Eta's tactics.

[Kukulofori]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8173727.stm

Does anyone have a better understanding of what this is meant to accomplish than "crazy terrorists"?

[h0m0revolutionary]

God knows, clearly nationalism is a mental dissorder that effects the brain in strange ways ;)

*expects to be hated by Basque-loving lefties*

[Pogue]

I think its mainly something to try and create attentionfor their cause and remind everyone they are still there, as the article hints at.

Were any civilians hurt, or was it just the Civil Guard?

EDIT: No civilians (the families of the Civil Guard) killed.

I despise these tactics, bombs. Obviously the ETA didn't care who they hit. You can never justify kiling civilians if it could have been avoided, or on purpose.

[Sasha]

not that i agree with (this) eta action(s) but the analysis in the linked articel is i think spot on:

The catalyst for this bombing was the exclusion of separatist parties from regional elections in March. Eta branded the vote "undemocratic,"

exclude an significant minority from all political process and they will resort to other means to make their voice heard.

eta haves repeatedly expressed its wish to enter in an "good friday agreement" kind of process but the the spanish state flatly refused and kept procecuting Batsuna (the bask sin feinn) and other left-nationalist organisations.

[JimmyJazz]

Look at the Spanish government's new way of tallying the victims of terrorist attacks:


Spanish officials have expressed surprise a car bomb which destroyed a police barracks did not kill dozens of people, including children.

...

"Last night 120 people were sleeping [in the barracks] and 41 children could have been killed," he said.:lol:

[DDR]

If you don't live in Spain i woudn't advice to speak about the E.T.A. and the basque national liberation movement.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Although there was no telephone warning, unlike in previous Eta attacks, correspondents pointed out that the target and means of attack were consistent with Eta's track record.


How do we know that the ETA was actually behind the attack? Have they targeted families of Civil Guards in the past? If not, I suspect involvement of agents provocateurs.

[Saorsa]

While the ETA are a pretty dodge organisation in many ways, a police barracks is a perfectly legitimate target.


Obviously the ETA didn't care who they hit.

They could have bombed a kindergarten if they didn't care who they hit. Instead they bombed a barracks that houses the thugs of the capitalist state. I'd say that shows they DO care who they hit.

[Sasha]

the baracks of the gaurdia civile, centralised (as in send by and directly controled from madrid) militairy police rooted in the former fascist regime, has been an constant target throughout ETA's excitence.
the compounds are completly isolated from the rest of the basque country and solely inhabited by soldiers and their emidiate family.
although i (again) would like to stress i'm no suporter of this kind of actions this was in the eyes of the ETA as an legitamet target as any other occupying army compound in any other liberation strugle.

[Sasha]

NB; this is not the basque police, this is the domestic wing of the army who's sole purpose of buisness in the basque country is crushing the leftist and nationalist movement.

so to speak in term of the irish confict, the IRA didn't even target the RUC but the british army

[Pogue]

While the ETA are a pretty dodge organisation in many ways, a police barracks is a perfectly legitimate target.



They could have bombed a kindergarten if they didn't care who they hit. Instead they bombed a barracks that houses the thugs of the capitalist state. I'd say that shows they DO care who they hit.

You have to look at the words I used. I didn't say they generally don't care who they hit. Every political group using such tactics has cared to an extent where they hit. Otherwise they would bomb empty fields. What I was saying is the ETA didn't care who they hit, i.e. they were not concerned if some innocents were harmed in this attack. I don't think such a tactic is defensible, and hilights one of the obvious problems with bombing campaigns.

[*Red*Alert]

Armed action is the ONLY way to a creation of a Socialist state whether in the Basque country or in Ireland.

[Pogue]

Armed action is the ONLY way to a creation of a Socialist state whether in the Basque country or in Ireland.

How can you create socialism through armed action?

[Sasha]

like any other of those "socialist" nation state's ;)

[*Red*Alert]

How can you create socialism through armed action?
By destroying the status quo. Russia, China, etc. all started out through armed revolution.

Can anyone find me any Trot worker's paradises? Or even one country where Trots are in the majority? :confused: Any Anarchist settlements either?

[Saorsa]

What I was saying is the ETA didn't care who they hit, i.e. they were not concerned if some innocents were harmed in this attack. I don't think such a tactic is defensible, and hilights one of the obvious problems with bombing campaigns.

There's always the danger of civiliam casualties in any armed campaign, true, and historically the ETA have often been not nearly as careful as they should have been with avoiding such casualties. But this is the military barracks of an occupying power, their immediate family and functionaries, isolated and alienated from the surrounding community. I think it remains a legitimate target.


Armed action is the ONLY way to a creation of a Socialist state whether in the Basque country or in Ireland.

