Re.: Mohammad Alam article in Counterpunch

["Mohammad J Alam" <alam.m@xxxxxxx>]

"About the passivity of the word "settler":"

Actually, I would argue that the term is quite correct. The problem is
two-fold: the settlers are described as civilians, and when they are
labelled as settlers, it is not done with the commentary and within the
context of them actually *being* colonists, occupiers, thieves, etc.

Of course, one is more likely to find "settlement" replaced by "Jewish
neighborhood"; this gives the image of some serene suburban Californian set
of residencies.

Interestingly, after the suicide attack yesterday, in NYTimes report on it
they did mention that, in this same period where 0 Israelis died, 44
Palestinians were killed--*at least* 22 of them unarmed
civilians--according to B'TSelem.

At any rate, the settler is no civilian. He is a white supremacist and pays
the price his racism in red blood. The death of women and children is
entirely his own fault and that of the government which sponsors this
systematic program of humiliation, as they are fully aware that no
self-respecting people will accept occupation and colonization without
resistance.

Unfortunately, Palestinian violence currently has no goal, no objective.
Without any program and set tasks violence in general serves no tactical
purpose at all; it seems the whole movement is caught up in the historical
moment in which the ascending native bourgeoisie is unable to ascend at
all. The conditions of the conflict not only prevent his ascension but keep
him confined to one room in a blown-up complex and declared "irrelevant",
this is the impasse.

The suicide bombings, however, raise more difficult questions: if suicide
bombings ended, would Israel ever have any incentive to let go of the OT?
If they had ceased after construction of this fence started, would that
only encourage  further destruction of Palestinian demographics and living
standards?


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.