palestine/israeli topic

[danyboy27]

wow, that something new.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8203989.stm

to me its a small step foward, perhaps some israeli will be less timid and will actually speak out about their governement barbaric practices.

meaninwhile in gaza, the hamas is cracking down taliban-style muslim extremist?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8203362.stm


weird stuff happening these day.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I support Hamas' fight for a Palestinian State.

I support the Palestinian cause.

Hamas' could have went about it in a non violent manner (which they should have), but they are showing that they will not be threatened.

What is better for the future of Palestine? Radical Islamic groups who will invoke Sharia and make it look like Saudi Arabia w/o money, or Hamas who is the Palestinian equivalent of the Republican Party in the US.

I'm not going to lie. If they had done it to a Marxist revolutionary group I would be upset about it. The thing is, Marxist revolutionaries are far smarter than religous cooks.

[Jack]

So you support a bourgeois, deeply religious, reactionary national liberation movement? I suppose the repression of the Palestinian people will be oh so much better under a "homegrown", anti woman, anti gay, anti socialist government versus the Israeli oppressors.

Your opinion has as much validity as supporting Welsh independence. The differences are slim between a Hamas controlled state and the Israeli state, much like a Welsh state versus the British state.

National "liberation" is anti working class, dividing us by border and ethnicity. It itself is hostile to the global working class.

[RGacky3]

I suppose the repression of the Palestinian people will be oh so much better under a "homegrown", anti woman, anti gay, anti socialist government versus the Israeli oppressors.

Actually ... probably it will, but I suppose you don't believe in democracy do you?


National "liberation" is anti working class, dividing us by border and ethnicity. It itself is hostile to the global working class.

Is anti-imperialism anti-working class?

Just because you think something is'nt good enough for the palestinians does'nt mean its not, the point is, it should be up to THEM, not you, not isreal, not the united states.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Just because you think something is'nt good enough for the palestinians does'nt mean its not, the point is, it should be up to THEM, not you, not isreal, not the united states.

Very internationalist of you.

[9]

So you support a bourgeois, deeply religious, reactionary national liberation movement? I suppose the repression of the Palestinian people will be oh so much better under a "homegrown", anti woman, anti gay, anti socialist government versus the Israeli oppressors.

Your opinion has as much validity as supporting Welsh independence. The differences are slim between a Hamas controlled state and the Israeli state, much like a Welsh state versus the British state.

National "liberation" is anti working class, dividing us by border and ethnicity. It itself is hostile to the global working class.

So, had you been alive during the colonization of what is now the US, you would not have supported the Natives' battles for "national liberation"? Obviously I strongly, strongly disagree with Hamas' politics, but I support the Palestinian struggle for national liberation. If that means supporting the right of Palestinians to vote in their own oppressive, capitalist leadership as opposed to being forcefully subjugated by an occupying force, so be it. It seems to me nearly impossible to expect a population of workers to fight on the basis of class interests when they exist under the boot of a brutal imperialist occupation which deprives them of many basic necessities such as accessible drinking water. So the assertion that 'its just as well that the Zionist army be passively allowed to violently subjugate the indigenous population of Palestine because the Palestinians would probably not be any better in a position of government' is a pretty fucked up analysis, in my honest opinion. Palestinian life will remain practically unbearable as long as the occupation continues, and indigenous people should not be expected to suffer on the tiny remaining scraps of their native lands in a state of virtual imprisonment at the hands of a colonialist army simply because Western leftists don't think a Palestinian government could do it any better themselves. That just strikes me as borderline-chauvinistic. And yes, Hamas is of a reactionary fundamentalist nature, but it isn't difficult to understand why when one considers the nature of the other contenders and the quality of life in the territories in the present state of affairs. The Hamas victory simply demonstrates that the Palestinian people desire national liberation, and we ought to support their struggle.
And in a sovereign Palestine, the population would at the very least have some say in the nature of their government - the Palestinian capitalist class would at least have to make some small concessions to the Palestinian workers and be held to some relative degree of accountability via elections, which may seem insignificant but would in fact be quite significant in comparison to the amount of accountability the IDF has toward the Palestinian people (which is ZERO - they can massacre thousands upon thousands of them and lock them up in a state of limbo without any concern for electoral repercussions).

[Conquer or Die]

Good news. On the American side there seems to be no way to stop the uneven parallel of funds given to Israel's war department against Palestine's. Agitation in this regard is impossible as the Israel Lobby is entrenched and politically favored.

Jack is stupid. He is either a fabian fascist or an idiot. National liberation in the name of the state means fuck imperialism which is the most vulgar display of human progress.

Fabians are the worst human scum on the planet. They revel in their material obesity while claiming anger at exploited nations for not caring about their precious do-nothingness socialism from above victim mentality. Comprador labor aristocrats form a solid basis for fascist action networks.

[Charles Xavier]

Very internationalist of you.
How is not supporting the right to self determination of all nations not internationalist? Thats the exact definition of internationalism.

[AntifaAustralia]

Im on homorevolutionary and Jacky's side.

Fuck i hate pali and isi issues, fuck religion, fuck nationalism and zionism

So you nationalists are saying that palestinian fascism is acceptable? religious fundamentalism? Imagine a racist, relgiously segregated anti-communist Palestine state! this is unacceptable!

Creating more nation states will create more war! look at the soviet crises! the crises in china! So you want to segregate by religion! you want to allow nationalism! wtf! are you an internationalist? or a fascist? are you for human unity? or segregation?

Like the tibetans say, "we want autonomy!",

secular and multi-racial/cultural existance of israel is needed!

[Jack]

So, had you been alive during the colonization of what is now the US, you would not have supported the Natives' battles for "national liberation"?Obviously I strongly, strongly disagree with Hamas' politics, but I support the Palestinian struggle for national liberation. If that means supporting the right of Palestinians to vote in their own oppressive, capitalist leadership as opposed to being forcefully subjugated by an occupying force, so be it. It seems to me nearly impossible to expect a population of workers to fight on the basis of class interests when they exist under the boot of a brutal imperialist occupation which deprives them of many basic necessities such as accessible drinking water. So the assertion that 'its just as well that the Zionist army be passively allowed to violently subjugate the indigenous population of Palestine because the Palestinians would probably not be any better in a position of government' is a pretty fucked up analysis, in my honest opinion. Palestinian life will remain practically unbearable as long as the occupation continues, and indigenous people should not be expected to suffer on the tiny remaining scraps of their native lands in a state of virtual imprisonment at the hands of a colonialist army simply because Western leftists don't think a Palestinian government could do it any better themselves. That just strikes me as borderline-chauvinistic. And yes, Hamas is of a reactionary fundamentalist nature, but it isn't difficult to understand why when one considers the nature of the other contenders and the quality of life in the territories in the present state of affairs. The Hamas victory simply demonstrates that the Palestinian people desire national liberation, and we ought to support their struggle.
And in a sovereign Palestine, the population would at the very least have some say in the nature of their government - the Palestinian capitalist class would at least have to make some small concessions to the Palestinian workers and be held to some relative degree of accountability via elections, which may seem insignificant but would in fact be quite significant in comparison to the amount of accountability the IDF has toward the Palestinian people (which is ZERO - they can massacre thousands upon thousands of them and lock them up in a state of limbo without any concern for electoral repercussions).

What I'm trying to say is that Hamas does not fight for the liberation of the Palestinian people. Hamas fights for an Islamic, fascist state over the Palestinians, not workers power or anything a socialist should support. I was criticizing you mostly based on your support of a bourgeois, reactionary movement because you favor national liberation. I support a Palestinian fight for equal rights and against oppression, but not for a specifically Arab state.

All that is to be gained is, as you put it, "some small concessions". Meaning that all the Palestinians killed in the struggle, and Israelis killed by Hamas's terrorist attacks, would be dieing for about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Supporting national liberation is supporting workers killing other workers in the name of their country. It is reactionary because it pits the working class against eachother, and creates unnessacary conflict between people of the same class. See: Northern Ireland

[Jack]

How is not supporting the right to self determination of all nations not internationalist? Thats the exact definition of internationalism.

When did being an internationalist mean you supported members of the working class killing eachother because of their ethnicity or plot of land they were born on?

[graffic]

So, had you been alive during the colonization of what is now the US, you would not have supported the Natives' battles for "national liberation"? Obviously I strongly, strongly disagree with Hamas' politics, but I support the Palestinian struggle for national liberation. If that means supporting the right of Palestinians to vote in their own oppressive, capitalist leadership as opposed to being forcefully subjugated by an occupying force, so be it. It seems to me nearly impossible to expect a population of workers to fight on the basis of class interests when they exist under the boot of a brutal imperialist occupation which deprives them of many basic necessities such as accessible drinking water. So the assertion that 'its just as well that the Zionist army be passively allowed to violently subjugate the indigenous population of Palestine because the Palestinians would probably not be any better in a position of government' is a pretty fucked up analysis, in my honest opinion. Palestinian life will remain practically unbearable as long as the occupation continues, and indigenous people should not be expected to suffer on the tiny remaining scraps of their native lands in a state of virtual imprisonment at the hands of a colonialist army simply because Western leftists don't think a Palestinian government could do it any better themselves. That just strikes me as borderline-chauvinistic.

The only place Jews and Arabs can live together in peace is Israel.

Supporting a struggle that refuses to accept Israel (it isn't going anywhere), refuses to abide by Oslo II and subscribes to fascist, medieval ideology is not intellectually progressive. It's an intellectual collapse in my opinion. The more support these groups get the more they encourage the conflict because they bring up their children with racist views that Jews are children of the devil.

