[Marxism] Why Anti-Imperialists Should Support a Mass Movement Against the Iraq War

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.laborstandard.org/Iraq2/Anti-Imperialists.htm

Why Anti-Imperialists Should Support a Mass Movement Against the Iraq War

by Bill Onasch

This is a slightly edited version of my article as first posted June 23 on 
the kclabor.org site.

Recent polls show that a substantial majority of the American population 
want out of Iraq: 46 percent are not looking for any kind of ?exit 
strategy??they favor immediate withdrawal, no ifs, ands, or buts.

It would seem logical for the antiwar movement to be reaching out to this 
mass sentiment, drawing new, broader, and more powerful forces into a 
united struggle. It should be high time to clearly articulate this yearning 
for peace and to make it unmistakably visible?as was done with considerable 
success during the Vietnam war.

Unfortunately, this is not yet happening. First we had a long detour as 
antiwar forces were sucked into the Anybody But Bush fiasco during the 2004 
election season. Today sectarian turf-fighting, and much ?anti-imperialist? 
posturing, is frittering away valuable opportunities for helping both the 
victimized people of Iraq and victimized GIs caught up in an unjust war. 
The three self-proclaimed national coalitions have been unable to agree on 
a unified national demonstration around the clearly indicated demand?Bring 
the GIs Home Now. As things presently stand, two competing demonstrations 
are being planned for the same day in Washington.

Two separate antiwar demonstrations in the same city on the same day? That 
is absurd and unthinkable. We should all be marching together as one, 
giving expression to the 60 percent of the population who, according to 
recent polls, want some or all troops brought home from Iraq. This now is a 
majority demand?and if the focus is kept on this demand, it can be won! 
U.S. imperialism can be forced to get out of Iraq!

One wing of the movement has reacted to the growing opposition to the Iraq 
war by essentially telling newcomers?not so fast! It?s not enough to just 
oppose the war in Iraq. If you want to get together with us, you must also 
endorse the assertion that ?the Right of all Palestinian refugees and their 
descendants to return to their original homes and property in all of 
historic Palestine is not negotiable.? [See the ?Unity? statement of the 
Troops Out Now Coalition.]

Of course, the Palestinian question is important. People are being killed 
in conflict almost daily there, and there is a big population of unjustly 
dispossessed who have long endured poverty and degradation. Most American 
Jews have some ties to Israel, and there are many Palestinians living in 
the U.S. who still have family and friends in the same area.

While Palestine is not occupied by the U.S., as Iraq and Afghanistan are, 
the government that speaks in our name has always been deeply involved in 
injustices against the Palestinians. Washington?s bipartisan historical 
approach to the entire Middle East is definitely part of the problem, not 
in any way a solution.

In an article about the 2003 National Labor Assembly for Peace, sponsored 
by U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW), I wrote:

?There are many who think Americans have an obligation to oppose our 
government?s complicity in supporting the brutal methods of the Israeli 
regime in suppressing Palestinians. Personally I agree with that general 
sentiment.

?However, I believe we need an independent movement around this issue. It 
would be a serious mistake to demand that the movement against the 
war/occupation in Iraq also support Palestinian liberation.

?First of all, this is a hot button issue that could drive a mortal wedge 
among us. Undoubtedly a majority of the unions and union officials 
supporting USLAW could not and would not support it if it was perceived to 
have an ?anti-Israel? position. Splitting the Iraq movement could only 
harm, not help the interests of Palestinians.

?Secondly, there is by no means complete unity among those who oppose 
Israeli repression. Some condemn the suicide bombers as terrorists while 
others consider them heroes. Some favor a ?two-state solution? while 
others, including myself, support Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, practicing 
Jews, and nonreligious Jews, coming together on a basis of equality in a 
single democratic, secular state.

?These are important questions but they can?t and won?t be resolved within 
the Iraq movement. Nor will Ireland, Colombia, the Philippines, the Congo, 
or any of the other conflicts nurtured by global capitalism.?

I continue to stand with this position. Certainly there is room to include 
Palestinian speakers in antiwar rallies. Of course, there should be no 
restriction on banners or literature about Palestine in antiwar 
demonstrations. Efforts should be made to involve Palestinian and other 
Arab groups in the antiwar movement at all levels.

But attaching a formulation that most will view as a call to expel the Jews 
as a central, co-equal demand of a demonstration against the Iraq war is a 
monumental error. While many movement stalwarts may be prepared to ignore 
this provocation, and show up to protest the war anyway, this stance is 
guaranteed to divide and isolate the antiwar movement.

Let?s look at one crucial example?U.S. Labor Against the War. USLAW has 
done a good job in educating within organized labor about the war, has 
raised material support for Iraqi unions, and has succeeded in getting 
antiwar resolutions passed in unions representing millions of workers. (At 
the upcoming AFL-CIO convention, beginning July 25, USLAW is working to 
have a resolution adopted putting the entire federation of 13 million 
American workers on record against the Iraq war.) This unprecedented 
groundwork can and should be used to go to a higher level of labor 
participation, mobilizing members and resources for demonstrations and 
other public antiwar activity. But the union officials who are sensitive to 
the antiwar sentiment among the ranks are going to give wide berth to any 
movement that is perceived as being for the destruction of Israel.

Many self-styled ?anti-imperialists? are contemptuous of such problems. 
They are preoccupied with witnessing rather than mass work. They are 
exhilarated by identifying with heroic fighters everywhere and seek to bask 
in the reflected glory of the sacrifices of others. Iraq, Palestine, the 
Philippines, and the many other flash points of struggle around the globe 
are abstractions to them, to be dealt with by fiery slogans and flashy 
demonstrations.

I too consider myself an anti-imperialist. There is no more important task 
than building solidarity and collaboration between workers of all lands 
against our common enemy of global capitalism.

But real solidarity is not an attitude. It is more than resolutions, 
slogans, or gestures. It is not always glorious. It sometimes means setting 
aside other differences to build a unified effort to assist those under 
fire. It means hard work, patience, and respect for all who come together 
on specific common projects.

The 46 percent of Americans who want immediate withdrawal have come to that 
conclusion for various reasons and through varied experiences. Few even 
understand the term ?imperialism,? much less consider themselves 
anti-imperialist. But, in the course of building a nonexclusionary mass 
movement around the limited issue of the war in Iraq many will learn about 
other issues as well and some will become involved in other movements. That 
was certainly the experience of the Vietnam movement.

A powerful, united mass movement, visible in the streets, and in the labor 
movement, can save some Iraqi and American lives. It can also advance 
understanding of, and opposition to imperialism in the stage of globalization.

It?s time to put aside turf brawls and one-upmanship posturing and build 
that movement.

--

www.marxmail.org


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism