Jonah Goldberg on Arafat

by Liberty and Power

I often find reason to disagree with NRO's Jonah Goldberg, but in this blogpost on Arafat, he's making an excellent point.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Aeon J. Skoble - 11/16/2004

"they acted primarily in the interests (as they perceived them) of their own people"
I reject any conception of "interests of the people" which manifests itself as legalized wife-battering or an official policy of torturing and executing gays.

Arnold Shcherban - 11/16/2004

What international empire's power the nationalistic movements in Central and South America from 20s to 80s, which were mostly headed by Leftists, intended to support, or they acted primarily in the interests (as they perceived them) of their own people ?

Aeon J. Skoble - 11/12/2004

"I'm unclear on what the excellent point that Goldberg is making is supposed to be."
That the left is self-contradictory when it comes to defending a pathologically violent, and specifically misogynistic and homophobic (as well as anti-Semitic), nationalism in this arena, where they are more likely to condemn nationalism, esp. the violent kind, and certainly the homophobic and misogynist kind, in any other arena.

Charles Johnson - 11/12/2004

I'm unclear on what the excellent point that Goldberg is making is supposed to be.

There's an extensive literature by Leftists on the tortured relationship between Leftism, anti-imperialism, and nationalism. Everyone from internationalist Marxists to milksop Social Democrats to anarchists has written and argued extensively about when, where, and how you might support nationalist movements. Explicit topics of discussion have included Zionism, competing forms of Jewish nationalism (Bundism), Arab nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, etc. (The discussion hasn't been confined to post-colonial nationalism; it's also discussed phenomena such as Black Nationalism in the United States.) In spite of a lot of intense disagreements, there has always been a general consensus that "It's the Empire, stupid!"--i.e., that there's a big difference between nationalist tendencies that are struggling against international empires and those that are struggling to strengthen the resolve and power of international empires. The main debates focus on how cautious the Left has to be about which anti-imperial nationalisms they're willing to support (i.e., supporting most, some, or none), with different answers coming out all around, but none of them urging an uncritical embrace.

I might mention that this is precisely the position which has been taken by some L&P posters on secessionist movements here and around the world.

I don't expect Goldberg to agree with either any of the particular views or the general consensus of that discussion. Heck, I don't even expect him to know much about it. But if he doesn't know about it, then why is he still writing about it?