It is true that the Palestinians are a oppressed people and the turn to extremism is understandable but the belief that a Jewish state is the cause of suffering is a lie spouted by religious zealots. There has never been a Palestinian country and the "Palestinians" did not exist before the 1960's. Their struggle is a proxy by Islamic theocratic types who are ideologically driven against a "Jewish" state on "their" land.

[RGacky3]

The only place Jews and Arabs can live together in peace is Israel.

Thats strange, considering there is a sizable jewish population in iran (I know they arn't arabs) and turkey, and they hav'nt killed each other yet.


When did being an internationalist mean you supported members of the working class killing eachother because of their ethnicity or plot of land they were born on?

I don't support that, I support Isreal giving palestine the autonomy it deservers, if you choke a dog and the dog bites you, who's fault is it?

Isreal has been choking Palestinians for decades now.


So you nationalists are saying that palestinian fascism is acceptable? religious fundamentalism? Imagine a racist, relgiously segregated anti-communist Palestine state! this is unacceptable!

So I take it you don't believe in self determination or democracy, at least, not if the people don't agree with you, thats good because guess what, the United States agrees with you.

Palestinians as a whole are not racist, fundamentalist or segregated, obviously due to oppression some of that has come in, but the solution is'nt more suppression.

[Jack]

Turks aren't Arabs either....

[graffic]

Thats strange, considering there is a sizable jewish population in iran (I know they arn't arabs) and turkey, and they hav'nt killed each other yet.

Yes the Persian Jews live in relative freedom but their main problem is the accusations and suspicion they get with being "zionist sympathisers". Since the Islamic revolution their life has become much worse.

I don't want to be pedantic and I know it is pointless to compare but the Arab's in Israel have much more freedom than the Jews in Iran. I suppose you could blame that on low economic prosperity in the Arab world which has helped produce backward religious movements and theocratic states whereas Israel was and is a modern state founded by more progressive thinkers.

I believe that there is no racism from the liberal Israeli's. There is hatred, which is bad, but it is not "race hate" or "religious hate". It is the fear of terror and of a ideology which wants to destroy them. They don't discriminate in law against peoples of different creed or faith.

[RGacky3]

Turks aren't Arabs either....

Yeah, my bad


Yes the Persian Jews live in relative freedom but their main problem is the accusations and suspicion they get with being "zionist sympathisers". Since the Islamic revolution their life has become much worse.

Really? from what I've heard they live pretty well and free, which is strange considering your accusation, sure there will be suspicions (thats in every country with many ethnic groups), but your saying that somehow jews and arabs CANNOT live in peace unless its imposed is rediculous.


I believe that there is no racism from the liberal Israeli's. There is hatred, which is bad, but it is not "race hate" or "religious hate". It is the fear of terror and of a ideology which wants to destroy them. They don't discriminate in law against peoples of different creed or faith.

But you do believe it exists from the other side?

[AntifaAustralia]

I totally agree with Graffic

A communist israel would probably be great. The right wing zionists, racists, and capitalists would probably be needed to be eradicated. Extensive anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action for the palestinians.

I reckon progress needs to happen within the Israelli government, israelis are a more developed nation to move towards change.

Perhaps a solidarity war with the communists of israel, troops from the middle east, guns from russia, to start a revolution against the white army in ISRAEL!

I'm such a militant communist.:lol:

[Devrim]

Turks aren't Arabs either....

As Jack rightly points out Turks are not Arabs. Nor indeed is there a sizeable Jewish population in Turkey. Personally I have only ever met one.
Devrim

[narcomprom]

I believe that there is no racism from the liberal Israeli's. There is hatred, which is bad, but it is not "race hate" or "religious hate". It is the fear of terror and of a ideology which wants to destroy them. They don't discriminate in law against peoples of different creed or faith.
Bullsh*t. Why didn't the Nakba arabs or the ones occupied just receive a citizenship? There is hate towards the poor and uneducated Arabophone minority and this hate is rationalised with racist and fundamentalist arguments. A prime example is you accusing every single member of minorities in question of plotting to destroy the Jews! That is racist paranoia.

Nationalisms of the oppressed is the natural answer to the chauvinisms of the oppressor.

@Apikoros
What changes national self-determination? I'd rather see Israel going on compromise with the National liberation movement of the Palestinians. Adopting Arabic as the only state language would be compromise leaving Pals with their national pride while respecting the Jewish charcater of Israel with Hebrew being a holy language unfit for the kitchen. Add restitution and minority benefits for the new muslim Israelis and the crisis is passé.


As Jack rightly points out Turks are not Arabs. Nor indeed is there a sizeable Jewish population in Turkey. Personally I have only ever met one.
Devrim
Surely you have met Jews without even noticing. Turkey has a fairly large Jewish community and there nobody gives a damn. Secularism works. You surely heared of Dario Moreno - he, for instance, descends from Turkish Jews.

[Charles Xavier]

When did being an internationalist mean you supported members of the working class killing eachother because of their ethnicity or plot of land they were born on?

Internationalism does not mean No nations, cosmopolitan or national nihilism.

It means universal support for the right to self determination of nations. Unity with the struggles of working people of all nations. Not abolish all nations.

[Jack]

Alright, and if gaining "self detirmination" means having to kill members of the working class of the so-called repressing ethnicity, you're okay with that?

[narcomprom]

Internationalism does not mean No nations, cosmopolitan or national nihilism.

It means universal support for the right to self determination of nations.
That's what it meant for the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union had to do realpolitik in a world where the international institutions where based upon upon nationalist principles. Internationalism is the opposition to the nationalist ideology of local petty bourgeois.

[Charles Xavier]

That's what it meant for the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union had to do realpolitik in a world where the international institutions where based upon upon nationalist principles. Internationalism is the opposition to the nationalist ideology of local petty bourgeois.


Internationalism is not Cosmopolitanism, stop trying to equate the two. There are still national struggles and liberation struggles that need to be fought. And I don't see how the Petty bourgeoisie have anything to do with Nationalism, they may side with a struggle in some cases not always though.

[Charles Xavier]

Alright, and if gaining "self detirmination" means having to kill members of the working class of the so-called repressing ethnicity, you're okay with that?
And what about people getting killed by Israel for simply being Arab? The struggle in Palestine is not against Jews, its for a Palestinian state.

[Jack]

And what about people getting killed by Israel for simply being Arab? The struggle in Palestine is not against Jews, its for a Palestinian state.

Yes, which involves.......killing working class Jews.

It's easy to support national liberation when you're in Ohio where there's never going to be one, it's alot harder when Hamas is shooting missiles at your house.

[Jack]

Oh, well, Canada, I was thinking you were Kassad.

[Charles Xavier]

Yes, which involves.......killing working class Jews.

It's easy to support national liberation when you're in Ohio where there's never going to be one, it's alot harder when Hamas is shooting missiles at your house.


Hamas would have no reason to shoot missiles at a house in Israel if there was peace. But the onus is on Israel to stop their war on Palestine.

If US invaded Canada killed its people, told them to move from their homes and gave their land to Americans and then complained that the Canadians are fighting back. I assume you would stand by your empire right?

[Jack]

Hamas would have no reason to shoot missiles at a house in Israel if there was peace. But the onus is on Israel to stop their war on Palestine.

If US invaded Canada killed its people, told them to move from their homes and gave their land to Americans and then complained that the Canadians are fighting back. I assume you would stand by your empire right?

So Israel attacking civilians means Hamas can attack civilians? They don't have to kill innocent working class people, Hamas is one of the most reactionary movements in the Middle East.

I would be against both Canadian and American nationalism, that's called consistancy.

[RGacky3]

Yes, which involves.......killing working class Jews.

It's easy to support national liberation when you're in Ohio where there's never going to be one, it's alot harder when Hamas is shooting missiles at your house.

No one is saying that killing workign class people is positive, but what is the other option for the people there? Just allow themselves to continue being oppressed? If you have a way that the palestinian people can liberate themselves otherwise then e-mail hamas. The fact is terrorism is a horrible horrible weapon, but for some people its the only weapon they think they ahve.

Isreal is in a much different position than hamas, Isreal is a steady, wealthy state backed up by the United States, Hamas and the palestinian people are poor, desperate and oppressed.

[Jack]

Yes, Burkina Faso is also a poor, oppressed country, that doesn't mean they should use terrorist tactics against the West as revenge for their exploitation. Do I oppose the assasination of Israeli politicians and attacks on police and military? Of course not, but I also support those on their Palestinian counterparts (neither by either state, though).

[narcomprom]

Internationalism is not Cosmopolitanism, stop trying to equate the two. There are still national struggles and liberation struggles that need to be fought. And I don't see how the Petty bourgeoisie have anything to do with Nationalism, they may side with a struggle in some cases not always though.
I don't know where you have your definition from mine I have from Marx and Engels' manifesto. It is the struggle of the proletarians of all countries agains a common enemy that hazes them against one another.

Lenin tickles the issues of national liberation, but for him, that is not something that has to fought, it is a tool in the world class struggle. International struggle against imperialist oppression is not the as for right to do your own nationalism. Nationalism and internationalism are clearly opposed, although internationalists can use nationalist demands as a tool in their struggle.

That is what Lenin writes in "critical remarks on the national question" ("критические заметки по национальному вопросу") from the Russian full collection of writings (ПСС), 24th tome. Translated by google language tools and proof-read by your most humble:


Marxism is unreconciable with nationalism, be it the most «fair», «clean», «sublime» and «civilised»one.