I don't think that's true. Armed action is a tactic, and one that only ever has any kind of effectiveness when linked with a political campaign and the development and mobilisation of a mass base. Elevating armed struggle to the level of a be all and end all strategy is a total dead end.

[Saorsa]

By destroying the status quo.

You can't blow up a social relation. At some point in the worker's struggle wherever it may be violence will probably have to be used, but it's not like we can just go "Capitalism --> Explosions --> Socialism. The status quo is destroyed through the conscious political struggle of the oppressed, not solely through the armed actions of militants.


Can anyone find me any Trot worker's paradises? Or even one country where Trots are in the majority? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif Any Anarchist settlements either?

I can sympathise with feeling frustrated with the attitudes of many Trots and anarchists, but I don't think a sectarian attack helps your argument in this case. There are many Trotskyist groups that support the right to national liberation and anarchists can be worked with on a variety of causes.

[Pogue]

By destroying the status quo. Russia, China, etc. all started out through armed revolution.

Can anyone find me any Trot worker's paradises? Or even one country where Trots are in the majority? :confused: Any Anarchist settlements either?

I don't think there is an 'Anarchist settlement'. I think there are only places where either one class is in control or the other is. I don't think there is a single nation in the world where the working class are in control.

The Russian revolution was started by a working class spontaneous demonstration against shortages in food. An unknown working class woman essentially led it, but it was based upon large feelings of discontent in Russia at the war. It was not led by a group like the ETA. Ironically enough it was armed groups that were active in suppressing strikes and revolts following the revolutionary period.

[Pogue]

There's always the danger of civiliam casualties in any armed campaign, true, and historically the ETA have often been not nearly as careful as they should have been with avoiding such casualties. But this is the military barracks of an occupying power, their immediate family and functionaries, isolated and alienated from the surrounding community. I think it remains a legitimate target.



I don't think that's true. Armed action is a tactic, and one that only ever has any kind of effectiveness when linked with a political campaign and the development and mobilisation of a mass base. Elevating armed struggle to the level of a be all and end all strategy is a total dead end.

Don't get me wrong. Based upon my understanding of history and the role of the police in capitalist socieities I despise the Civil Guard and if the ETA blew some of them up it wouldn't bother me. I think the ETA are a legitimate target but I don't think their families are. Bombs as a weapon do not discriminate thus I oppose using them when it could hurt others, like in this circumstance. So I don't think this barracks was a legitimate target, which is a different argument from saying the Civil Guard was not a legitimate target.

[*Red*Alert]

I can sympathise with feeling frustrated with the attitudes of many Trots and anarchists, but I don't think a sectarian attack helps your argument in this case. There are many Trotskyist groups that support the right to national liberation and anarchists can be worked with on a variety of causes.

Well that's what's really pissing me off here, as there is a unlimited amount of potential if we could see past our differences and look towards the common goal.

The Left here is split into about 20 different groups, the Right comprises of 3 at most in the 26 Counties, and 4 in the North. We're getting no-where because we refuse to co-operate, and the opposition are simply laughing at us.

Pogue, I too am opposed to bombings, it can be seen throught the Troubles that it was an indiscriminate weapon that caused more harm than good.

[gorillafuck]

Who are the ETA?

[Pogue]

i think it shows a level of inconsistency that you'd go from openly trolling members of other ideologies through to saying we need to unite in the age old rhetoric of many a prophet on these boards.

Which is it, Trotskyists and Anarchists are useless and liberals or potential allies whom we should work with? Perhaps you could articulate your critique of both ideologies in a more coherent manner?

[Pogue]

Who are the ETA?

Basque nationalists currently employing terroist tactics to acheive their aims. The whole situation is something you should read up on, its more complicated than I could do justice too, look it up on Wikipedia.

[*Red*Alert]

i think it shows a level of inconsistency that you'd go from openly trolling members of other ideologies through to saying we need to unite in the age old rhetoric of many a prophet on these boards.

Which is it, Trotskyists and Anarchists are useless and liberals or potential allies whom we should work with? Perhaps you could articulate your critique of both ideologies in a more coherent manner?

I don't intend to troll, but I am genuinely pissed off with the way everything turns into a mudslinging competition. As I said when I joined, I'm interested in learning more about different groups but all I see is each group attempting to occupy the moral high ground over the other.

I honestly don't know which they are, I would have thought them allies but on this site they seem more like enemies, as bad as any capitalist or British imperialism.

[Pogue]

I don't intend to troll, but I am genuinely pissed off with the way everything turns into a mudslinging competition. As I said when I joined, I'm interested in learning more about different groups but all I see is each group attempting to occupy the moral high ground over the other.

I honestly don't know which they are, I would have thought them allies but on this site they seem more like enemies, as bad as any capitalist or British imperialism.

