This terminology suggest the “father country” with extensions of ourselves elsewhere. When outside of the country, do we truly refer to “the Homeland” or do we refer to ourselves as Americans and “from America”. There is no Homeland in our American Anthem or traditional songs of pride. Why is this reference so popular with the administration and finding its way into government documents and reports? I am not convinced it is appropriate. I do recognize that it represents an ideology. An ideology that sounds empiric and expansionist in nature, similar to a manifest destiny ideal. The Homeland is a recent creation. America is a tradition rooted in our Revolution. Why is no one questioning “the Homeland” and the references it suggests?

It’s been said repeatedly this summer by guests on ROS (and many other programs) that the engine stoking the violence in the Muslim world is the unresolved Palestinian crisis – a crisis so long-enduring it hardly seems like a ‘crisis’ any longer to comparatively inattentive folks like Americans. If that’s so (and not merely yet another example of erroneous ‘conventional wisdom’), then this is relevant:

(begin quote)Sacred values

If the Middle East peace process is to be salvaged, Israelis and Palestinians must make symbolic concessions. But time is running out.

By Scott Atran

(H)amas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya seems to understand that to stop his people’s suffering, his government must forsake his party’s all-or-nothing call for Israel’s destruction. “We have no problem with a sovereign Palestinian state over all our lands within the ’67 borders, living in calm, � Haniya told me in his Gaza City office in late June, shortly before it was destroyed in an Israeli missile attack, “but we need the West as a partner to help us through.�(end quote)

Read the rest at:

http://www.metransparent.com/texts/scott_atran_sacred_values.htm

We sure ought to be playing a role; but will any of the neocon policymakers deign to sully themselves with that distasteful business called ‘diplomacy’? Color me skeptical. In Rooseveltian terms (Teddy), they seem to prefer brandishing and utilizing the bully’s ‘big stick’ to talking softly and earnestly. They seem to prefer the machismo of antagonism to the rest of the “First World’s� preference for using violence as a last resort.

Also, that Atran article dovetails interestingly with this: Hamas Spokesman Blames Palestinians for Gaza Chaos at

http://www.frappr.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=530624

Lastly, the mother-site (provenance) of that Scott Atran article is Middle East Transparent, a bastion of Arab liberalism. Not Islamism or “Islamo-fascism�, but good ol’ secular (mostly) progressivism. Check it out: http://www.metransparent.com/english.html

The proper response to a violent act is to isolate and surround the individuals responsible, humanely removing them from society. For the protection of all life and the quality of our own, we must make every effort to disarm and capture those individuals responsible for the violent act and to dismantle the economic, political, industrial system which sustained those actions. There are no right sides or wrong sides to any of the religious, political or historical conflicts plaguing life

The problem is using violence to end violence ( once and for all) as the above as rationale often leads to. Also there are wrong sides:aggressors.

Harlow:

There is only those who live and those who kill. We all need to unite to isolate violence. We are all in this life together, all life is precious, we must unite against any and all calls to violent actions or policies.

I think you meant there are only those who want peace and those who want war. Those who live, may live and kill or feel that they have to kill to live.

—————

There is, on a previous ROS show thread a discussion of “Islamo-fascism� and there is use of that term here. This is from a recent piece in “the Nation� Magazine by Katha Pollitt, “Wrong War, Wrong Word� ( September 11th 2006)

“Islamo-fascism” looks like an analytic term, but really it’s an emotional one, intended to get us to think less and fear more. It presents the bewildering politics of the Muslim world as a simple matter of Us versus Them, with war to the end the only answer, as with Hitler. If you doubt that every other British Muslim under the age of 30 is ready to blow himself up for Allah, or that shredding the Constitution is the way to protect ourselves from suicide bombers, if you think that Hamas might be less popular if Palestinians were less miserable, you get cast as Neville Chamberlain, while Bush plays FDR. “Islamo-fascism” rescues the neocons from harsh verdicts on the invasion of Iraq ………As I write the New York Times is carrying a full page “open letter” to Bush from the Al Kharafi Group, the mammoth Kuwaiti construction company, featuring photos of dead and wounded Lebanese civilians. “We think there is a misunderstanding in determining: “‘Who deserves to be accused of being a fascist’!!!!”

“Islamo-fascism” enrages to no purpose the dwindling number of Muslims who don’t already hate us. At the same time, it clouds with ideology a range of situations–Lebanon, Palestine, airplane and subway bombings, Afghanistan, Iraq–we need to see clearly and distinctly and deal with in a focused way. No wonder the people who brought us the disaster in Iraq are so fond of it.

I suggest you hold a seance with bush and his war-criminal-coconspirators

for my part you seem to be on the same path as those who preach war and agression.

Withdrawing from militarism and imperialism is sensible, survival oriented and ethical. Probably just not good for business as usual though.

As a matter of fact our dependence on oil is going to be our undoing financially, environmentally and politically.

As regards israel the political relationship should be scaled back to one of recognition and trade only. No military assistance at all, and for that matter that should be the case for all other countries whoever they are.

Ending militarism begins by dismantling offensive war machines and the corporations that profit from their production and use.

You are absolutely right.Plus we will become allies with over a dozen countries and perhaps 200 million plus people. instead of one small country of about 5 million people and no oil.

Better yet why dont we just go ahead and nuke Isreal ourselves.We can kill 5 million jews in one day. I’m sure that will ingratiate us to the Arab world for the next 50 years. They will probably give us a nice discount on a barrell of oil.

Read “under a sickle moon” for a british view of afghanistan under soviet occupation and then realize that the only difference today is that the usa is bombing subsistence farming villages instead of the soviets.

Given that our greatest need at this time is a reliable supply of oil, I dont see the benefit of providing support to israel. The whole concept of allies is irrelevant here and we americans need to rethink our relationship in terms that are beneficial to our country rather than israel’s.

The so called war on terror, war on drugs are actually a war on our freedoms and our future survival. Americans need to reorient their world view to one of peace and survival and the actions of misguided allies be damned.

Stop manufacturing, selling and thinking that weapons are a solution to any problem.

Many would be terrorists are now to busy working and making money.They dont have the time or desire to go out and blow something up.

A free and open economy,coupled with a free and democratic government would probably go along way towards ending the violence between Isreal and the Palestinians. Unfortunately the palestinians have been led by totally corrupt leaders,such as Arafat.

To Silvio ; Your comments about Wal-mart are way off the mark and make no sense. A person who works at walmart is free to quit whenever they like. Wal-marts wages are not slave wages,they pay what the job is worth. Noone is forced to work there.

I wish you had actually thought through your Wal-mart comment. It seems Wal-mart is the current whipping boy of the left.