In a 2016 essay, the journalist Howard French wrote about the moment he convinced his bosses at the New York Times to make him the newspaper’s correspondent in Tokyo.
Alternatively you could interpret American focus on Ukraine as compared to Ethiopia and Mali as rational. For instance: Ukraine stands on the border of treaty allies in NATO, and is being invaded by a nuclear armed country which recently demanded America evacuate its military forces from Eastern Europe. So sure you could say "the US just doesn't like brown people!" and settle for that as an explanation, but I do not think it's satisfying. When we look at who receives TPS benefits the countries currently under protection are: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Ukraine.
So...maybe the US isn't as 'racist' as you claim? And is not the US basically doing what liberals have constantly asked of us in foreign conflicts (in the two conflicts you're citing: Mali and Ethiopia) which is to say: staying out of them?
As for Nikole Hannah Jones, she wrote some things I agree with, but her whole "Europe isn't a continent and claiming it is is proof of racism!" rant is rather absurd and infuriating. I do not put too much stock in many of her claims.
While I, (American, Jewish and born in Palestine) and my girlfriend (not Jewish and Chinese) noticed and comment to each other that the European reaction to the Ukraine has something to do with seeing blond and blue eyed people being massacred; one does not have to draw on America’s racism or the Palestinians to understand an affinity for one’s neighbors, coreligionists and of course vivid live videos of people struggling against a predator nation. All people have a tradition of “stick to your own kind”. We are still very tribal.
There really is no connection between the 1619 project and Ukraine and Nikole Hannah-Jones is showing a certain lack of knowledge in assuming that Europe is part of Asia. By her geographical analysis Africa is also connected to Asia. It just muddies the water. The problem here is how to stop Putin not racism.
"While I, (American, Jewish and born in Palestine) and my girlfriend (not Jewish and Chinese) noticed and comment to each other that the European reaction to the Ukraine has something to do with seeing blond and blue eyed people being massacred"
Or, alternatively, they saw that a country in their own backyard is being attacked by a country which is making claims based on language to Ukraine and are worried that they're next.
Keep in mind Germany took in over a million refugees from Syria.
There is no question that affinity plays a role, as you can see Poland and Hungary as well as others are opening their borders, they rejected the Syrians.
Germany is one of the few nations on this planet that is aware of its own low reproductive rates and its effects on its economy. They went out of their way to bring in almost 3 million from Turkey. It has worked very well. The COVID vaccine was invented by a Turkish (now German) couple. Their experience with Syrians is not as good but nevertheless your point is well taken.
My issue in this case is Peter seems to be jamming racism as an explanation when there are many (good, and reasonable) reasons for America to care more about Ukraine than a myriad of other conflicts.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I maintain that people tend to treat this conflict differently than other conflicts. Furthermore, the Arabs have basically rejected every opportunity to make peace since 1948. I do not agree with all of Israel's policies, but this conflict would look quite different had Arab states accepted a two state solution (which the UN mandated) decades ago.
The motion was: "Hollywood has Fueled Anti-Americanism Abroad."
When I first heard that they were going to debate this motion, as someone who has spent decades living abroad, it got me thinking:
- On the "pro" side, I would note the cultural influence of Hollywood that overwhelms local film industries abroad that can't compete with Hollywood because they don't have the same kind of resources, and so moviegoers are presented with a dominant American point of view, and this does result in some anti-American resentment.
- On the "con" side, I would note especially that moment in 2003 when Michael Moore stood up at the Oscars and declared "shame on you" to President Bush. This was a great boost for America's image abroad, coming straight from Hollywood's most prominent stage. And on this same side are other Hollywood stars who publicly criticize American foreign and domestic policy, who by doing so make America more sympathetic to people abroad.
But then I started listening to the debate, and the first speaker for the motion took a line just like James Burnham and said, "we all know that Hollywood in its current incarnation, uh, boasts a, a large quotient of anti-Americanism. Uh, the names Matt Damon, George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Susan, Susan, Susan Sarandon – the, the list goes on and on."