Marxism proposes instead of any nationalism — internationalism, the melting of all nations to highest unity, which is growing before our eyes with every mile of the railway, with each international trust, with each (international in its economic activities, and then in ideas, in their aspirations) Workers' Union. The principle of nationality is historically inevitable in bourgeois society, and dealing with that society, Marxism fully recognizes historical legitimacy of national movements. But so that this recgnition does not become apologetics for nationalism, it is necessary that it is strictly limited only that what is progressive in these movements — so that this recognition does affect the darkening of the Proletarian consciousness with a Bourgeois ideology.
[...]
For the proletariat they [the nationalist demands] are a tool in class struggle.
[...]
It [to draw new national borders] is not our aim, our aim is to promote solidarity between the workers of all nations.


There's also a famous statement of Lenin that goes that a nationalist worker cannot call himself a socialist. I hope I'll find the source.

It is utterly nescessary to differ between nationalist and socialist elements in the political arena of Israel-Palestine.

[Devrim]

Surely you have met Jews without even noticing. Turkey has a fairly large Jewish community and there nobody gives a damn. Secularism works. You surely heared of Dario Moreno - he, for instance, descends from Turkish Jews.
Quite possibly I have. There are 26,000 Jews in Turkey, the vast majority of whom live in Istanbul though.
Of course many people are descended from them. At the time of the birth of the Republic there were about 500,000 Jews here. The ethnic cleansing that accompanied the birth of the new state, and the foundation of the State of Israel of course are two of the main reasons for the massive decrease in that number.
Actually, there is a small town near Tel Aviv where people still speak Turkish.
Devrim

[danyboy27]

in the case of palestine, i dont think armed struggle is gonna resolve something.

armed struggle is viable when you have an advantage of some kind, number, equipement, strategy, allies.

right now hamas dosnt have good equipement, they dont have enough troops, the terrain is at their disavantage and their ennemies are extremely powerful.

[RGacky3]

a great documentary about the occupation (called Occupation 101) I encourage OIers to watch it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589&ei=La2NSpKwIszN-Ab3_MSuBA&q=Occupation+101+


Do I oppose the assasination of Israeli politicians and attacks on police and military? Of course not, but I also support those on their Palestinian counterparts (neither by either state, though).

Ok I agree, terrorism is horrible, and hurts innocent people.

However heres the thing, like I said, you hold a dogs ears, its going to bite you, it might bite other people too that are innocent, but the situation that caused that (the holding of the ears) is waht we should be worried about.

The palestinians are under military occupation, they are humiliated repeatedly, kicked out of their homes, compleatly oppressed militarily and economically, and the vast majority of them do not fight back against jewish civilians, some do (most of hamas rockets however don't actually have explosive heads, they are more symbolic), but to complain about the ant biting the person stomping on the ant colony is putting things out of perspective.

Is it horrible? Yes, is it justified? No, but lets look at the whole picture.


right now hamas dosnt have good equipement, they dont have enough troops, the terrain is at their disavantage and their ennemies are extremely powerful.

I agree with you, but what are they going to do? THey have no voice at all, no power, even their elections arn't respected. This is a desperate people, remember.

[danyboy27]

a great documentary about the occupation (called Occupation 101) I encourage OIers to watch it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589&ei=La2NSpKwIszN-Ab3_MSuBA&q=Occupation+101+



Ok I agree, terrorism is horrible, and hurts innocent people.

However heres the thing, like I said, you hold a dogs ears, its going to bite you, it might bite other people too that are innocent, but the situation that caused that (the holding of the ears) is waht we should be worried about.

The palestinians are under military occupation, they are humiliated repeatedly, kicked out of their homes, compleatly oppressed militarily and economically, and the vast majority of them do not fight back against jewish civilians, some do (most of hamas rockets however don't actually have explosive heads, they are more symbolic), but to complain about the ant biting the person stomping on the ant colony is putting things out of perspective.

Is it horrible? Yes, is it justified? No, but lets look at the whole picture.



I agree with you, but what are they going to do? THey have no voice at all, no power, even their elections arn't respected. This is a desperate people, remember.

its just stun me that you just compared human behavior with the one of a dog.

btw i seen one of those symbolics rockets making its thru a school.

explosive warhead or not it could have killed the children.

[9]

its just stun me that you just compared human behavior with the one of a dog.

Way to take a decent analogy so far out of context it almost doesn’t seem humanly possible. Its pretty clear what the point he was making is, and a bit of a bizarre strawman to resort to pretending he was actually making a comparison between one side of the conflict and a dog.


As to the rest of the opinions opposing Palestinian resistance, I am a bit mystified. If the Palestinians aren’t supposed to fight back against the occupation and subjugation, what are they supposed to do? “Unite with the Israeli working class, of course!” you say. But that’s a bit hard when there is a WALL between the Palestinians and the Israeli working class, and harder still when the Israeli working class, by and large, doesn’t want anything to do with the Palestinians. And while I expect many will take issue with the latter part of that analysis, the unfortunate fact of the matter – in spite of idealistic insistence to the contrary – is that the vast majority of the Israeli working class doesn’t want to join together with the Palestinians or support the Palestinian cause, or any common cause the two groups theoretically share.. as if somehow this nice shiny 'theory' we have trumps reality and takes precedence over the situation that's actually ensuing.
It is like telling slaves in colonial America that they can only revolt if they unite with the white working class, when the white working class is on the side of the oppressors. The white working class is beating them and lynching them, but somehow, they are expected to unite with the white working class if they are to get our support.

So the Palestinians, who are physically separated from the Israeli working class are supposed to do what? That is my question for those opposed to Palestinian liberation. I am not big on national liberation struggles, but this is a circumstance where I see no viable alternative…… Unless, of course, you are advocating pacifism on the part of the Palestinians. Which, to be frank, is what it is beginning to sound like from Jack and others.



Alright, and if gaining "self detirmination" means having to kill members of the working class of the so-called repressing ethnicity, you're okay with that?

Again I'm confused. Do you think that international revolution precludes revolutionaries having to kill fellow workers? Do you think that every member and supporter of the BNP, or the Ku Klux Klan, or the Third Reich is/was from the bourgeoisie? Because, I hate to drop the ball on you here, but there have been, are presently, and will always be many members of the working class who side with the reactionaries and fight against progress and revolution. What scenario (that isn't complete idealism) of "international revolution" precludes killing armed reactionaries because they happen to also be from the working class? Simply because someone happens to be working class does not mean that they will take up arms and fight for the interests of workers, nor does it mean that they won't take up arms and fight against the interests of the working class. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Palestinian working class, the vast majority of the Israeli working class falls into the latter position. It makes no difference that I desperately wish this were not the case; the reality (and I'm assuming we are talking about reality here) is that it is.

[danyboy27]

Way to take a decent analogy so far out of context it almost doesn’t seem humanly possible. Its pretty clear what the point he was making is, and a bit of a bizarre strawman to resort to pretending he was actually making a comparison between one side of the conflict and a dog.


As to the rest of the opinions opposing Palestinian resistance, I am a bit mystified. If the Palestinians aren’t supposed to fight back against the occupation and subjugation, what are they supposed to do? “Unite with the Israeli working class, of course!” you say. But that’s a bit hard when there is a WALL between the Palestinians and the Israeli working class, and harder still when the Israeli working class, by and large, doesn’t want anything to do with the Palestinians. And while I expect many will take issue with the latter part of that analysis, the unfortunate fact of the matter – in spite of idealistic insistence to the contrary – is that the vast majority of the Israeli working class doesn’t want to join together with the Palestinians or support the Palestinian cause, or any common cause the two groups theoretically share.. as if somehow this nice shiny 'theory' we have trumps reality and takes precedence over the situation that's actually ensuing.
It is like telling slaves in colonial America that they can only revolt if they unite with the white working class, when the white working class is on the side of the oppressors. The white working class is beating them and lynching them, but somehow, they are expected to unite with the white working class if they are to get our support.


.

i didnt wanted tomake a strawman, just wanted to say that a man reaction cant be compared with a dog reaction, human are much more complex even when it come to its most basic instincts.

i dont think the palestinian need to get together with the israeli working class to succede, they need to do something that will shock the israeli people. so far armed struggle and terrorism failed to shock them, something else is needed, something that will reflect to the israeli people the barbary of their governement. dropping the armed struggle and allowing a tv team of haaretz news to show them in permanence what the israeli governement is doing to their neighbor, send pictures of killed palestinian to the israeli, allow israeli middle class to make a guided tour of the constant devastation.

i am not a genius, those are the only idea i could find. The only thing i know is that dropping terrorism and militancy will remove the only thrump card the israeli have in their game when its time to deal with the palestinian, terrorism and violence.

of course they will continue to be violent toward palestine, but they wont have any excuse anymore for the mess they will be doing, they will appear be perceived worldwide even more badly, not having any excuse for the massacers and the death they will cause.

[Charles Xavier]

I don't know where you have your definition from mine I have from Marx and Engels' manifesto. It is the struggle of the proletarians of all countries agains a common enemy that hazes them against one another.

Lenin tickles the issues of national liberation, but for him, that is not something that has to fought, it is a tool in the world class struggle. International struggle against imperialist oppression is not the as for right to do your own nationalism. Nationalism and internationalism are clearly opposed, although internationalists can use nationalist demands as a tool in their struggle.

