Uncle $am serves you two choices on Palestine: vanilla or vanilla

Dennis Ross is probably the single-most influential persyn in U.$. debates of substance on Palestine. For that matter it is difficult to tell sometimes whether Dennis Ross dictates to I$rael or Ross serves as “Israel’s lawyer” the way he and others put it.

In one negotiation between Arafat and Peres, Ross intervened to cause Arafat to have to promise more to crack down on Palestinian splinters. Ross does not say so, but he implies Peres saw more value to having greater Palestinian pluralism.(1)

While Ross himself often covered Uncle $am’s right flank by being more pro-security than I$rael, what is more amazing is Ross’s influence within the U.$. spectrum. In effect there is no spectrum of views: Ross served Bush Sr., Clinton and Obama. Now we are going to show you where supposed communist Bob Avakian obtained some of his views.

Avakian is indicative of the U.$. spectrum, because he claims to be out to the real left of the anarchists. He’s written a whole booklet on why there is nothing more revolutionary than his line. Hence, by covering Ross to Avakian we have supposedly covered everything from Bush Sr. all the way to the left side of the spectrum short of MIM and many would say they are too lazy to tell the difference between Avakian and MIM.

Of course, the whole problem is there is only white in the U.$. spectrum of color, no red.

Bob Avakian raised the slogan “down with the Bush regime” in his newspaper, the first time his fake organization ever openly and specifically named one imperialist as worse than another. Likewise, Dennis Ross wrote a whole book titled Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World that bashed Bush. Ross was the theory, and Obama became the practice.

On Iran, there was no difference among Ross’s neo-liberalism, Bush’s neo-conservatism and Avakian’s pseudo-communism. Ross wrote: “As one of the neocons wrote prior to assuming a policy-making position, forced regime change in either Iraq or Iran was far more likely to transform the Middle East than continuing futile diplomacy between Israelis and Palestinians.”(2) Not surprisingly then, such Ross propaganda helped Avakian to find Iranians supporting a U.$. invasion as MIM detailed in several articles in 2006. That way Avakian could claim he was opposing war at home, while his fraternal organization in Iran supported U.$. war, just like Dennis Ross: “Diplomacy backed by coercion has always been a part of statecraft done well.”(3)

In case anyone thought it was Avakian who came up with the idea of opposing Islamic polarization, Ross was likely there first as well:

“Traditional approaches won’t work in this new struggle. [These are buzzwords for covert warfare, counter-insurgency and psychological warfare. See a quote from Infantry Colonel Alfred H. Paddock — MIM] The use of force, while necessary, will not be the key to our eventual success. In a world of non-state actor threats, persuasion more than coercion will be necessary for wielding influence and getting others to join us in the essential task of discrediting and delegitimizing the radical Islamists.

“Moderate Muslims can do that.”(4)

Where did Avakian get the idea to prepare attacks on Iran in 2006 via International Wimmin’s Day? Again, perhaps it was Ross. It’s hard to tell which of these really came first since they say the same things.

Bob Avakian attacked “Jihad” as equivalent of U.$. globalization:

“What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both.”(5)

He sought in this way to equate Bush and Hamas. But as readers can see Ross and Avakian both are chasing after “moderate” Muslims to support U.$. exploiters on Muslim backs.

Again, Dennis Ross helped Avakian with the attack.

“Developing good governance, combating corruption, building a law-based society, respecting minority and especially women’s rights, may all be part of the necessary process of constructing democratic, pluralistic societies. . . .

“Clearly that must now be one of the objectives we establish as part of the struggle with the radicals.”(6)

Whenever we hear that term “pluralism” in connection to the Mideast, we can substitute “dividing the exploited.” It was Ross’s idea to use the gender question to divide oppressed nation exploited people of the Islamic world, but then again, reactionaries have been doing that since Lenin’s day and before that.

In case anyone thought that Avakian was supposed to be a Maoist, Ross always thought that what he was doing was “solving a problem by avoiding principles.”(7) Perhaps he is the real leader of the RCP=CIA, not Howard Dean.

If fucked up Amerikkkan politics were an ice cream parlour, it would be serving only vanilla ice cream.

1. Ross asked the Secretary of State, “if you would permit me, I would like to push Peres on the recognition issue and make it clear that we, for our own reasons, need a clear renunciation of terror and violence from Arafat and a readiness to act act against those who might engage it. Our own dialogue with the PLO has been suspended since 1990.”
Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), p. 117.
Ross also attacked Peres from the right on Syria. Ibid., p. 252.
2. Dennis Ross, Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World (NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008), p. 18.
3. Ibid., p. 231.
4. Ibid., p. 159.
5. http://www.rwor.org
6. Ross, 2008, p. 295.
7. Ross, 2008, p. 250.

Tags: ,

%d bloggers like this: