[no subject]

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Lause is right to point out that Yoshie cannot be criticized for
debating Palestinian policies when she should be defending the Palestinians,
when it is her experiences in defending the Palestinians that seem to have
raised the views she posts.  One of the great strengths of Yoshie's
contributions to the list is that they very much arise out of activity, and
reflect the experiences of people who are fighting here around the issues
she raises.

She reflects the pressure that the anti-Palestinian campaign around the
suicide bombings exerts on solidarity activists who are very much trying to
score a breakthrough in this country for the struggle of the Palestinians.
If she goes off, and I think she does, that is why.

Yoshie writes:
"After three years of the intifada, Palestinian
conditions are worse than ever.  Most devastatingly, the Apartheid
Wall -- the so-called "security fence" in the Israeli parlance -- is
estimated to "annex 50% of the West Bank" to Israel, leaving "only
12% of historic Palestine" to the Palestinian population in the
occupied territories (Stop the Wall, "the Anti-Apartheid Wall
Campaign Fact Sheet: The Apartheid Wall,"
<http://www.stopthewall.org/downloads/pdf/FS-General-mr.pdf>)."

As someone who thinks that ultimately, the attack on the World Trade Center
had very little to do with why the United States is now occupying Iraq and
Afghanistan and backing Israeli aggression to the hilt, I think Yoshie is
wrong to attribute the expanding settlements and the apartheid wall to the
opportunity supposedly provided by the suicide bombings.

The imperialist drive to expand and the similar drive of the Israeli
settler-colonial client of US imperialism to grab more territory are deeply
rooted, and they grow more intense, not more mild, in times of economic
difficulty such as world capitalism is experiencing today.   Pretexts arise
in life and are seized, but they are not the cause of the events.  Pearl
Harbor did not cause the US war with Japan.  In a sense, it happened because
there already was a US war with Japan.

Yoshie is wrong to separate the three years of the intifada from what went
before.  The worsening of Palestinian conditions did not begin with the
Intifada.  Economically, things have been getting worse in Palestine for
quite a long while, as you would expect given world and regional economic
conditions and the fact that the territory they hold is being gradually
siezed for the benefit of another and hostile nation..  And in terms of
Israeli aggression, the worsening began with the Oslo accords.

The Israeli rulers siezed on the weakening of Palestinian vigilance -- the
hopes of  the PLO leadership and the preoccupation with organizing the
authority and the spoils of office and also the hopes of the masses and the
lowering of tension and vigilance -- to open a fierce drive to expand the
settlements.  The apartheid wall and all the rest of it were built into
this.

While Palestinian mobilization weakened, the main result the Israelis
expected from the Palestinians -- a Palestinian civil war that they hoped
would provide them with an opportunity to intervene and establish a puppet
administration -- did not take place and this discredited the Palestinian
authority in the eyes of the Israeli rulers as a viable partner of an
EXPANDING Israel.  This simple fact is why the leftist rhetoric about Arafat
and the PLO as Quislings makes no sense at all in terms of the consciousness
or experience of the Palestinian masses, who have no end of criticism and
disdain for the Authority's performance.

(Quisling was the very unpopular Norwegian fascist who was placed in power
when German imperialism under Hitler occupied in the country and who swung
from a rope after the US and allies captured the country.  What he has to do
with Arafat is absolutely beyond me.)

Israel MUST expand or die.  That is the law of its existence.  Oslo could
not change that and that is the main lesson to be drawn from the Oslo
experience.  Even real temporary compromise will only become possible when
the enemy has suffered real defeat.

Further, beginning with the Clinton administration, US ties with and
reliance on Israel as a regional cop began to increase.  While Bush has
certainly been more overtly supportive of Israeli aggression than any US
administration since the invasion of Lebanon turned sour, this process began
with the Clinton administration.  This gave the Israeli capitalists more
leeway to push outward.

The intifada arose in response to the rising Israeli aggression.  This is
also how the POPULAR idea that suicide bombings are the most effective
weapon or even the "only" weapon the besieged Palestinians have  took hold.
It is a mistake to see Israeli aggression as basically a result of
Palestinian tactical and strategic mistakes. The Palestinians will be under
siege until they and their allies in Israel and the Arab world are strong
enough to drive the Israelis back.  That is the only way even a semi-viable
Palestinian state can emerge, let alone a unitary Palestine.

The biggest problem the Israeli ruling class faces in pursuing its
aggression is the failure to break the resistance of the Palestinian nation,
and that resistance includes the suicide bombings.   With all the weaknesses
that can be attributed to this strategy -- frankly the part I have the most
questions about is not the bombing part but the suicide part, the sacrifice
of the lives of  mostly young fighters who could have a lifetime of militant
struggle before them --  the suicide bombings are today part of a mass
movement in defense of an oppressed nation under siege by an
imperialist-sponsored aggressor.  They are part of the problem for the
Israeli rulers, not part of the solution.

I happen to think, unlike Yoshie and unlike many on both sides of the
struggle here and in Palestine, that Israel is growing weaker, not stronger
and that its growing adventurism is partly related to this.  I think an
indication of this is the growing unrest among a few Israeli intellectuals
who, PARTLY IN RESPONSE TO THE SUICIDE BOMBINGS AS WELL AS ISRAEL'S ACTIONS,
now question the entire "Zionist project.".  Another sign is the resistance
from pilots and other soldiers. But that is not decisive for this
discussion.

Yoshie wrote:
"It's time for Palestinians and solidarity activists to reevaluate
short-term and long-term objectives, strategies, and tactics."

I think this places Palestinian solidarity activists too much on the same
plane with Palestinians in Palestine.  I think the fighters in the West
Bank, Gaza Strip, and inside the green line must determine their tactics and
strategy there.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't think
that even Palestinians in exile can really have a deciding vote on these
questions.

The solidarity movement is another question.  A solidarity movement that
demands that the movement become something different and better is not a
solidarity movement but a political tendency advancing its line for the
struggle in the guise of a solidarity movement.  A solidarity movement is
only a solidarity movement if it defends the oppressed people and the
struggle as it is.  That doesn't mean coming up with lawyer's apologies for
suicide bombings that the people who carry them out would never dream of.
It means explaining the real difference between oppressed and oppressor and
taking a stand for the fight as it is.

I also think that fighters in Palestine will not and cannot determine their
tactics and strategy on the axis of the needs of the solidarity movement.
They can't reject a strategy because it would make our work harder or adopt
one because it would help  us to confront fewer and less vociferous critics.

I also think it would be SECTARIAN for the solidarity movement to take a
stand on  tactics and strategy.  I don't think that the solidarity movement
should be based on acceptance or rejection of suicide bombings, two-state
solutions, or a democratic secular Palestine, or putting all the settlers on
boats and sending them off to Patagonia  I think taking any big steps in
that direction would shatter this movement into a thousand pieces.  I don't
think the solidarity movement should take sides between Arafat and his
varied critics or the PLO, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.

The solidarity movement needs to focus on ending US aid, divestment, and the
like -- and let the people of Palestine decide how to wage their fight.


For me, at least, this thread is over.  I don't think that Yoshie should be
put in the position of having to constantly defend herself against this or
that argument.  I think we all need time to test out what we have discussed
in real life and the real struggle. And also Bolivia is having a goddamn
revolution.
Fred Feldman
--






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