That is what Lenin writes in "critical remarks on the national question" ("критические заметки по национальному вопросу") from the Russian full collection of writings (ПСС), 24th tome. Translated by google language tools and proof-read by your most humble:


There's also a famous statement of Lenin that goes that a nationalist worker cannot call himself a socialist. I hope I'll find the source.

It is utterly nescessary to differ between nationalist and socialist elements in the political arena of Israel-Palestine.

And Marx was in support of Abraham Licoln during the US Civil war, and of liberation in Ireland. Same with Lenin in fact Lenin helped forge a multinational Soviet Union with 15 republics and numerous autonomous territories!! This is what is the problem by learning by rote, memorizing slogans without understand the context. We Marxists are not national Nihilists, we recognize nations exist we want to forge great links between workers of all countries. And we support the struggles of all. In Vietnam, In Iraq, In Afganistan, in Palestine, in Latin America we stand by the oppressed against the oppressor. Internationalism does not mean there will be no nation struggles, but internationalism means we support the worker's struggles all across the world and support equality between nations.

[RGacky3]

just wanted to say that a man reaction cant be compared with a dog reaction, human are much more complex even when it come to its most basic instincts.

Ok, smarty, if a bullies grab you by the arms and slap you for a while, when they let o, and you have a change, your going to try and punch back arn't you. Exact same analogy, just with humans. Try and understand analogies.


i dont think the palestinian need to get together with the israeli working class to succede, they need to do something that will shock the israeli people.

Its not the Isreali people that are oppressing them, its the state. Most Isreali people don't care about the palestinians either way, they just want to live their lives, infact there are many that are opposed to the occupation. however there are enough hardcore zionists that have political influence to keep it giong.


The only thing i know is that dropping terrorism and militancy will remove the only thrump card the israeli have in their game when its time to deal with the palestinian, terrorism and violence.


The isrealis have been oppressing, and occupying and humiliating the palestinans for a long long time, before terrorism.

THey are percieved worldwide badly, but they have one trump card, 100% support of the uNited states, and almost endless military support.

[luchtoibre]

Fuck i hate pali and isi issues, fuck religion, fuck nationalism and zionism

So you nationalists are saying that palestinian fascism is acceptable? religious fundamentalism? Imagine a racist, relgiously segregated anti-communist Palestine state! this is unacceptable!

Creating more nation states will create more war! look at the soviet crises! the crises in china! So you want to segregate by religion! you want to allow nationalism! wtf! are you an internationalist? or a fascist? are you for human unity? or segregation?

Like the tibetans say, "we want autonomy!",

secular and multi-racial/cultural existance of israel is needed!can't believe i'm reading this on a leftwing site

What I'm trying to say is that Hamas does not fight for the liberation of the Palestinian people. Hamas fights for an Islamic, fascist state over the Palestinians, not workers power or anything a socialist should support. I was criticizing you mostly based on your support of a bourgeois, reactionary movement because you favor national liberation. I support a Palestinian fight for equal rights and against oppression, but not for a specifically Arab state.

All that is to be gained is, as you put it, "some small concessions". Meaning that all the Palestinians killed in the struggle, and Israelis killed by Hamas's terrorist attacks, would be dieing for about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Supporting national liberation is supporting workers killing other workers in the name of their country. It is reactionary because it pits the working class against eachother, and creates unnessacary conflict between people of the same class. See: Northern Irelandobviously supporting a racist ,colonialist apartheid state is much preferable to you,than a un-occupied [etc...]palestinian state ...


The only place Jews and Arabs can live together in peace is Israel.

Supporting a struggle that refuses to accept Israel (it isn't going anywhere), refuses to abide by Oslo II and subscribes to fascist, medieval ideology is not intellectually progressive. It's an intellectual collapse in my opinion. The more support these groups get the more they encourage the conflict because they bring up their children with racist views that Jews are children of the devil.

It is true that the Palestinians are a oppressed people and the turn to extremism is understandable but the belief that a Jewish state is the cause of suffering is a lie spouted by religious zealots. There has never been a Palestinian country and the "Palestinians" did not exist before the 1960's. Their struggle is a proxy by Islamic theocratic types who are ideologically driven against a "Jewish" state on "their" land.right wing zionist bollox.a palestinian state never existed.?the palestinians werent ethnic cleansed by foreign racist zealots.?with the help of western imperialism.?why are you on a left wing forum,whilst saying what you said on this thread?


I totally agree with Graffic

A communist israel would probably be great. The right wing zionists, racists, and capitalists would probably be needed to be eradicated. Extensive anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action for the palestinians.

I reckon progress needs to happen within the Israelli government, israelis are a more developed nation to move towards change.

Perhaps a solidarity war with the communists of israel, troops from the middle east, guns from russia, to start a revolution against the white army in ISRAEL!

I'm such a militant communist.:lol:yeh and you're a realist.


So Israel attacking civilians means Hamas can attack civilians? They don't have to kill innocent working class people, Hamas is one of the most reactionary movements in the Middle East.

I would be against both Canadian and American nationalism, that's called consistancy..yet another stupid reply on this thread about palestine!


Yes, Burkina Faso is also a poor, oppressed country, that doesn't mean they should use terrorist tactics against the West as revenge for their exploitation. Do I oppose the assasination of Israeli politicians and attacks on police and military? Of course not, but I also support those on their Palestinian counterparts (neither by either state, though).what does that mean then...?


half of the comments on this thread would be better served on a zionist site.to call yourselves leftist [the above names]or whatever is a joke.

[9]

The more support these groups get the more they encourage the conflict because they bring up their children with racist views that Jews are children of the devil.

It is true that the Palestinians are a oppressed people and the turn to extremism is understandable but the belief that a Jewish state is the cause of suffering is a lie spouted by religious zealots. There has never been a Palestinian country and the "Palestinians" did not exist before the 1960's. Their struggle is a proxy by Islamic theocratic types who are ideologically driven against a "Jewish" state on "their" land.

This is my favorite response in the whole thread. Nothing pisses me off more than a bunch of goyim going around talking about how bad the Jews supposedly have it all over the world as an excuse for why we should all support a colonialist regime that only serves to explicitly exacerbate anti-Semitism in a very, very tangible way. Which is extremely easy and so convenient to ignore when you happen not to be of Jewish descent.
This response is also hilarious because of the parroted right-wing propaganda which claims "there are no people called the Palestinians" which is the most disgusting claim of all. It is equivalent to saying, "there are no such people as the 'Native Americans' because 'America' did not exist before the Europeans arrived." How ridiculous. The fact that the land that came to be called "Palestine" was not always called "Palestine" means absolutely nothing. The people who live there, who are suffering under the occupation, have lived there for millennia. Whether you call them "Palestinians" or something else is entirely irrelevant to any actual argument and is one of the most despicable strawmen the right-wing has ever shat out.

[Comrade Akai]

I hate Zionist imperialism.

I don't hate Jews, Jews are not the problem. In fact, I really like most Jewish people. Every single one that I've met is very generous and kind. What I hate is Zionism.

This isn't a religious issue. This is a political issue. Before Zionism, Muslims and Jews in Palestine were at peace with each other. Mothers babysat each others' kids, fathers would play soccer and run businesses with each other. And to further hit my point home, Zionists make it a hobby to kill all who oppose...including many Jews who are against Zionism.

The Israeli military also shoots civilians...for fun. I'm not kidding. I'll post a video when my post count gets to 25.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The Israeli military also shoots civilians...for fun. I'm not kidding. I'll post a video when my post count gets to 25.

This may sound slightly pathetic, but just reading that made my eyes water. :crying: You just made me hate Zionism more than I did before.

As for the other points about Jews and Muslims living in peace I can totally believe that. Like you don't really hear about conflicts that went on in that Area before Zionism was created, well at least I don't.

[Comrade Akai]

This may sound slightly pathetic, but just reading that made my eyes water. :crying: You just made me hate Zionism more than I did before.

As for the other points about Jews and Muslims living in peace I can totally believe that. Like you don't really hear about conflicts that went on in that Area before Zionism was created, well at least I don't.
Almost made me want to cry, too. These people did nothing wrong. They could be just walking home from work or farming or whatever. They still die. Did they look at the soldier funny? Did they laugh a certain way? Did they have to tell their newborn baby to be quiet?

[Comrade Akai]

Okay everyone, I said I'd post a video, and here it is.
010E1x2DPHE

[graffic]

This is my favorite response in the whole thread. Nothing pisses me off more than a bunch of goyim going around talking about how bad the Jews supposedly have it all over the world as an excuse for why we should all support a colonialist regime that only serves to explicitly exacerbate anti-Semitism in a very, very tangible way. Which is extremely easy and so convenient to ignore when you happen not to be of Jewish descent.

I can only speak from experience but I have never heard any Israeli talk about the holocaust or past oppression as a "justification" for the state's actions. Most of their actions are perfectly legitimate actions any country would take in order to defend itself unless, of-course, you believe the Arab propaganda. Most of which, is ideologically and religiously motivated bollocks.

And I am of Jewish descent.



claims "there are no people called the Palestinians" which is the most disgusting claim of all.

Well prove it wrong then. The simple fact remains, you can't :lol:


It is equivalent to saying, "there are no such people as the 'Native Americans' because 'America' did not exist before the Europeans arrived."

You could call the Palestinians the "native palestinians of palestine" but the point is that they are Arabs, indistinguishable from their neighbors.

And no one in their right mind would claim that the Native Americans have a right to American land now just as the Palestinians are doing today.

They realised they had no legitimate claim to the land so they made up a unique history and started to claim they were a separate nation.