These are exactly the people that I thought of as reducing anti-Americanism abroad, not fueling it! The speaker went on to talk about how Hollywood movies often depict a bad image of life in America. But as I've experienced, to the extent that's true, people abroad already agree with such negative views of what life in America is like, and when Hollywood shows it, that shows that Hollywood is being honest, thereby actually improving America's image abroad.
I was struck by a recent discussion on MSNBC concerning the lack of concern for Black refugees as opposed to White refugees. There was no mention of the great refugee tragedy in Syria. Putin bombed Syria the way he is bombing Ukraine now, killing thousands if not millions and completely destroying the ancient city of Aleppo. And what about American bombing in Afghanistan. Everyone preaches for their own racial parish. A refugee is a refugee is a refugee
Agree with all that was said. Hypocrisy has contributed to Putin’s boldness and in no small way. The US needs to address its failures upholding and defending human rights – through actions not only words. That would do much to advance peace in the US and abroad. That said, an important aspect to the scale of the response by the West is that, unlike conflicts in Africa for example, the conflict in Ukraine involves a country with the second largest military in the world and largest nuclear arsenal that poses a direct threat to citizens of the West. At the very least here will be significant economic pain. Putin arguably is also the most dangerous autocrat in the world. These aspects of the conflict do not apply to other conflicts in the world. (China’s invasion of Taiwan would obviously be an exception.) Yes, this is a great learning moment for the US and exposes our bias and hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it typically takes a crisis that may result in personal harm for people to act. It seems that is the biggest reason why the US has responded so forcefully in Ukraine and – sadly – with much less involvement and moral clarity in other conflicts at home and abroad.
"What Americans need to believe in in this moment is the principles of liberal democracy and self-determination for which Ukrainians fight."
How can an anti-Zionist blog call for Ukrainian self-determination when it spends plenty of time decrying Jewish self-determination as racist and worse?
Maybe it's time for Ukraine-Russia to just implement a one state solution. Peter seems to think it's such a good plan for Israel-Palestine.
1) i'm a cultural zionist not an anti-zionist. 2) the whole point about self-determination is that it can't come at the expense of other people's basic rights. I wrote about that here: https://jewishcurrents.org/there-is-no-right-to-a-state
Thank you very much for linking to that article. In it, you call for a one-state solution, writing that " When Israel’s defenders define national self-determination as the right to a state of one’s own—and then accuse Israel’s critics of bigotry for denying that right to Jews alone—they are inventing a right that does not exist....most political theorists insist that national self-determination cannot mean the right to your own state".
I assume, therefore, that Ukrainians also do not have the right to their own state and since Russia is preventing Ukrainians from exercising their rights, it would be prudent and a quick fix to the Ukraine-Russia conflict to implement a binational state of Ukraine-Russia in which both nations have autonomy. That is the only way to achieve, as you phrased it, "equality." And who could possibly be opposed to equality?
no, my argument isn't that self-determination can never mean the right to a state. it's that one has to take into account statehood's impact on the rights of people who live inside the state but aren't considered part of the nation. for instance, if Ukraine statehood meant that most Russian speakers in Ukraine couldn't become Ukrainian citizens, that would cast the morality of Ukrainian state into doubt.
Do you support a binational state of Ukraine-Russia, yes or no? It seems to me like Russian statehood is having quite an impact on Ukrainians right now.
When talking about Palestine one needs to address the geography of Palestine too.
We need to solve the Palestinian problem but not at the expense of Israel.
To analogize with the Ukraine. If the breakaway eastern regions of Ukraine want to be part of Russia that is one thing that should be considered. You and we are opposed to the eastern regions of Ukraine taking over the rest of Ukraine. Exactly what the Palestinians want to do with Israel.
What does "the eastern regions of Ukraine taking over the rest of Ukraine" even mean? That people from those regions get control over all of Ukraine? Nobody, and I mean nobody, is talking about that as even a fringe possibility.
Alternatively you could interpret American focus on Ukraine as compared to Ethiopia and Mali as rational. For instance: Ukraine stands on the border of treaty allies in NATO, and is being invaded by a nuclear armed country which recently demanded America evacuate its military forces from Eastern Europe. So sure you could say "the US just doesn't like brown people!" and settle for that as an explanation, but I do not think it's satisfying. When we look at who receives TPS benefits the countries currently under protection are: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Ukraine.
