Deadly
subsidies
The Free Trade Game (NI
374) was very informative, but you
did not cover the subsidies currently paid to the arms trade.
Weapons are specifically excluded from free trade agreements,
and G8 governments all subsidize their export. See, for instance,
www.caat.org.uk which
estimates a subsidy of about £900m
per annum for the arms trade by the UK alone. Exporting subsidized
agricultural produce is bad enough, but using our money to
subsidize weapons exports, often to countries with atrocious
human rights records?! The ‘justification’ for
this is often ‘jobs’, yet other industries are
allowed to fold when they are not ‘competitive’.
The real justification must be to help keep our Western puppets
in power. Without them, and the occasional war, how could we
possibly maintain our decadent lifestyles at the expense of
the world’s poor?
Mark
Ingram London, England

Religious
rights
I was surprised at the superior, mocking tone adopted in Seriously (NI
374), referring to plaques espousing creationist theories at
sites such as the Grand Canyon.
You
rightly condemn some of the actions of the American Government.
But to widen this to a condemnation of Americans and their faith
does not seem many steps removed from, for example, widening
a dislike of the actions of the Israeli Government into antisemitism.
I
personally do not believe creationist theories. But I do believe
in the right of a people to express their religious beliefs
where this causes no harm to others, and especially so in their
own
homeland.
Andrew
Foster Southampton, England

Men for change
As a man working towards ending violence against women I was
excited to hear of other projects and individuals who are
trying to engage
men in this issue (Women’s rights, NI
373).
As
Michael Kimmel explains (‘A Black woman took my job’)
men benefit from gender equity. I think it is also important
to add that men have a responsibility to work towards gender
equity
as a function of seeking a just society.
Some
organizations are finding ways for men to take on this responsibility
and change themselves and the communities they
live in. I would
have liked the NI to identify organizations like Project Respect (www.yesmeansyes.com) and Men
Can Stop Rape (www.mencanstoprape.org)
as hopeful examples of this kind of work.
Tuval
Dinner Victoria, Canada

Add it up
In presenting the ‘masculinization of wealth’ as the
neglected side of the ‘feminization of poverty’,
Michael Kimmel (NI 373) can make an even stronger case for demonstrating
male privilege by fixing the math: if US women earn 70 cents
for
every dollar US men earn, then men earn $1.43 for every dollar
a woman earns. But more importantly, thanks to Mr Kimmel for
pointing out that the privileges and constraints of gender are
largely invisible
to men, and that working for gender equality is in their interest.
Elaine
S Booth Irvine, California, US

States of engagement
Although I find myself broadly in sympathy with Paul Kingsnorth’s
argument (Essay, NI
373), there is one aspect of it that does
not help his call for political engagement. Like many critics
of global
capitalism, he conflates markets (global or otherwise) and capitalist
economic relations. Markets far predate both capitalism and democracy
and have historically been a social institution that allocates
resources through the medium of money. What is required is democratic
pressure on the state to shift the regulatory and legal structures
that allow markets to exist and function for capitalists. While
I agree we must move on from seeing democracy as merely being
periodic elections, the state must remain a key target for
political action,
as it has only been through the state (and the collective social
action it represents) that markets have been shaped and utilized
for significant social goods. Furthermore, although currently
not so obvious, it has also only been the state that has been
able
effectively to establish the non-market sphere that allows other
values to be pursued (such as social welfare).
Christopher
May Portishead, England

Painful debate
While living in London in 2000-01, I was often embarrassed
by expressions of antisemitism in internationalist and
radical Left circles
(Judeophobia, NI 372). When I objected, I was told that I was
only ‘Jew-friendly’ because of the history of my
home-country.
In
Germany, there has been a painful debate about antisemitism
in the radical Left. The issue has clearly divided the scene,
cutting deep into activist groups, alliances and even into
alternative
housing projects, up to the point of violence. For some time
now the debate has run into a dead end, as so-called ‘Anti-Deutsche’ (‘Anti-Germans’,
considering antisemitism the main characteristic of all German
discourses) and classical Anti-Imperialists (focusing mainly
on the Israel-Palestine conflict and denying all forms
of antisemitism) have dominated the debate, silencing all
differentiated
thinking
about the problem.
Still
I consider the debate necessary, because manifestations of antisemitism
in the new radical Left have been frequent
ever since
the 1970s and even more so since the beginning of the second
Intifada. Being blind to antisemitic traditions in their
own thinking means
to lose all credibility in the fight for a world free of
injustice and
racism.
Alex
Veit Berlin, Germany