OK. Perhaps if you wish to learn you should be more receptive then.

[*Red*Alert]

OK. Perhaps if you wish to learn you should be more receptive then.
I'll try to be, but I take any attack on my ideology as almost personal due to the amount of time, effort and money I've poured into it in the last 3 years, while others have died for it and given entire lifetimes to it.

Why are Trotskyist's so against national liberation? I would have thought that it would be the first step towards creating a socialist Ireland, given the fact that capitalism is a foreign system which was imposed through the British Empire at first, and is now sustained by the 26 County government in Leinster House?

[Pogue]

Ask them their opinions on the Irish situation.

[Saorsa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA

[*Red*Alert]

Ask them their opinions on the Irish situation.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyist-opinions-irish-t113997/index.html?goto=newpost

[JimmyJazz]

If you don't live in Spain i woudn't advice to speak about the E.T.A. and the basque national liberation movement.

Why, what do you think of them?

[genstrike]

I don't intend to troll, but I am genuinely pissed off with the way everything turns into a mudslinging competition. As I said when I joined, I'm interested in learning more about different groups but all I see is each group attempting to occupy the moral high ground over the other.

I honestly don't know which they are, I would have thought them allies but on this site they seem more like enemies, as bad as any capitalist or British imperialism.

That's because everyone sounds like an asshole on the internet, especially on revleft where whatever divisions do exist are greatly magnified by the nature of the internet and the types of people who generally post on webforums. One big problem is that this isn't real life and we don't have to work together, so we can easily get into some big wankfest over who is better than who, why my tiny sect hates your tiny sect, and obscure Marxist theory and who is most in line with the writings of which dead old white guy with a beard. But I find that there is a lot less of that in the real life where people have to actually work together on practical things and don't get bogged down in intellectual wankery all the time.

also, FYI, I'm an anarchist who supports national liberation struggles, including that of Ireland, and so do most anarchists and nearly all the Trots and other Marxists that I know in the meatspace.

[Pogue]

That's because everyone sounds like an asshole on the internet, especially on revleft where whatever divisions do exist are greatly magnified by the nature of the internet and the types of people who generally post on webforums. One big problem is that this isn't real life and we don't have to work together, so we can easily get into some big wankfest over who is better than who, why my tiny sect hates your tiny sect, and obscure Marxist theory and who is most in line with the writings of which dead old white guy with a beard. But I find that there is a lot less of that in the real life where people have to actually work together on practical things and don't get bogged down in intellectual wankery all the time.

also, FYI, I'm an anarchist who supports national liberation struggles, including that of Ireland, and so do most anarchists and nearly all the Trots and other Marxists that I know in the meatspace.

lol, most anarchists support national liberation struggles?

[genstrike]

lol, most anarchists support national liberation struggles?

Most anarchists I know were at the rallies for Gaza during the war last winter, some of whom had a hand in organizing them. I think it has somethign to do with most anarchists being against all oppression, including the national oppression of Palestine, etc

[FreeFocus]

I think it has somethign to do with most anarchists being against all oppression, including the national oppression of Palestine, etc

Yeah, I think it has something to do with that too. Unfortunately too many "anarchists" are just anarkiddies who want to be a little rebellious.

ETA's most recent attack on those police barracks was not terrorism, and it wasn't morally reprehensible, police barracks are a legitimate target for ETA. They didn't blow up a mall or another place where there were only innocents/civilians.

As it relates to my personal thoughts on ETA, I'm not well-versed on the Basque situation, it's something I know the basics of but not nearly what I should know. I understand and agree that they suffer from cultural oppression, that is real. I disagree with some of their past attacks and tactics, and from what I understand ETA is now approaching, or is already at, fringe status in Basque country. They should probably refocus and retool, change their tactics and focus more on organizing and raising consciousness.

[Devrim]

Most anarchists I know were at the rallies for Gaza during the war last winter, some of whom had a hand in organizing them. I think it has somethign to do with most anarchists being against all oppression, including the national oppression of Palestine, etc

I think there is a difference between opposing a massacre and supporting nationalist gangs. I don't think that being against Israeli attacks on Gaza makes you a suporter of HAMAS.


[also, FYI, I'm an anarchist who supports national liberation struggles, including that of Ireland, and so do most anarchists and nearly all the Trots and other Marxists that I know in the meatspace.

I suppose it depends on which country you live in. I camomagine most anarchists, in say, America supporting national liberation, but I would be surprised if the situation were the same in England. I think that it is connected to various things about the movement in those countries. There are also Marxists who don't suppor nationalist movements though of all those who call themselves Marxists they would be in a very small minority.

Devrim

[DDR]

Why, what do you think of them?

