Re: terror (response to Yoshie)

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I screwed up and sent a draft and a blank subject line instead
of what I intended to send. Here is the real item.  I didn't realize
the garbage was still in the outbox.
Fred Feldman

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 seized 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.