[danyboy27]

And no one in their right mind would claim that the Native Americans have a right to American land now just as the Palestinians are doing today.

They realised they had no legitimate claim to the land so they made up a unique history and started to claim they were a separate nation.

has a matter of fact canada reconize the fact that the amerindian where there first, and give them fuckload of money, subvention and territorial right for that, i dont see why israel should do the thing differently.
i think the palestinain justly deserve some kind of compensation, if you guy arnt yo tive them back their land, fine then, give them some compensations at least. give them a taxes exemption status, reconize their ancestral right and their separate culture.


they where there first buddy, live with it.

[9]

I can only speak from experience but I have never heard any Israeli talk about the holocaust or past oppression as a "justification" for the state's actions. Most of their actions are perfectly legitimate actions any country would take in order to defend itself unless, of-course, you believe the Arab propaganda. Most of which, is ideologically and religiously motivated bollocks.
If by "Arab propaganda" you mean "common sense", then absolutely, I thrive on Arab propaganda.



And I am of Jewish descent.
Go figure, it would appear that some goy hijacked your account and posted in the "anti-Semitism" thread, as seen here:


Originally Posted by graffic:
What is it about the Jews?

I mean with regard to racism they have to be the most widespread hated people on earth. Fascists are obsessed with them as an ethnic group more so than any other. I personally don't understand the obsession. I have met many Jews but I can't say I can point them out to you in a group of people or do I recognise any of the so called "stereotypical traits".

:rolleyes: But back to the topic at hand...


Well prove it wrong then. The simple fact remains, you can't :lol:

Prove what wrong? That the people you refuse to call "Palestinians" have lived on that land for millennia? Go to a library, read up on genetic studies, take two seconds out of your schedule to research the matter and it will become unambiguously clear.

"Recent genetic evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics) has demonstrated that Palestinians as an ethnic group represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times,"[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-gibbons2000-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-12) largely predating the Arabian Muslim conquest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Syria) that resulted in their acculturation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acculturation) and the establishment of Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language) as the lingua franca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca), eventually becoming the sole vernacular of the locals, most of whom would over time also convert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion) to Islam from various prior faiths." [source] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people)



You could call the Palestinians the "native palestinians of palestine" but the point is that they are Arabs, indistinguishable from their neighbors.

And no one in their right mind would claim that the Native Americans have a right to American land now just as the Palestinians are doing today.

They realised they had no legitimate claim to the land so they made up a unique history and started to claim they were a separate nation.
danyboy25 already addressed this, though I would simply elaborate by saying that, were it only sixty years after violent colonialism began in what is now the United States, I would aggressively advocate the withdraw of all colonialist settlers from the land, absolutely. And with regard to Palestine, if your logic is so completely backward that you believe violent colonialist settlers have a right to that land and the people who have lived there for thousands upon thousands of years do not, no appeal to rationality is going to change your mind.

[danyboy27]

but seriously, even if israel dosnt become socialist or communist, giving ancestral right to the palestinian would have some serious benefit for israel. a peace between israel and palestinine and the removing of all this apartheid-like situation would boost israel and palestine economy greatly.

israeli can be paranoid about its neighbor, its cool, but if rhey would actually work together to establish a common military with palestine the fallowing things would hapen.

1. end of the shortage of troops, increased self defense capabilities.

2. it wouldnt require fancy barrier and apache helicopter to get a terrorist, the palestinian would actually be able to get them themselves, they are the ones who know their guys suceptible to start troubles, and israel should do the same has well.

hel, even from a capitalist perspective the end of this shitstorm would have serious benefits.

[graffic]

Go figure, it would appear that some goy hijacked your account and posted in the "anti-Semitism" thread, as seen here:

My mother is of Jewish descent. They were assimilated Jews, perhaps to avoid persecution I don't know. I've never been called a "Jew" or done anything "Jewish" that I'm consciously aware of, all I know is that if a rabbi looked at my family tree he would call me Jewish. Maybe that is why I sometimes feel strongly about the Israeli-palestine conflict, (I don't even feel strongly about defending Israel or attacking Palestinian's or vice versa). What gets me is the lies thrown around carelessly about Israel. I'm not saying that you have lied but I've seen it many times and it seems to be something of a problem.

You probably remember the widely circulated video of what was seen to be an IDF soldier shooting a palestinian boy. With later investigations it was clear the boy was not shot by the IDF soldier, it was a bullet from a palestinian, but of course the majority of people who watched the video never found out and the clip had the desired effect.

[leochaos]

HI,
please read this piece about Chomsky.I would be interested to know if somebody has good informations about Blankfort.Is he is just a journalist?Was he eer a militant etc I think that it is important to have a critical approach to Chomsky,too many comrades seems not to.Let's start with this



Tel-Aviv and Washington are linked in the Middle East. That's a fact. But the importance of this link in Washington's colonial politics is being debated in the anti-imperialist movement. For the US, Jewish, anti-Zionist journalist Jeffrey Blankfort, Israeli influence is central to US policy and the anti-war movement has failed because of its inability to understand the importance of this lobby. Having developed a radical approach to this question, going so far as to deny the energy factor in the war in Iraq, Mr. Blankfort nonetheless opens interesting paths on Zionist influence in the United States. We reproduce an interview he gave to journalist Silvia Cattori.

Jeffrey Blankfort is a US journalist and producer of radio programs on KPOO in San Francisco and KZYX in Mendocino, in Northern California, and was formerly at KPFT/Pacifica in Houston, until they purged the political programming to better lull their listeners to sleep with music. Engaged in the political fight in favor of the Palestinians and for the creation of one binational state in Palestine since the 70s, he has become one of the favorite targets of US Zionists while also attracting the animosity of a part of the US left grouped around Noam Chomsky, who reproaches Blankfort for his "lobby obsession". He was editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and co-founder of the Labor Committee of the Middle East. Also, he was a founding member of the November 29 Coalition on Palestine.

Silvia Cattori: Washington and Tel-Aviv are intensifying their threats against Iran. In your opinion, does Israel have a precise national interest in weakening, or destroying, numerous Arab neighbors and to what degree does it succeed in orienting US policy towards new aggression in the Middle East?

Jeffrey Blankfort: My position is, and I have written an article about it, that the war in Iraq was not a war for oil, but was a war conceived by the neo-cons and the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States to benefit Israel, and to elevate Israel to a very important position in the Middle East, as a part of a plan to achieve overall US global control. This is what was called for in the document of the "Project for a New American Century” or PNAC. And even though a number of prominent people, politicians as well as military people, have said that this was a war for Israel, the anti-war movement will not consider that at all.

And right at this moment, the only segment of the American society that is pushing the US administration to confront Iran, happens to be the Jewish establishment or the lobby, whose main focus for months – groups like AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, but also other Jewish organizations-- has been to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

The left and the anti-war movement are so focused on blaming everything on US imperialism on one hand, and avoiding the provoking of what they fear will be "anti-Semitism" on the other, that they have gone further from putting any blame on Israel than have elements of the mainstream. And so, having paid no price for pushing the US into the war in Iraq – and not only this war, but the first Gulf war – they are preparing to do the same with Iran. There is no lobby like it.

S.C.: In other words, the US has become a satellite of Israel and acts in function with Israel's interests? Is this thesis not the opposite of that of Chomsky and of the left in general, for whom it is the US that uses Israel? That there is a convergence of interests between the US and Israel, and that Israel is simply the US's cop on the ground in exchange for services rendered by the US in the Middle East?

Jeffrey Blankfort: Yes, Chomsky tends to simplify US politics, blaming everything on the elites and whoever is in the White House while avoiding the role of Congress. Today, eleven members of the Senate are Jewish, that is 11% of the 100 members while only 2% of the American population is Jewish. He and his supporters, either directly or indirectly, raise the spectre of anti-Semitism, of provoking anti-Semitism, and what happens is that people keep their mouth shut. Now, Chomsky, who was a Zionist when he was younger--he lived in Israel, he has friends in Israel, was considering moving to Israel-- admitted in 1974 that this might influence his perspective – and he wanted his readers to know that. He wrote this in 1974 and yet few people who read Chomsky today know that. They do not know that he was Zionist, that he considered living in Israel.

In fact, for years he did not speak about Israel while he was speaking out about the US in Central America and Vietnam. It was a mutual friend of ours, Dr. Israel Shahak, who convinced Chomsky that he should speak up against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. It is interesting that the most important book that Chomsky wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, The Fateful Triangle, begins actually with a defence of Israel, a defence in the sense that while acknowledging all the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, he blames the US for allowing it to happen. Now, this defence, I would say, could be used by Pinochet in Chile or any dictator the US has supported around the world, to take the primary responsibility from them and place it on the US. And I don’t buy this. And most people who understand the situation, don’t buy it either when they come to look at it. A number of friends of mine, who are friends of Chomsky, have come to agree with me. The problem is, I would say, as fellow academics, that they don't feel comfortable criticizing Chomsky, particularly since he is often attacked by the right wing.

He has defended many people who have been under attack and has thus gained their loyalty. He also has been a mentor to a number of academics, and ironically, Chomsky has been the doorway for so many people to become involved in politics. They read Chomsky, and they become excited about political work. And it is only later, if they are fortunate, that they discover that Chomsky not only opens the door, he closes it as well!

S.C.: Which would mean that Chomsky gives less importance to the pro-Israeli lobby than it has? Has Chomsky upheld unjust options for the Palestinians in order to preserve Israel, for which he has an emotional attachment? Is this a unique case or has Chomsky defended the indefensible?