Well, I said that because is a very complex problem. Euskadi ta Askatasuna (E.T.A.) has been arround for somethin like 50 years fighting fascism in Euskal Herria. Right now i do belive that right now E.T.A. is controled by the goverment of Spain in order to provede news that distract the people from the true problems of spanish society.

As today almost ten percent of the Spanish population is unemployed and a fourth of them haven't any earnigns because it's unemployement pay check is over. Appart that every 4 o 5 months there's news that the police or Spain or France has arrested the main people in the E.T.A. hierarchy.

BTW is funny that you ask with that nick name, because a basque band of ska-hardcore has a song called Jimmy Jazz that sais:

Puso veinte kilos de Goma 3 (He put 20 kilos of Goma 3, an explosive)
mando a tomar por culo (he sent to hell)
Todo un cuartel. (all the barracks)
La pasma busca a (the cops are looking for)
Jimmy Jazz, Jazz, Jazz...

[robbo203]

Armed action is the ONLY way to a creation of a Socialist state whether in the Basque country or in Ireland.

Why would socialists have any interest in creating a state? The state is nothing more than the executive committee of the ruling class. So in wanting to create a state you evidently want to perpetuate class rule and that hardly makes you a socialist does it now?

Besides advocating armed struggle is plain dumb not to say suicidal. And it betrays an arrogant contempt for the ability of workers to come to a socialist understanding themselves which, when they do in their millions, will render the whole issue completely redundant.

These armchair revolutionaries with their romantic puerile elitist delusions of armed struggle with themselves no doubt decked out in a chic Che beret with matching accessories to boot are nothing but a fucking pain in the arse. They should get a life.

[bricolage]

I think there is a difference between opposing a massacre and supporting nationalist gangs. I don't think that being against Israeli attacks on Gaza makes you a suporter of HAMAS.

Exactly. Marching against Israeli atrocities in Gaza does not necessarily mean you support Hamas or the wider trend of national liberation but sitting at home while that shit is going on means you are turning a blind eye to extreme oppression, I'd be very disappointed with anyone who refused to attend one of those marches out of 'principles'.

[Luís Henrique]

look it up on Wikipedia.

Don't.

Look it up in any other place; but Wikipedia is completely unreliable.

Luís Henrique

[Ravachol]

As an anarchist, I'm obviously fiercly anti-nationalist. However, there are distinctions within the nationalist current.
Struggles of national liberation are an embodiment of 'nationalism of the repressed' where a repressed minority seeks to seccede from a larger, imperialist majority. In my eyes, such a process is, as long as the socio-economic goals of the movement are socialist in nature, to be supported.

The main reason why anarchists oppose nationalism is it's exclusive nature. The anti-immigration position, the chauvenist attitude and sometimes it's imperialism.
These are however characteristics of the imperialist variety of nationalism, as seen in mainland western europe. Most movements of national liberation are left-leaning, immigrant friendly and never imperialist in nature.

So in my eyes when a repressed minority decides to seccede (or in the case of the irish struggle, unite) this is in no way incompatible with the anarchist goals of 'all-inclusiveness'.
Anarchism doesn't oppose nationalism because of it's focus on a certain group, but because most nationalist currents (the ones on the right) are exclusive in nature and place ethnical/national unity before class struggle.

When it is a matter of national liberation, these negative traits are usually non-present.
As for the establishment of the state? Obviously I oppose that, but let us suppose a movement of national liberation seeks to establish a socialist federation based on communities which associate themselves freely and democratically with this federation, would we oppose that? I would most certainly not.

Just my two cents though :p

[genstrike]

I think there is a difference between opposing a massacre and supporting nationalist gangs. I don't think that being against Israeli attacks on Gaza makes you a suporter of HAMAS.


Who said anything about Hamas and "supporting nationalist gangs"? I didn't say that myself or any other anarchists support any Palestinian political party, be it Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, etc. So, I support self-determination, an end to the occupation, and all the national rights that entails for an oppressed people. That doesn't automatically mean that I am a supporter of X party with a similar position. For example, I also support abortion rights, but that doesn't mean I'm a member of the Liberal Party.

Also, the last person to accuse me of supporting Hamas and terrorism was a militant Zionist.


I suppose it depends on which country you live in. I camomagine most anarchists, in say, America supporting national liberation, but I would be surprised if the situation were the same in England. I think that it is connected to various things about the movement in those countries. There are also Marxists who don't suppor nationalist movements though of all those who call themselves Marxists they would be in a very small minority.

Yeah, I think there are differences and tendencies within the anarchist movement, and I'm not a fan of some of these tendencies either.