So...maybe the US isn't as 'racist' as you claim? And is not the US basically doing what liberals have constantly asked of us in foreign conflicts (in the two conflicts you're citing: Mali and Ethiopia) which is to say: staying out of them?
As for Nikole Hannah Jones, she wrote some things I agree with, but her whole "Europe isn't a continent and claiming it is is proof of racism!" rant is rather absurd and infuriating. I do not put too much stock in many of her claims.
While I, (American, Jewish and born in Palestine) and my girlfriend (not Jewish and Chinese) noticed and comment to each other that the European reaction to the Ukraine has something to do with seeing blond and blue eyed people being massacred; one does not have to draw on America’s racism or the Palestinians to understand an affinity for one’s neighbors, coreligionists and of course vivid live videos of people struggling against a predator nation. All people have a tradition of “stick to your own kind”. We are still very tribal.
There really is no connection between the 1619 project and Ukraine and Nikole Hannah-Jones is showing a certain lack of knowledge in assuming that Europe is part of Asia. By her geographical analysis Africa is also connected to Asia. It just muddies the water. The problem here is how to stop Putin not racism.
Ran Kohn
"While I, (American, Jewish and born in Palestine) and my girlfriend (not Jewish and Chinese) noticed and comment to each other that the European reaction to the Ukraine has something to do with seeing blond and blue eyed people being massacred"
Or, alternatively, they saw that a country in their own backyard is being attacked by a country which is making claims based on language to Ukraine and are worried that they're next.
Keep in mind Germany took in over a million refugees from Syria.
There is no question that affinity plays a role, as you can see Poland and Hungary as well as others are opening their borders, they rejected the Syrians.
Germany is one of the few nations on this planet that is aware of its own low reproductive rates and its effects on its economy. They went out of their way to bring in almost 3 million from Turkey. It has worked very well. The COVID vaccine was invented by a Turkish (now German) couple. Their experience with Syrians is not as good but nevertheless your point is well taken.
My issue in this case is Peter seems to be jamming racism as an explanation when there are many (good, and reasonable) reasons for America to care more about Ukraine than a myriad of other conflicts.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I maintain that people tend to treat this conflict differently than other conflicts. Furthermore, the Arabs have basically rejected every opportunity to make peace since 1948. I do not agree with all of Israel's policies, but this conflict would look quite different had Arab states accepted a two state solution (which the UN mandated) decades ago.
This conflict would also look quite different had the state of Israel accepted that same two-state solution.
They did
On your point about MLK, that "But far from undermining American strength, King’s efforts greatly enhanced it."
I'm reminded of one of my all-time favorite Intelligence Squared US debates. Not the one that you were on, but this one from 2006:
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/hollywood-has-fueled-anti-americanism-abroad
The motion was: "Hollywood has Fueled Anti-Americanism Abroad."
When I first heard that they were going to debate this motion, as someone who has spent decades living abroad, it got me thinking:
- On the "pro" side, I would note the cultural influence of Hollywood that overwhelms local film industries abroad that can't compete with Hollywood because they don't have the same kind of resources, and so moviegoers are presented with a dominant American point of view, and this does result in some anti-American resentment.
- On the "con" side, I would note especially that moment in 2003 when Michael Moore stood up at the Oscars and declared "shame on you" to President Bush. This was a great boost for America's image abroad, coming straight from Hollywood's most prominent stage. And on this same side are other Hollywood stars who publicly criticize American foreign and domestic policy, who by doing so make America more sympathetic to people abroad.
But then I started listening to the debate, and the first speaker for the motion took a line just like James Burnham and said, "we all know that Hollywood in its current incarnation, uh, boasts a, a large quotient of anti-Americanism. Uh, the names Matt Damon, George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Susan, Susan, Susan Sarandon – the, the list goes on and on."
These are exactly the people that I thought of as reducing anti-Americanism abroad, not fueling it! The speaker went on to talk about how Hollywood movies often depict a bad image of life in America. But as I've experienced, to the extent that's true, people abroad already agree with such negative views of what life in America is like, and when Hollywood shows it, that shows that Hollywood is being honest, thereby actually improving America's image abroad.