Jeffrey Blankfort: For the most part. On most other subjects, he is more open. On this particular one, he won’t even debate the issue. In 1991 we had an exchange that was published in a left newspaper in New York, the National Guardian, and a friend there wanted to set up a debate between Chomsky and myself on the issue of the Israel lobby at the Socialist Scholars Conference. Chomsky refused, writing "that it would not be useful." After his refusal, I asked a professor in California, Joel Beinin, whom I know, and who takes Chomsky’s position, if he would debate me. His response was identical: "it would not be useful!"

S.C.: On Iran, which today is caught in a vise, is Chomsky, in your opinion, also minimizing the role of the lobby acting in favor of Israel in the United States?

Jeffrey Blankfort: Regarding Iran, Chomsky and the others seem to be ignoring the campaign that the lobby is waging to get us into another war, one that will be far more catastrophic than the disaster that has taken place in Iraq. There is a coalition of the 12 leading Jewish women's organizations, representing a million Jewish women, calling itself "One Voice for Israel," that formed in 2002 in response to the bad publicity Israel received over the destruction of Jenin. Each year, in what it calls "Take-5," it gets it gets it members to call the White House at the same time and then on another day, to do the same to Congress. Each time they have done it, they have tied up the Capitol switchboard. It is one of the ways in which they show their power.

This coming February 22nd, they will be phoning President Bush to express their opinion on what he should do about Iran, and its development of nuclear energy or weapons. This a kind of operation that goes on all the time, but it is not even an issue or even known about by the anti-war movement, or by the left, and Professor Chomsky has written to me and others that he is not interested in the issue.

When two years ago, the same person who invited him to have a debate with me in 1991, asked Chomsky again if he would do it, he refused, dismissing my "preoccupation" with the lobby. He also writes that he refuses to read the article that I wrote about him. This is hardly the response of an intellectual. I find it interesting that he is willing to debate Alan Dershowitz, because that is fairly easy, but he won't debate someone on the left or at least on this issue. And that is where the debate should take place.

S.C.: Do you think that other countries have their equivalent of AIPAC?

Jeffrey Blankfort: AIPAC is very unusual because while it is a registered lobby for Israel, it does not have to register as a foreign lobby. And that gives it a unique situation in the country. In every hearing in the Congress that involves Middle East issues, you have staff members of AIPAC sitting in these committee hearings. No other lobbies, foreign lobbies, have this privilege. And they also write the legislation that Congress passes regarding the Middle East. For example, the recent Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which was passed a couple of years ago and which lead to what we see in Lebanon and Syria today was written by AIPAC which later bragged about it. It is not a secret. The only people that pretend they don't know it is the Left. It's on AIPAC's website, it is in their publications. AIPAC also provides interns - young, bright Jewish college students to work in the offices of members of Congress. They go to a member of Congress and say: "We have this young person who is interested in working on Capitol Hill, they will come one year and they will work in your office." No member of Congress is about to refuse a volunteer.

Also AIPAC has a special foundation that provides free trips for members of Congress to Israel. Last year over a hundred members of Congress went to Israel, on a free trip, paid for by this foundation. Now there is a big debate about such trips in Congress paid for by various lobbies, but I do not believe that anything is going to happen there that would negatively affect AIPAC. Congress will make an exception when it comes to Israel. What is interesting is we have a country to the South of us called Mexico. Mexico is far more important to the United States, to our economy, and also there are many more people of Mexican-American extraction than Jews.

There are thousands of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who work here and are responsible for growing and picking the farm produce in the United States. And yet we don’t have Congressional delegations going to Mexico, we don’t have Congress talking about the importance of Mexico. If they go to Mexico, they go for a vacation, and yet here the focus is on Israel simply because of two things: money and intimidation. The Democratic Party has for years relied on wealthy Jewish donors for the majority of its contributions. AIPAC itself does not give money. AIPAC coordinates where the money should go, so if you are a wealthy Jewish donor and you want to do something to help Israel’s cause, AIPAC will let you know where to give it. Also, around the country, there are now about three dozen political action committees or PACs that exist only to give money to candidates who support Israel. None of them are identified by a name that has anything to do with Israel; so here in California we have something called the Northern Californians for Good Government”. You have in St.Louis, Missouri, the St. Louisans for Good Government. The biggest one is called the National PAC, NPAC. Then you have the Hudson Valley Political Action committee, Desert Caucus, et cetera.

If you look at the name of these committees, you have no idea what they are for, whereas the other lobbies identify themselves by their special interest. Why not Jewish supporters of Israel? But even more important for Democrats, and for some Republicans, is the money contributed by individual Jews. For example, in 2002, an Egyptian-born Israeli, named Haim Saban, who came to the United States and made billions of dollars with a Saturday morning children's program, gave $12.3 million dollars to the Democratic party, which was only about a million and a half dollars less than the arm manufacturers political action committees gave to the both political parties.

Now, this is just one man. And also Haim Saban, who founded the Saban Institute at the Brookings Institute which deals with Israeli issues,is also a big supporter AIPAC, and he funds events in Washington where AIPAC trains college students for pro-Israel advocacy. University campuses are a main battleground for the Jewish forces lobbying for Israel they have come together as the Israel Campus Coalition, 28 organizations, including AIPAC with Israel at the top of their agenda.

Today, a main lobby focus is to get to the colleges campuses to stop divestment programs directed towards Israel. They also are trying to influence the next generation of community leaders who are in the universities at the moment to act in Israel's behalf.

S.C.: To help the Palestinians get justice, those who support them -- or who at least pretend to -- must speak the truth. However, it seems as if, even in their own camp, this truth is suffocated. Do you think that in the US, as in Europe, this solidarity has failed because it is led by people who are there to put breaks on any criticism of Israel? Do you think Chomsky's influence is exercised in this way?

Jeffrey Blankfort: The pro-Palestinian movement has been totally ineffectual here for a couple of reasons. One is they refuse to recognize the role the lobby plays. That‘s like going out to play a football game, but you don’t go to the stadium, you go a shopping mall instead. If you are not on the field where the game is played you are not going to win.

So here is the most powerful lobby in the United States, which the Palestinian solidarity movement has ignored with the exception of an occasional picket of AIPAC. One of the reasons is it has been influenced by certain ideological Marxist groups that are still living in another day and age where lobbies did not play a part. I have been told by political activists that to talk about the lobby is not Marxist, or talk about the lobby is not socialist. And my response is that it exists, it’s real, and that is what's important. Also, there are many self-styled Jewish anti-Zionists in the leadership positions in the movement who claim that to blame the lobby is to provoke anti-Semitism. In this, they are what I call, "Jewish exceptionalists" who bar any criticism from acts that Jews do collectively, such as lobbying for Israel which makes them, in practice, scarcely distinguishable from Zionists.
And what happens is I hear all of these people dismissing the lobby and quoting Chomsky verbatim without even mentioning his name.

His influence on them is so critical, so powerful, that they internalize Chomsky. And so what happens is you have a movement that refuses to recognize the major opponent of the Palestinians on American soil.

Chomsky came out against divestment at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he teaches, and where he was able to water down a divestment resolution. Then he came out two weeks later and attacked the whole divestment issue. He is against sanctions against Israel, he is against divestment, he has not revealed any kind of agenda that would change things other than having people “write letters to the editor”.

He never mentions Congress, he never mentions the Appropriation committees. If he mentions aid to Congress, he won’t say you have to stop it. He will mention it like it a fact of life, like it’s raining or it’s sunny. I wrote to him about this and he was not very friendly when he wrote back.

In 1988-95 I published a magazine called the Middle East Labor Bulletin which Chomsky subscribed to. In the magazine I had a special section on the Israel lobby and Congress, in which I revealed the names of the Congress people who were in bed with the lobby and I published the sources, most of which came from the Jewish press. So anyone reading the magazine would have had ample proof about control by the lobby of Congress. I recently reread some of the issues published twelve years ago, and they could have been written today, so he can't play ignorant. I just believe his early Zionist leanings and his fears for the future of Jews is so great that it's like he's a child refusing to face the truth. It is unfortunate.

Chomsky is what we call here in this country, a gatekeeper. He is also a gatekeeper on another critical subject, the events of 9/11, dismissing the many questions that have been raised about the official narrative of the Bush administration on the attack on the World Trade Centre. Chomsky says there is no basis to question Mr. Bush's 9/11 story. So most of the criticism that he is getting is from people who have been doing research on 9/11, while he continues to say the story that the Bush administration has told is the truth. So the role he pushes today on the international stage is, as far as I am concerned, a reactionary one.

He says a lot of very positive things much of which I agree with, and again, I know many people who say they were introduced to the political world by Chomsky. He has clearly turned people on. But today, it may be a dialectical situation, now he turns people off, or in the wrong direction.

S.C.: Is your thesis on Chomsky, that he ignores the influence of AIPAC and other similar institutions in US wars in the Middle East, and has a negative impact on solidarity movements, shared by many other intellectuals?

Jeffrey Blankfort: I am in a minority, but I do have an extensive mailing list, I do have a radio program, actually I have two radio programs, and one radio program happens to be in an area which is not Israeli occupied territory and where I can talk about the lobby, I can talk about Israel the way I am talking about it now. The Zionists tried to get me off the air but they were not effective.

One of the ways they intimidate people is through the various Jewish organizations. Each has taken on a different role to play. One important one is the Anti-Defamation League, whose main job is to defame, intimidate and spy on people who are critical of Israel. I was one of them who was spied on.