[ls]

Who said anything about Hamas and "supporting nationalist gangs"? I didn't say that myself or any other anarchists support any Palestinian political party, be it Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, etc. So, I support self-determination, an end to the occupation, and all the national rights that entails for an oppressed people. That doesn't automatically mean that I am a supporter of X party with a similar position. For example, I also support abortion rights, but that doesn't mean I'm a member of the Liberal Party.

A very weird position if there was one, you support having a government in Palestine but you don't care which one. :confused:


Also, the last person to accuse me of supporting Hamas and terrorism was a militant Zionist.

Oh dear, so I guess everyone (and that's a lot of people) attacking the ETA in this thread are nationalistic too.

[genstrike]

A very weird position if there was one, you support having a government in Palestine but you don't care which one.

No, I just didn't say which party (if any) I support. I wasn't the one who brought up specific political parties, it was Devrim who mentioned Hamas. All I did was say that I support the Palestinian right to self-determination and an end to the occupation. And I don't think that is necessarily tied to support for one particular party.

How is it wierd to support the Palestinian right to self-determination and an end to an incredibly occupation in general? Is it more rational to support self-determination for Palestine, but only if, say, the PFLP is leading the fight?

And why would I hold Palestine to a higher standard than all the other imperialist powers including Israel? Should I say "Because you aren't a bunch of anarcho-syndicalists who agree with me on everything, I don't give a shit about your oppression and incredibly brutal occupation by imperialist states". I don't like the government of, say, Poland either, but you won't catch me supporting a hypothetical German occupation of Poland. So why would I support a very real occupation of Palestine just because I don't like their government?

[ls]

No, I just didn't say which party (if any) I support.


So, I support self-determination, an end to the occupation, and all the national rights that entails for an oppressed people.

But that generally entails having a government, other than that you can point to the old ways of fiefdoms in Somalia, if that's what you want for people then you're frankly a scumbag.


All I did was say that I support the Palestinian right to self-determination and an end to the occupation. And I don't think that is necessarily tied to support for one particular party.

Maybe not, but 'national self-determination' necessarily involves some kind of government, otherwise it's going to be a fiefdom.


How is it wierd to support the Palestinian right to self-determination and an end to an incredibly occupation in general? Is it more rational to support self-determination for Palestine, but only if, say, the PFLP is leading the fight?

Not really no.


And why would I hold Palestine to a higher standard than all the other imperialist powers including Israel? Should I say "Because you aren't a bunch of anarcho-syndicalists who agree with me on everything, I don't give a shit about your oppression and incredibly brutal occupation by imperialist states". I don't like the government of, say, Poland either, but you won't catch me supporting a hypothetical German occupation of Poland. So why would I support a very real occupation of Palestine just because I don't like their government?

If you're implying that I or other people 'support' the Israeli or indeed any other state's existence then you're talking crap.

[genstrike]

But that generally entails having a government, other than that you can point to the old ways of fiefdoms in Somalia, if that's what you want for people then you're frankly a scumbag.

It can mean whatever the Palestinian people want it to mean. It can mean having a government, or it can mean not having a government and having a society modeled on, say, the Spanish Revolution. I'd like to see the second, but even the first would be a step in the right direction and would alleviate a lot of suffering caused by Israeli aggression.



Maybe not, but 'national self-determination' necessarily involves some kind of government, otherwise it's going to be a fiefdom.

First, no it doesn't. The Palestinian people can have self-determination in the absence of the state. For example, various indigenous nations in the Americas had self-determination without a state prior to colonization.

Second, what's the alternative with no self-determination? An anarchist paradise under Israeli occupation?


Not really no.

All right, so what do you support? We know you're against self-determination no matter who is leading the fight, and I would hope you would be against the occupation, so please enlighten me as to what the other option is?


If you're implying that I or other people 'support' the Israeli or indeed any other state's existence then you're talking crap.

Then why are you so adamantly arguing against opposing the occupation and recognizing the right to self-determination in general for fear it could lead to, horror of horrors, a new state?

[ls]

It can mean whatever the Palestinian people want it to mean.

Great argument, gotta remember that one.


It can mean having a government, or it can mean not having a government and having a society modeled on, say, the Spanish Revolution. I'd like to see the second, but even the first would be a step in the right direction and would alleviate a lot of suffering caused by Israeli aggression.

What second? You only said one thing. National self-determination isn't the same as a free territories, it means having some form of a bureaucratic government.


First, no it doesn't. The Palestinian people can have self-determination in the absence of the state. For example, various indigenous nations in the Americas had self-determination without a state prior to colonization.


Second, what's the alternative with no self-determination? An anarchist paradise under Israeli occupation?

It would be nice yeah, it wouldn't be paradise. It's highly unlikely because a strong movement usually can't organise properly in a place in such heated conflict like Palestine, it's more likely to occur however in Israel itself.


