The latest round of Woody Allen scandal-mongering would have us believe that liberals are indignant about the sexually abused. This would be heartening news if it were true. Alas, it is not. In the Allen case, the liberals have no way of knowing whether he is guilty or not, yet they profess indignation at the mere thought of his "guilt." Why? Because in opposing sexual abuse one encounters no opposition (even child molesters condemn it), so one can enjoy a sense of moral achievement without having to do anything at all. Liberals excel at this.
Recall a very serious case of sexual abuse a decade ago called Abu Ghraib. In that case there was no doubt about the facts, nor any about who was responsible. Israel had developed systematic sexual abuse as a way of depriving Palestinian resistance fighters of hero status, and the U.S. adopted the tactic in Iraq, with the American taxpayers footing the bill. Did liberals call for vengeance against USrael's national security state? Did they call for a boycott of movie producers guilty of a long line of "terrorist" films depicting Arabs as vicious animals who live only to kill, especially children? Of course not. They waxed indignant about George W. Bush and his "dumb" war, then embraced Barack Obama's long series of "smart" wars, with the technique of sexual humiliation continuing on its merry way.
Some years ago journalist Allan Nairn ventured to say that a million Americans - activist Americans - would be sufficient to produce a change in U.S Middle East policy, meaning an end to the occupation of Palestine at the very least. It is inconceivable that such a change could take place without at the same time abolishing sexual humiliation as a national security strategy.
Will such a change take place? Maybe, but if it does, it will be no thanks to the liberals, those perpetual fence-sitters who earn the wrath of principled critics on the right and the left who justly resent moral posturing.