Its agent infiltrated our organization, the Labor Committee on the Middle East of which I was the co-founder in 1987. Then we learned that they were spying on hundreds of organizations across the political spectrum and thousands of individuals, twelve thousand individuals, six hundred organizations.

I was able to get my ADL files to find out that they had spied on me illegally, and I sued them.

I went out to court with two other activists and after ten years they agreed to settle without me having to sign a confidentiality agreement. So I always talk about this organization.

The person who spied on me for the ADL, was also working for South African intelligence. We had a big anti-apartheid movement in this country. Basically, Israel, the Israel lobby and South Africa were on the same page, very close allies. They were allies socially, culturally and militarily. This is something that unfortunately the anti-apartheid movement also refused to deal with because of Zionist pressure.

I would say the problem with building a real political movement in the United States is blocked by Zionists and their refusal, like Chomsky, to openly deal with Zionism and its role in this country.

Back in 1988, when in the early months of the first Intifada, the anti-intervention movement refused to support a demand that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian land, a Native American a leader told me that the problem with the American movement was that there are too many Liberal Zionists in it. And this is the truth.

I never use his name, because if I publish it, he will then be attacked as being anti-Semitic.
I have been attacked as a self-hating Jew, as an anti-Semite, but it does not matter to me because I consider the accusation of anti-Semitism to be the first refuge of scoundrels. Patriotism is the last refuge, anti-Semitism is the first. In this country it has been used to silence so many people. And this is one of the reasons I am against specifically Jewish organizations wanting to lead the fight for Palestine. What happens is that there are many anti-Zionist Jews, or who claim to be anti-Zionist, who say "we, as anti-Zionists Jews, should provide the leadership so that other people will see that not all the Jews are for Israel”.

And I am totally against that because all Americans pay their taxes and thus support Israel. And this is an American issue. And by putting it out that Jews are the leaders, that Jews, anti Zionists Jews are doing this, what it says to non-Jews is: they can do this because they are Jewish. It has been tried, so far it has been a failure.

So when I speak, I speak not as a Jew, but as a human being. That's why when I first went to the Middle East in 1970, to Lebanon and Jordan, I did not tell people I was Jewish. I did not go there as a Jew, I went there as a journalist.

It was not important to be South African to oppose apartheid, it was not necessary to be a Nicaraguan to oppose the Contras, or to be a Vietnamese to oppose the Vietnam war. What does being Jewish have to do with opposing what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. In fact, Jews should be very careful about the leadership role. It is not the place for Jews, for people who identify as Jews. The irony is that the people who are most quoted, who speak most on this issue in the US are all Jews who are ultimately protective of Israel.

Chomsky, of course, is the most important one. They criticize Israel, you see, because that's important, you have to do that, but they deflect the main responsibility on to the US and thus while not absolving Israel, shield it from punishment such as sanctions, boycotts and divestment.

S.C.: You just said that you were accused of anti-Semitism. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, for example, was recently accused by the French dailies "Liberation" and "Le Monde" of having uttered "anti-Semitic" remarks. Do you not think that this accusation has become more difficult to exploit in the face of a pubic opinion that has discovered that it has been manipulated for political ends?

Jeffrey Blankfort: Well, they see it, but they are afraid to speak of it. Because the price for criticizing Jews, as Jews, is big in the US. But also, as you see, in France, in Germany, in Canada, and so on, Austria. You can criticize any other national group, but to criticize Jews collectively, not Jews as Jews, but the Jewish establishment is to jeopardize your career.

So even if, privately, people say one thing, they won't say it publicly. I occasional help to get progressive Palestinians and Israelis interview ed by the media in the San Francisco area. It used to be more open, I would say, on mainstream radio than it is today. Back in 1984, I was able to place an Israeli soldier, a reservist, who refused to serve in Lebanon, on the biggest radio talk show in San Francisco. He told the truth about the Lebanon war, that the Palestinians were not shelling Lebanon, and in second hour of the program, which was broadcast to a national audience, someone, with a strong accent, called and asked "who is responsible for putting this communist on the air?" The talk show host said that he was, but in fact it was the producer who had arranged for my friend to be on the air. Very soon afterward, that talk show host, who was the most popular radio programmer in San Francisco, was replaced by a Zionist who is there to this day and who is such a Zionist that every year, when they have an Israeli Day celebration in San Francisco, he is the master of ceremonies. On the airwaves, on the major networks, you will find either among the owners or the more important decision making positions, people who are clearly Zionists. The head of CBS news, Leslie Moonves, for example, is the great-nephew of David Ben Gurion.

Most people cannot or don't want to believe it when I speak of Jewish influence in the media. I read the Jewish press, and they have information on that subject that does not get published in the mainstream press. This is basically where I get most of my information, and I have found it to be credible. One paper that is particularly useful is The Forward, a Jewish weekly that is like the Wall Street Journal for Jews, because it has a lot of good information that you don’t find in any other publication.

What is most interesting is that most of the people I know, who are fighting for the Palestinians in the US, never read the Jewish press. And to me, if you don’t do that, you are not serious. Because we cannot do anything in this country about what is happening in Palestine directly. But what we can do in the United States is work to weaken Israel’s support here, to expose the Israel lobby and undermine Israel's position in the United States. When we weaken Israel’s support, we strengthen the Palestinian position.

S.C.: Aren't a number of people, touched by the misery of the Palestinians and the Iraqis, more and more conscious that the media lies?

Jeffrey Blankfort: Well, of course, the newspapers are lying, but while there is more information on the internet, that, too, even from our side, is not always reliable and we have to be careful not just to believe something we read there because it is what we want to believe.

The Bay Area, used to have seven or eight newspapers. Now there are barely two and a half. And they have become more like English tabloids, they are competing with television. Unlike Europe, the quality of television here is very poor, and people have become addicted to it. And they are also addicted to portable musical instruments like CD and MP3 players, and now there is the iPod. It is not very promising and also the political arena here doesn’t give much opportunity to play. We have two parties that, essentially, are the same, two wings of the capitalist party. One pacifies the people, that's the Democrats, and the other eliminates them, that's the Republicans. They argue or pretend to about domestic issues, but when it comes to Israel they lock arms together. So for example you may have women in Congress fighting for the right to have an abortion. They join with the most right wing, anti-women members of Congress in the Senate when it comes to supporting Israel. This is never commented on or discussed within the left! It is very depressing because I don’t see much change although there were a couple of protests at local AIPAC meetings, but there is no clear connection made between the lobby and Congress and what is going on in Israel-Palestine. And I don’t see much improvement taking place. So, I cannot even say what can happen that will change it. At some point, there will be a change. I don’t know how it’s going to come around, how it’s going to come about. But I don’t see at the moment any bright prospect for the future.

S.C.: If the orientation of the media doesn't change, and if the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby continues apace in the States without ever being denounced by the left, don't you think that will give Israel a free hand to continue to foment wars against Iran, Syria, and Palestine?

Jeffrey Blankfort: The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. And despite the fact that the war is going so badly, they did not have to pay a political price because only a few isolated columnists, and but a few from the left, and none representing the anti-war movement in this country, wrote articles about that. So now, the same forces are now pushing for a US confrontation with Iran, although I don’t think that will happen, simply because the United States is bogged down in Iraq. Besides, should the US attack Iran, the troops that the US has trained in Iraq who are very pro-Iranian and connected to the two parties the SCIRI and the Dawa that were founded in Iran in 1982 and fought on the side of Iran against Saddam, will certainly respond and Iraq will explode even more than it already has. That is why I don't think the US is going to do it, even though everybody over here seems to think so. But if the US does attack Iran, that is the ultimate proof that the Zionist lobby has total control over US policy, and I don't think it is at that point now. What is happening is interesting: Bush is weak at the moment, Republicans are deserting him, he has lost votes in Congress, he will get his Supreme Court Justice, Alito, approved but AIPAC has criticized him for being soft on Iran; AIPAC has criticized him publicly for not pushing Iran before the Security Council, even though AIPAC knows that if the US brought Iran before the Security Council they w ill not get the vote against Iran. There is considerable speculation that Israel will attack Iran, even if the US is hesitant, because this is an election year and Israel knows and the lobby knows that anything Israel does at such times will be applauded by Congress and we may end up with the same result in Iraq.

It's interesting that newspapers note as do newscasters on the air, that no criticism is likely to be made of Israel by the president or members of Congress during an election year but they never explain why. The left, led by Chomsky, pretends to be unaware that the question even exists. The irony is, if you read the mainstream press, you will find more about what is going on in terms of the lobby, than if you read the left press, such as it is. The newspaper, The Forward, is a more important newspaper to read because it tells what’s going on with the lobby, and more recently the investigation into AIPAC which the left, again, pays no attention to. Others ask, if AIPAC is so strong, why would they investigate AIPAC? My response is there are people in Washington, in the intelligence department, in the intelligence agencies who, for their own reasons, are very much worried about the Israelization of US foreign policy. And these people in Washington, or people who used to work in Washington, have had a long term fight against the Israel lobby. The left, again, is not a participant in this, unfortunately. And this is why you have people who know what Israel is doing in Washington, what the lobby is doing in Washington and they want to stop it.

S.C.: To come back to that which separates you from Chomsky on the Palestinian question, could we say that you want the Palestinians to win while Chomsky doesn't want the Israelis to lose?

