitating with equal vigor for an
overthrow of equally repressive regimes elsewhere this year for that
matter. I conclude that left-wing interventionists are not unlike
Pavlov's dogs: they respond to mass media's cues regarding who should
be Enemy No. 1, who are deserving victims, etc. all too well.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Peter Waterman
<peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com> wrote:
> You have already reduced the complex and inevitably disputed Libyan
> uprising into a stick with which to beat that part (majority? minority?)
> of the international Left that does not agree with you.
> That the international Left is weak, disoriented and in disarray, and
> has few if any instruments with which to influence the outcome in one
> way or another, seems to me hardly a matter for schadenfreude (pleasure
> in the discomfort or pain of others).
> The tone of high revolutionary rectitude on your part would be justified
> if you could demonstrate your concern over - say - the last 10 years for
> Libyan and non-Libyan Blacks, Libyan women, Libyan immigrant workers,
> imprisoned and tortured Libyans. Indeed, simply for all or any Libyans
> living for 40 years under a regime of such a repressive, militaristic
> and arbitrary nature that it calls up comparison with Stalin's Russia
> and Hitler's Germany.
> It seems, however, that your sympathy with the repressed, exploited,
> discriminated and manipulated is only evidenced when and where
> imperialism is active, or can be invoked as the primary issue at stake.
> On 30-8-2011 3:15, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>> The damage already done by the interventionists can't be undone, but
>> the interventionists should do their share to prevent further damage
>> by putting public pressures on the NATO and other powers to withdraw
>> their support for the Libyan rebels.
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Riaz K Tayob<riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The issue is one of precedent. On values, there is agreement. On actions
>>> to be undertaken, there is difference.
>>> That guidance from "debate" is influential on the issue is neither here
>>> nor there. We are discussing the merits of the case.
>>> Why were interventionists so gung ho as not to put forward arguments to
>>> limit rights abuses? Perhaps that is because Q ought to have been taken
>>> out by any means necessary?
>>> And why was there not criticism of the issues related to regime change?
>>> As innovative as these arguments are, and that I conceded right from the
>>> beginning (there is a need for idealism and also looking anew at
>>> situations and issues), the problem that neohumanitarians face is how to
>>> address the issues of definition (grounds for intervention), the
>>> "obligation" for future "compliance" (and uniqueness is no defence,
>>> irrespective of the unimportance of the debate list) and the tricky
>>> 'Bahrain problem', how to deal with cries for help from citizens subject
>>> to the North darling despots or tyrannies.
>>> Unless these issues are ALSO addressed, the cogency of the argument
>>> suffers. I for one would not like to see a Rwanda nor the continuation
>>> of Gaza. Legitimacy and effectiveness are twin strands that run through
>>> international law on these issues. Even if effectiveness is won by the
>>> neohumanitarians on this specific case, legitimacy is lacking. By self
>>> admission, the issue of protecting civilians (ostensibly with precision
>>> bombing) morphed into a case of regime change.
>>> For me, as stated before, when common cause is made with Imperialism,
>>> the bar is set very high.
>>> Common cause with Imperial interests, in my book, needs to be made
>>> On 2011/08/29 08:35 PM, Ran Greenstein wrote:
>>>> A large part of this exchange is bogus: most people on this list, and
>>>> most of those outside of it who belong to the left, supported the
>>>> imposition of a no-fly zone to prevent the regime forces from
>>>> massacring the people of Benghazi (a real threat at the time).
>>>> Neitherothing more nor less. No-one has endorsed any attacks on
>>>> civilians (black or otherwise). In any event, the extent to which the
>>>> rebels/Nato forces used the Debate list as a guideline in conducting
>>>> the war is fairly limited
>>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi
>>>> <critical.montages at gmail.com> �wrote:
>>>>> Surely you'd have to be pro-Black Libyan people, too, to be truly
>>>>> pro-Libyan people since quite a few Libyans are Black. �As for
>>>>> justice, in the near future, there's no one on the ground who will
>>>>> bring to justice the armed rebels rounding up Black men and lynching
>>>>> and executing some of them. �In the situation unfolding there now,
>>>>> those armed rebels are de facto the law.
>>> Debate-list mailing list
>>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> Debate-list mailing list
> Debate-list at fahamu.org
More information about the Debate-list