All right, so what do you support? We know you're against self-determination no matter who is leading the fight, and I would hope you would be against the occupation, so please enlighten me as to what the other option is?

Oh cool so I'm not against the occupation? Thanks for telling me my position.

Idiot.


Then why are you so adamantly arguing against opposing the occupation and recognizing the right to self-determination in general for fear it could lead to, horror of horrors, a new state?

Because the state is going to be extremely reactionary and persecute workers left right and centre.

[pastradamus]

Allow me if you will to explain a few things about The Basque Fatherland and Separatist Movement or ETA, I hear a lot of people here talking about them without any real knowledge of what they're about and what they stand for. So im just going to keep things simple.

Its Primary Ideology is the Separation and Independence of the Basque Country (Both in South West France and Northern Spain) whilst implying a Marxist-Leninist doctrine (argue as you will, this is the Groups official position).

Its Political Wing is Known as "Batasuna". The Recent Passing of the "political parties Law" has banned ETA's political party and has resulted in an renewed armed conflict since ETA's Cease fire in 2006, though one reason Zapatero broke off the peace talks was due to Some members of ETA placing a bomb in a Van which killed two people.

ETA's support thrived and grew Rapidly under Franco who surpressed Basque culture and Language in a system of Nationalisation and Latinisation of the Basque Country. This seemed Harsh on the Basques. If we look at the main other Area in Spain Demanding Independance - Catalonia, things are rather peaceful because Franco did not trash the Catalans as he did the Basques due to Catalonia being a strong industrial region.

On the Arms front Many of their Arms come from ex-Warsaw Pact states as well as the Former Yugoslavia, with most of their Bomb-making technology coming from these area's as well as having been suspected in being trained in bomb making technology by the Engineering wing of the Provisional IRA (who probably got them introduced to Semtex).

A large amount of Arms also come from the Middle East and North Africa.

But its main supply is suspected to come from South American countries, especially from FARC supplies (its widely suspected ETA recieved Anti-Air missles from the FARC).

France is Also a Supply area. With Arms coming from Brittany and From a raid on an arms cache in south-west france in which 300 handguns were recently captured.

[genstrike]

What second? You only said one thing. National self-determination isn't the same as a free territories, it means having some form of a bureaucratic government.

I meant the second as in "not having a government and having a society modeled on, say, the Spanish Revolution"

And most of the definitions of self-determination I've seen don't really mention having a state and a bureaucratic government. For example, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (not that I am a fan of the UN, but this is just one example of a definition) states "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." - doesn't mention a state or a government of any type, and is something I don't think anyone on the left would find particularly objectionable. Heck, that sounds pretty much like what anarchists want! The few definitions I've seen that do mention government say that people can choose whatever form of government they want, which presumably would include no government if they so choose.

I think we're just fighting over semantics and the definition of self-determination. If we can come to an agreement on the definition and whether that definition includes a state or not, we wouldn't be having this argument.


It would be nice yeah, it wouldn't be paradise. It's highly unlikely because a strong movement usually can't organise properly in a place in such heated conflict like Palestine, it's more likely to occur however in Israel itself.

I don't think it would even be possible under the occupation, as there will still be national and ethno-religious oppression resulting from Israeli apartheid. And even if this does come about, there is still the occupation to deal with.



Oh cool so I'm not against the occupation? Thanks for telling me my position.

No, it was an honest question. I figured you were probably against the occupation, and you stated that you were against self-determination, so I wanted to know what the third option is. Not wanting the Palestinian people to have self-determination and opposing the occupation and colonialism seem like irreconcilable positions to me.



Idiot.

Oh, fuck off.



Because the state is going to be extremely reactionary and persecute workers left right and centre.

And you know it will lead to a state and a reactionary one because... why, exactly? And we know it will be worse than the occupation because... why?

[Devrim]

Who said anything about Hamas and "supporting nationalist gangs"? I didn't say that myself or any other anarchists support any Palestinian political party, be it Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, etc. So, I support self-determination, an end to the occupation, and all the national rights that entails for an oppressed people.

I am not sure what you really mean here. It seems very, very confused. You seem to be supporting the national struggle, but not supporting the people actually waging it.

How on Earth do you expect self-determination and an end to occupation to come about? Do you think that it will be just granted because the Israelis are feeling nice one morning.

The situation in Palestine is terrible, and I personally don't see much hope there in the foreseeable future. A Palestinian state though could only be created in two ways. The first would be as a sort of 'bantustan', which is the option favoured by the liberal Zionists and the second is by a complete change in the world balance of power, which would lead to a new imperialist giant arising, and the military defeat of Israel. This option, needless to say, would probabely be accompanied by ethnic clensing on a scale that dwarfs what is going on now.