I was struck by a recent discussion on MSNBC concerning the lack of concern for Black refugees as opposed to White refugees. There was no mention of the great refugee tragedy in Syria. Putin bombed Syria the way he is bombing Ukraine now, killing thousands if not millions and completely destroying the ancient city of Aleppo. And what about American bombing in Afghanistan. Everyone preaches for their own racial parish. A refugee is a refugee is a refugee
Agree with all that was said. Hypocrisy has contributed to Putin’s boldness and in no small way. The US needs to address its failures upholding and defending human rights – through actions not only words. That would do much to advance peace in the US and abroad. That said, an important aspect to the scale of the response by the West is that, unlike conflicts in Africa for example, the conflict in Ukraine involves a country with the second largest military in the world and largest nuclear arsenal that poses a direct threat to citizens of the West. At the very least here will be significant economic pain. Putin arguably is also the most dangerous autocrat in the world. These aspects of the conflict do not apply to other conflicts in the world. (China’s invasion of Taiwan would obviously be an exception.) Yes, this is a great learning moment for the US and exposes our bias and hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it typically takes a crisis that may result in personal harm for people to act. It seems that is the biggest reason why the US has responded so forcefully in Ukraine and – sadly – with much less involvement and moral clarity in other conflicts at home and abroad.
"What Americans need to believe in in this moment is the principles of liberal democracy and self-determination for which Ukrainians fight."
How can an anti-Zionist blog call for Ukrainian self-determination when it spends plenty of time decrying Jewish self-determination as racist and worse?
Maybe it's time for Ukraine-Russia to just implement a one state solution. Peter seems to think it's such a good plan for Israel-Palestine.
1) i'm a cultural zionist not an anti-zionist. 2) the whole point about self-determination is that it can't come at the expense of other people's basic rights. I wrote about that here: https://jewishcurrents.org/there-is-no-right-to-a-state
Thank you very much for linking to that article. In it, you call for a one-state solution, writing that " When Israel’s defenders define national self-determination as the right to a state of one’s own—and then accuse Israel’s critics of bigotry for denying that right to Jews alone—they are inventing a right that does not exist....most political theorists insist that national self-determination cannot mean the right to your own state".
I assume, therefore, that Ukrainians also do not have the right to their own state and since Russia is preventing Ukrainians from exercising their rights, it would be prudent and a quick fix to the Ukraine-Russia conflict to implement a binational state of Ukraine-Russia in which both nations have autonomy. That is the only way to achieve, as you phrased it, "equality." And who could possibly be opposed to equality?
no, my argument isn't that self-determination can never mean the right to a state. it's that one has to take into account statehood's impact on the rights of people who live inside the state but aren't considered part of the nation. for instance, if Ukraine statehood meant that most Russian speakers in Ukraine couldn't become Ukrainian citizens, that would cast the morality of Ukrainian state into doubt.
Do you support a binational state of Ukraine-Russia, yes or no? It seems to me like Russian statehood is having quite an impact on Ukrainians right now.
Professor Beinart,
When talking about Palestine one needs to address the geography of Palestine too.
We need to solve the Palestinian problem but not at the expense of Israel.
To analogize with the Ukraine. If the breakaway eastern regions of Ukraine want to be part of Russia that is one thing that should be considered. You and we are opposed to the eastern regions of Ukraine taking over the rest of Ukraine. Exactly what the Palestinians want to do with Israel.
What does "the eastern regions of Ukraine taking over the rest of Ukraine" even mean? That people from those regions get control over all of Ukraine? Nobody, and I mean nobody, is talking about that as even a fringe possibility.
Hypocrisy has been a long running aspect of American politics! There is so much to improve, before we can say that the USA
is the best country in the world.
Humanity means that we help everyone in need, no matter what color or shape. We should not distinguish between who gets our
help. That is why my husband's father in the second world war said when he saved 2000 Jews in the forests that he oversaw, that
he was helping "human beings".
couldn't agree more