RE: [Marxism] Far-left groups swing wrecking ball against united action on Sept. 24

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Feldman

> On this list, Carlos Rivera labelled a Jewish anti-Zionist
> who tended to support the UFPJ action a "zionist."

Which objectively it is. Anything that supports, as a political demand, the
continued existence of the Zionist Entity is objectively Zionism, as Zionism
is broadly defined

It is not Likud Zionism for sure, it is not subjectively fascist apartheid
theocratic Zionism, but it is Zionism.

> And he
> suggested that supporters of the UFPJ action were "the
> Zionist fifth column" in our ranks.

You misconstrue what I said.

I literally said "the right-wing fifth column within UFPJ."

Search the archive if you don't believe me. I have a view that includes UFPJ
as a vital, integral part of the anti-war movement. What I do believe we let
happen is for people who ultimately you want to use the war issue to get
Democrats, even pro-war ones, elected, to have influence and sway over who
can and who cannot belong to the movement. The people who do this have
managed to convince people like Louis and yourself that ANSWER is the
problem, while I think it isn't.

There are actually many people in UFPJ with whom me and my organizations in
Puerto Rico have meaningful relationships and others with whom we simply get
along fine. UFPJ is not the problem. The problem is ABBism. I have
positively nothing against the existance of UFPJ, ditto ANSWER.

As a matter of fact, I have no problems with a multitude of groups existing,
as I see that as inevitable. I do have problems with specific tactics and
startegies such multitude of groups assume. And reserve the right to be
critical of ther politics and ideological underpinnings of it, including
objective support of Zionism, and paternalist political views that some (not
myself) construe as rascism.


> (I am sorry that Carlos
> is not here to debate this and I am sending him a copy of my
> comments.)

Am back. Seems I have to fear the Marxism Ale House bartender's rules (and
the baseball bat under the sink), but otherwise all cool.

>
> And we know how he has used the white-skin privilege theme.

No, how was it used?

If you believe I am not honestly amazed at the level of racial insesitivity
of the white left in the USA, of the paternalist politics and style, then
you have no idea to whom you speak to.

I have shown, hopefully, and ability to both strongly defend my views, and
to not allow past disagreements to mar future agreements. I would hope, and
this was the thrust of Barry's contribution, others would be capable of the
same.

>
> This, of course, abolishes the state of Israel (without
> saying so), rejects a two-state agreement even as a temporary
> measure, and raises the issue of what will happen to the
> Jewish settler population now living in historic Palestine.

They will be part of a democratic, secular, Palestine, much like whites in
post-apartheid South Africa. Then the Arab and Jewish working class will
then start to connect across the real lines of oppression.

Israel ethnically is exactlly like South Africa, except it is much more
developed economically. The solution hence is analogous to that of South
Africa. The majority of the Palestinian people agree, in spite of the best
efforts of the ZE to disabuse them of those notions and become their hateful
mirror images.

> The leaflet acts like these will not even be issues to
> ordinary youth and others who get the leaflet. They are
> simply beyond debate or even question.
>
> I have answers to all those questions (I am for a democratic
> secular Palestine in all of historic Palestine basedd on
> equal rights but carrying out massive affirmative-action
> measures to end the oppression of the Palestinian people,
> including first and foremost the right of return.
>
> But the answers -- and the questions are clearly posed by the
> way the right of return is now being posed, are not that
> relevant to a demonstration around Iraq or even Palestine
> today because the Palestinians are not within sight of
> winning such a sweeping demand today.

I disagree. I believe a large part of why this demand is not within grasp,
is due to the USA's imperialist program in the ME, which has as its longest
lasting expression in Palestine. Attacking it is attacking the political
reasons of the war in Iraq. Or you really buy this BS its all about oil?

> The fact is that the Right of Return issue has been used
> demagogically to prevent a united demonstration. True ANSWER
> did not plan on two demonstrations.  They thought the
> "return" demand was the surest way to guarantee that UFPJ
> stayed out of town that day and let them monopolize the Iraq
> and Palestine issues.

Not beyond the realm of possibility, but so is that the moon landing was
faked. I also have this nice bridge between Delancey St. in Manhattan, and
Broadway in Brooklyn. It runs pararell to the Brooklyn Bridge.

>
> But UFPJ, for its reasons, decided otherwise.

They had actually called for a big one on Sept. 10 in NYC, turns out the
labor there has their "Labor Day" thingy then, so they changed it into DC on
the 24. They alleged that no unity with ANSWER is possible because they went
ahead and got the permit before hand.

This honestly sounds like whining. I mean, ANSWER out maneuvered them, the
plague should be in their house for not playing smart.


> Personally, I think the left, not the moderates and liberals
> and radicals of UFPJ, needs to take prime responsibility for
> this mess.

> Troops Out Now and ANSWER opted for split instead, when unity
> could have been won even on the Palestine issue. We are
> paying a price and, if the discussion on the list is any
> sign, the price is still rising. Fred Feldman

Actually, by this logic, since ANSWER was the first group, UFPJ are the
splitters.

A recently reposted article from the NYT says as much.

Think what you might about ANSWER, but there is not escaping this historical
fact.

Except I don't think accusing any group of being splitters is politically
useful.

This is why I find the non-ideological accusations of "splitters" to be
quaint. There are differences, and those can be discussed, but they are not
trivial, as using terms like "splitters" make them out to be.

sks


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