What's Wrong with Sullivan's Daily Dish?

Maybe it is me, but it seems that Andrew Sullivan, the King of Blog is becoming quite repetitive, and even vengeful in his Daily Dish. Two things are essentially acting as a catalyst for this post, none of which has to do with my ideological differences with Sullivan. While I used to enjoy reading his blog, I am becoming quite tired of seeing him air his dirty laundry on the Daily Dish. Howell Raines dumped him, get over it. I think Sullivan should take the high road and stop vilifying him and the NYT to no end. Lest ye forget that ye used to write for the New York Times. The NYT's liberal slant has always been there, before Sullivan's arrival, during Sullivan's tenure there, and now, after Sullivan's departure. By trying to find fault with Raines day in and day out, I think it only takes away from Andrew Sullivan and the Dish's journalism.

Israel is to the Palestinians as...
This relates to my second problem with Sullivan, but more accurately it is with regards to Ian Buruma's piece in the Guardian. If this question was on the SAT or any of those tests that ask to make analogies, if one were to say that Israel is to Palestine as India is to Kashmir one would be wrong. Buruma, (Quoted by Sullivan on his Daily Dish) suggests,

"There are perfectly good reasons to disagree with Israel's policies in the occupied areas. Killing Palestinians to protect Jewish settlements which should never have been there in the first place is difficult to condone. But this is a terrible reason for boycotting the very people who are likely to share one's disgust. And if military policies in disputed areas were a legitimate reason for such boycotts, there would be no more academic links with many places in the world - and I don't mean just dictatorships.

A more apt comparison with Israeli policies would be India's war in Kashmir. There, too, the victims are mostly Muslims. There is a long history of oppression, bad faith and stupid decisions. And the scale of the violence is much worse. Far more Muslims have been killed or tortured by the Indian army than by the Israeli defence forces. Dozens of Kashmiri victims - the number of people killed in Jenin - would not even reach the news. And if you think Kashmir is brutal, what about Chechnya?"

Now, let me just say, I don't think anyone should be boycotting Israel because of their policies in the occupied territories, unless of course they are willing to boycott the United States because of its policies towards the War on Terror, but I have frequently stated in this blog that it is wrong to compare India and Kashmir to Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians are fighting for national liberation, a movement that is felt throughout the Palestinian people. The Palestinians differ from todays Kashmiris because the indigenous movement within Kashmir for independence is minimal. Not all Kashmiris want an independent state, nor do they want to be part of Pakistan. A good many would be happy if Kashmir remains with India. It seems to me, the greatest desire is the return to normalcy. In addition, India, since the 50's have allowed a UN presence in Kashmir that goes by UNMOGIP. I also take issue with Buruma's assertion that the victims are mostly Muslims. Has he forgot the many Kashmiri Pandits that have been forced to flee Jammu and Kashmir state in India? While I do have many issues with Buruma's comparison, I must agree, there has been a long history of oppression, bad faith and stupid decisions on the part of the Indians. Lets hope this can all change in preparation for the upcoming elections.

sorry for the slow and scattered post, vacation has slowed my brain functions.

I wanted to thank the Guardian for putting a link to my blog on their news weblog list.

posted by sajit @ 10:35 PM