The idea that new independent states can emerge in the modern epoch is a myth. All new states that emerge must be supported/dominated by one imperialist power or another.


How is it wierd to support the Palestinian right to self-determination and an end to an incredibly occupation in general? Is it more rational to support self-determination for Palestine, but only if, say, the PFLP is leading the fight?

How do you expect it to be achieved, if not by the nationalists then by whom?

Basically I think that this is merely an abstract slogan.


And why would I hold Palestine to a higher standard than all the other imperialist powers including Israel? Should I say "Because you aren't a bunch of anarcho-syndicalists who agree with me on everything, I don't give a shit about your oppression and incredibly brutal occupation by imperialist states". I don't like the government of, say, Poland either, but you won't catch me supporting a hypothetical German occupation of Poland. So why would I support a very real occupation of Palestine just because I don't like their government?

I don't 'hold Palestine to a higher standard'. I don't support the Israeli occupation. I do recognise though that the national movement has nothing to offer the working class. HAMAS were very clear when major strikes errupted in Palestine a few years ago saying that these strikes have "no relation to national interests". The interests of the working class are opposed to those of the nation, and the national struggle.


Also, the last person to accuse me of supporting Hamas and terrorism was a militant Zionist.

This is a typical Stalinist assimilation argument.


and all the national rights that entails for an oppressed people
...It can mean whatever the Palestinian people want it to mean.

It goes along with the Stalinist talk of 'people'. Nations are divided into classes. We don't see much talk of the working class here.

I thought you were an anarchist.

To explain our position on this I include an English version of an article from our press at the time of the most recent major assaults on Gaza.



All across the world people expressed horror and revulsion at the Israeli massacres in Gaza. The purpose of this article is not to go over the details again, but the death toll, an estimated 1,200 or more Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the conflict, shows quite clearly that this was not a struggle between two equal powers, but a massacre pure and simple. This is an important point that needs to be considered when looking at how communists understand conflicts like these.

Although in some countries there was support for Israel’s so-called and even some protests supporting the massacres everywhere these were massively outnumbered by those demonstrating against the massacres, with massive demonstrations of hundreds of thousands taking place in Damascus, Madrid, Cairo, Istanbul, and even in Israel itself. Across the world it seems that even though many states refused to condemn or even supported the Israeli attack, there was little public support for it. In the ‘Islamic world’ in particular condemnation of the attacks was almost unanimous with the demonstrations in Syria directly organised by the state, and here in Turkey President Gül somehow managing to decide “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza shows disrespect to the Turkish Republic”, and Tayip managing to become a minor international media star for a moment. In fact in Turkey as well as in the majority of Arab countries all political forces within society were united around the issue.

When this type of ‘national unity’ emerges the first questions that revolutionaries need to be asking is whose class interests are being represented here. Invariably the answer will be not those of the working class.

In reality the Turkish political classes and the Israeli ones are in no way different. Anybody who listened to the Israeli politicians justifying the murders committed by their troops would have heard exactly the same line that we in Turkey have been listening to for years. The army was ‘defending innocent civilians against murderous terrorists’. We all know where we have heard those lines before. The lies used by the Israeli state to justify its war are exactly the same one, almost on a word for word basis, as those used by the Turkish state to justify its barbarism in the South-East and in the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq.

Of course, the hypocrisy of the ruling class is blatant for all to see. The arguments of some of the left organisations though are much more subtly. Ultimately they come down to supporting the Palestinian national Liberation movement and in particular HAMAS. The vast majority of these organisations are well aware that HAMAS is a reactionary anti-working class organisation. Some will even remember the attacks on the teachers and public sector strikes in September 2006. However, they continue to argue that it is necessary for socialists to support HAMAS as they are the only force struggling against the Israelis, and the only force that can protect the Palestinian people.

The facts on the ground tend to dispute this though. The death toll shows that they are absolutely incapable of protecting the Palestinian people. The myth of the Palestinian struggle promoted by the left is one in which eventually these ‘brave national forces’ will triumph over the ‘Israeli Zionist regime’, and its propaganda tools are pictures of national flags, dead children, and beautiful young women with assault rifles. In fact there only seems to be one main problem with the whole conception, and that is that it has nothing at all to do with reality.

The Palestinian national movement will never be able to destroy Israel by itself. The casualty figures at the start of this article point out the reality very bluntly; for every Israeli that died nearly one hundred Palestinians did. Communists arguing for an internationalist position, no support for either side in the bosses’ wars, have been told by members of the leftist organisations that the struggle is absolutely unequal and if you don’t support HAMAS’ struggle, you are lining up alongside the imperialists. Obviously they have a point here, the sides are unequal. However, whilst supporting the underdog may seem reasonable in a football match, for example when Haccetepe go to Fener, it is not really much of a political analysis.