Running the risk
I strongly support your effort to combat antisemitism (NI
372).
I also support security for Israel as well as justice for Palestinians.
But
it’s wrong to call former French Foreign Minister Dominique
de Villepin antisemitic for his comment that Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon had undue influence over the Bush Administration’s
decision to invade Iraq. As Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker,
Sharon set up a special intelligence unit in his own office, to
bypass the Mossad. This office communicated directly with the Pentagon’s
Office of Special Plans, which produced alarming reports about
Iraq that the CIA did not necessarily find credible. The FBI
is currently investigating contacts between members of the
Office of Special Plans and the America-Israel Public Affairs
Committee
(AIPAC), which allegedly fed secret US information to the Sharon
Government.
It
is true that these connections risk fuelling antisemitism. But
we must acknowledge them, while distinguishing Sharon from
many
Israelis. Simply to label explosive truth-telling ‘antisemitic’ is
the most dangerous response, because bigots then imagine
that all their prejudices
are true.
David
Keppel Bloomington, US

Questions of identification
I enjoyed the Judeophobia issue’s Keynote essay and found
in it much I agreed with, but I must take issue with one rather
fundamental point. This is the assumption that the ‘likening
[of] Sharon to Hitler’ and the condemnation of ‘Zionazis’ represent
not just a ‘distortion’ but an offence for ‘Jewish
sensibilities’.
In
my view the rather essential fault in this kind of reasoning
does not depend on the actual argument of whether Sharon is really
Hitler-like or not, but on the fact that it falls – once
again – into the trap of equating the actions of the Israeli
Government with some kind of Jewish ethos. As an Italian, do I
feel offended if it is stated that the Prime Minister of my country
is a crass xenophobe, whose main aim is to protect his finances
and a corrupt political class? I hardly think so. The particularity
of Jewish history should make us beware even more the risk of identifying
any criticism – however harsh – of a government
with that of its population. Such identification is offensive
for
Jewish people in the same way in which I would feel offended
to be assimilated
with any actions of the government of my country of origin.
It is a serious mistake that plays into the hands of the racist
agenda promoted by Sharon and his allies.
Umberto
Albarella Durham, England

Right to respect
Judeophobia (NI 372) caused me to face my own prejudices. The
Israeli/Palestinian conflict is too often polarized in the
media, especially with
the rise in recent times of fundamental Christianity. Your
articles reminded me that Jews have the same right to respect
for their
beliefs as anyone else. Thank you for helping rebalance my
mind.
Dave
Corstorphan Nudjaburra, Australia

Philippine calumny
Before I file NI 371, I would like to deal with a calumny on
the Philippines, in the Country Profile. 'Fairly benign colonization
from 1898 when Spain ceded the Philippines to the US.'
This
is a fair statement of colonial revisionism. The reality differs.
Please check with any progressive Filipino community or, as
a
starting-point Mark Twain's Weapons of Satire.
The
reconquest of the Philippines by the US would make an interesting
article. The modern 'low-intensity conflict'
techniques have evolved
from this bloodbath. You are looking at Custer's Last Stand
and Wounded Knee writ large.
George
Richards Castlegar,
British Columbia, Canada

Slave trade correction
Thank you for publishing my letter on the slave trade in NI
373.
However, an error seems to have crept in, insofar as the date
'1744' should have read '1774'. I'd be grateful if you could
correct this, as I don't want people thinking I've got my facts
wrong.
Roger
Butters Stafford, England