Imperialism today is not only the USA and its allies. Imperialism is now a world system. All major countries have imperialistic interests. It is not only the USA, the British, and the French. Russia and China also have imperial interests as do much smaller countries like Turkey, Syria, and Iran, and in the struggles between these powers the interests of various national minorities count little more than the interests of pawns on a chessboard. The Kurdish example is a good one. Over the years, Kurdish nationalist organisations have allied themselves with all of the regional and major powers; the example of Syria’s past support for the PKK is just one reasonably recent example from this country. National liberation movements in the modern epoch can be little more than tools in the struggles between different powers, and in this case in the struggle of Syria and Iran against Israel.

Let’s be very clear about the realities of the situation; there is absolutely no possibility of a Palestinian victory at the moment. The ‘best’ that they can hope for is some sort of ‘homeland’ like the Bantustans in apartheid South Africa, where Palestinian police enforce Israeli order. At the moment there can not be a military defeat of Israel and its US backers. It is just not going to happen.

The only possibility that such a military defeat could come about would be if there were a massive change in the global balance of power, if the US were knocked down from its throne as overlord of the Middle East. It would need a new power or coalition of powers to arise to challenge American hegemony. Maybe in the future this could be done by China or even a re-emergent Russia. At the moment, though it doesn’t seem very likely.

What would it mean if it were to happen? A change in the imperialist balance of power is not something that tends to happen peacefully. At the very least, it would mean a return to the days of the cold war struggle for power with proxy armies confronting each other all across the globe. At worst it would mean generalised war. For the Middle East it would almost certainly mean a further increase in the murderous cycle of national/ethnic/religious conflicts, which are dragging the region deeper and deeper into barbarism. A Palestinian victory in Gaza would mean new massacres, only this time it would be Arabs massacring Jews.

…And for the Palestinian working class? The history of national liberation movements can give us a good idea of what would await them. Victorious nationalist movements have a tendency to turn round and massacre working class or socialist supporters of those movements who want something more. The murder of thousands of workers and communists in Shanghai in 1927 is only one of the best known examples, but it is part of a long history that goes in this part of the world from Mustafa Suphi and the leaders of the TKP to Kurdish nationalists in Iraq shooting down striking cement factory workers today.

It is not the role of communists and revolutionaries to support the weaker side in a struggle. Nor is it their job to mobilise workers to die on behalf of their bosses. We come from a different tradition.

It is a tradition that puts class interests, not national interests first. It is the tradition of Lenin and of the revolutionary upsurges that put an end to the First World War.

It is a tradition that now as then says that workers have no country.


Devrim

[redflag32]

You have to look at the words I used. I didn't say they generally don't care who they hit. Every political group using such tactics has cared to an extent where they hit. Otherwise they would bomb empty fields. What I was saying is the ETA didn't care who they hit, i.e. they were not concerned if some innocents were harmed in this attack. I don't think such a tactic is defensible, and hilights one of the obvious problems with bombing campaigns.

Dude, you need to get out of this revolutionary game if your cant stomach some innocent deaths. Do you honestly think during civil war for the socialist republic that it would be a completely clean war? Its the ultra position again,only a pure social revolution will do. Were the people march and take over the means of production without any blood shed.:rolleyes:

[Pogue]

Dude, you need to get out of this revolutionary game if your cant stomach some innocent deaths. Do you honestly think during civil war for the socialist republic that it would be a completely clean war? Its the ultra position again,only a pure social revolution will do. Were the people march and take over the means of production without any blood shed.:rolleyes:

I don't believe that there will not be any innocent deaths. I just don't think we should plant bombs fully knowing it will lead to innocent deaths, as ETA, the IRA etc have done and in ETAs case still do. Bombing in general is a rubbish tactic unless done properly.

[Luís Henrique]

It does not help the discussion about ETA to derail the thread into a discussion about Palestine and Israeli occupation. Whatever Euzkadi is, and whatever Palestine is, the two situations are not remotely comparable. Basques enjoy similar rights to Spaniards in Euzkadi. Palestinians are second (second? perhaps fifteenth?) class citizens, or not citizens at all.

Luís Henrique

[genstrike]

It does not help the discussion about ETA to derail the thread into a discussion about Palestine and Israeli occupation. Whatever Euzkadi is, and whatever Palestine is, the two situations are not remotely comparable. Basques enjoy similar rights to Spaniards in Euzkadi. Palestinians are second (second? perhaps fifteenth?) class citizens, or not citizens at all.

Luís Henrique

Yeah, you're right. I probably did the most to go off topic, and I'm sorry. Maybe if people want to tell me how I'm a bad anarchist and closet stalinist for supporting self-determination, we should start a new thread.