Jeffrey Blankfort: I wouldn't put it exactly that way but I do believe that the Palestinians have the priority to decide what happens in Israel and Palestine and that Chomsky is more concerned about the future of Israel and the welfare of Jews. He opposes a one-state solution and I believe single state is the only answer but I don’t argue here for that because we are not the ones to determine that. But I do give the priority to the Palestinians and he gives it to the Israelis. And that's the difference between us.

[9]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Blankfort:
Chomsky is what we call here in this country, a gatekeeper. He is also a gatekeeper on another critical subject, the events of 9/11, dismissing the many questions that have been raised about the official narrative of the Bush administration on the attack on the World Trade Centre.Blankfort is what we call here in this country, a crackhead.

[luchtoibre]

There has never been a Palestinian country and the "Palestinians" did not exist before the 1960's. Their struggle is a proxy by Islamic theocratic types who are ideologically driven against a "Jewish" state on "their" land.




Well prove it wrong then. The simple fact remains, you can't :lol:

------------------------------------------
You could call the Palestinians the "native palestinians of palestine" but the point is that they are Arabs, indistinguishable from their neighbors.

And no one in their right mind would claim that the Native Americans have a right to American land now just as the Palestinians are doing today.

They realised they had no legitimate claim to the land so they made up a unique history and started to claim they were a separate nation.even on wikipedia(although simplified etc) it says otherwise to those racist claims youve heard...

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_people&action=edit&section=8)] Ancestral origins

Palestinians, like most other Arab-identified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity) Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language)-speakers today commonly called "Arabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs)", are said to combine ancestries from those who have come to settle their respective regions throughout history and the pre-existing ancient inhabitants; a matter on which genetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics) studies described below has begun to shed some light.[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Nebel2000-73)
American historian Bernard Lewis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis) writes:

"Clearly, in Palestine as elsewhere in the Middle East, the modern inhabitants include among their ancestors those who lived in the country in antiquity. Equally obviously, the demographic mix was greatly modified over the centuries by migration, deportation, immigration, and settlement. This was particularly true in Palestine..."[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Lewis49-74)
Ali Qleibo, a Palestinian anthropologist, explains:

"Throughout history a great diversity of peoples has moved into the region and made Palestine their homeland: Jebusites, Canaanites, Philistines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines) from Crete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crete), Anatolian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian) and Lydian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydian) Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorites), Edomites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edomites), Nabateans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabateans), Arameans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arameans), Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire), Arabs, and European crusaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades), to name a few. Each of them appropriated different regions that overlapped in time and competed for sovereignty and land. Others, such as Ancient Egyptians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptians), Hittites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites), Persians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians), Babylonians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonians), and Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols), were historical 'events' whose successive occupations were as ravaging as the effects of major earthquakes ... Like shooting stars, the various cultures shine for a brief moment before they fade out of official historical and cultural records of Palestine. The people, however, survive. In their customs and manners, fossils of these ancient civilizations survived until modernity—albeit modernity camouflaged under the veneer of Islam and Arabic culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_culture)."[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Qleibo-75)
Much of the local Palestinian population in Nablus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nablus), for example, is believed to be descended from Samaritans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans) who converted to Islam.[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Ireton-76) Even today, certain Nabulsi family names including Muslimani, Yaish, and Shakshir among others, are associated with Samaritan ancestry.[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Ireton-76)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_people&action=edit&section=9)] Claim to ancient Canaanite lineage

Claims emanating from certain circles within Palestinian society and from supporters of the Palestinian cause, proposing that Palestinians have ancestral connections to the ancient populations that dwelt in the region today known as Palestine/Israel, particularly the Canaanites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanites), has been an issue of contention within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict). In discussing the root of the controversy to the claim of Canaanite lineage, many renowned scholars have hypothesised on the nature of the controversy itself, although not deliberating on the veracity of the claims, as this is a question that shall ultimately be resolved by geneticists, not by scholars in their capacity as historians.
Historian Bernard Lewis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis) explains that "the rewriting of the past is usually undertaken to achieve specific political aims...In bypassing the biblical Israelites and claiming kinship with the Canaanites, the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine, it is possible to assert a historical claim antedating the biblical promise and possession put forward by the Jews."[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Lewis49-74)[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-77)
Some Palestinian scholars, like Zakariyya Muhammad, have criticized pro-Palestinian arguments based on Canaanite lineage, or what he calls "Canaanite ideology". He states that it is an "intellectual fad, divorced from the concerns of ordinary people."[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Tamari-78) By assigning its pursuit to the desire to predate Jewish national claims, he describes Canaanism as a "losing ideology", whether or not it is factual, "when used to manage our conflict with the Zionist movement" since Canaanism "concedes a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori) the central thesis of Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism). Namely that we have been engaged in a perennial conflict with Zionism—and hence with the Jewish presence in Palestine—since the Kingdom of Solomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon) and before ... thus in one stroke Canaanism cancels the assumption that Zionism is a European movement, propelled by modern European contingencies..."[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Tamari-78)
Salim Tamari notes the paradoxes produced by the search for "nativist" roots among Zionist figures and the so-called Canaanite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanites_(movement)) (anti-Zionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionist)) followers of Yonatan Ratosh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonatan_Ratosh).[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Tamari-78) For example, Ber Borochov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ber_Borochov) claimed that the lack of a crystallized national consciousness among Palestinian Arabs would result in their likely assimilation into the new Hebrew nationalism, basing this on the belief that: "the fellahin are considered in this context as the descendants of the ancient Hebrew and Canaanite residents 'together with a small admixture of Arab blood'".[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Tamari-78) Ahad Ha'am (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahad_Ha%27am) also shared the belief that: "the Moslems [of Palestine] are the ancient residents of the land ... who became Christians on the rise of Christianity and became Moslems on the arrival of Islam."[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Tamari-78) David Ben-Gurion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion) and Yitzhak Ben Zvi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Ben_Zvi) wrote in 1918 that Palestinian peasants and their mode of life were living historical testimonies to Israelite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelite) practices in the biblical period.[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-79)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_people&action=edit&section=10)] DNA and genetic studies


In genetic genealogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_genealogy) studies, Palestinians and Negev Bedouins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Bedouins) have the highest rates of Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)) among all populations tested (62.5%).[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-80) Semitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic) populations, including Jews, usually possess an excess of J1 Y chromosomes compared to other populations harboring Y-haplogroup J.[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-81)[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-EuroJour-82)[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Semino-83)[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Humangenetics-84)[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Coffman-85)[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Cinnioglu-86)[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-87) The haplogroup J1, associated with marker M267, originates south of the Levant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant) and was first disseminated from there into Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia) and Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) in Neolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) times. In Jewish populations J1 has a rate of around 15%, with haplogroup J2 (M172) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J2_(Y-DNA)) (of eight sub-Haplogroups) being almost twice as common as J1 among Jews (<29%). J1 is most common in the southern Levant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant), as well as Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria), Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria), and Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia), and drops sharply at the border of non-semitic areas like Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) and Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran). A second diffusion of the J1 marker took place in the seventh century CE when Arabians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia) brought it from Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia) to North Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa).[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Semino-83)
Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) includes the modal haplotype (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_haplotype) of the Galilee Arabs (Nebel et al. 2000) and of Moroccan Arabs (Bosch et al. 2001) and the sister Modal Haplotype of the Cohanim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohanim), the "Cohan Modale Haplotype", representing the descendents of the priestly caste Aaron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron).[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-88)[90] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-89)[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-90) J2 is known to be related to the ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece) movements and is found mainly in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) and the central Mediterranean (Italy, the Balkans, Greece).
A study found that the Palestinians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians), like Jordanians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan), Syrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria), Iraqis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), and Bedouins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin) have what appears to be substantial gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa), amounting to 10-15% of lineages within the past three millennia.[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-91)
According to a 2002 study by Nebel et al., on Genetic evidence for the expansion of Arabian tribes, the highest frequency of Eu10 (i.e. J1) (30%–62.5%) has been observed so far in various Muslim Arab populations in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East). (Semino et al. 2000; Nebel et al. 2001).[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-Nebel2002-92) The term “Arab,” as well as the presence of Arabs in the Syrian desert and the Fertile Crescent, is first seen in the Assyrian sources from the 9th century B.C.E. (Eph'al 1984).[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-autogenerated3-93)
In recent years, many genetic surveys have suggested that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions) and the Palestinians — and in some cases other Levantines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant) — are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) to non-Jewish Europeans.[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-94)
Results of a DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) study by geneticist Ariella Oppenheim appears to match historical accounts that Arab Israelis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Israeli) and Palestinians,[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-gibbons2000-11)[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-95) together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times", albeit religiously first Christianized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization) then largely Islamized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization), and all eventually culturally Arabized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabization).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-gibbons2000-11) Referring to those of the Muslim faith more specifically, it reaffirmed that Palestinian "Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim) Arabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab) are descended from Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians) and Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) who lived in the southern Levant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant), a region that includes Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel), Sinai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai) and part of Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan)." Geneticist Michael Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hammer) praised "the study for 'focusing in detail on the Jewish and Palestinian populations.'"[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-gibbons2000-11)
While both the Palestinians and the world's distinct Jewish populations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions) have mixed with invading and host populations respectively, Oppenheim's team found "that Jews have mixed more with other populations, which makes sense because they were more likely to leave the Levant.".[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-gibbons2000-11)
However, a follow-up study [Nebel et al. 2001] corrected that Jews were found to be more closely related to the peoples north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds), Turkish "Turks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people)" of Anatolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia), and Armenians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians)) than to the Arabic-speakers of Israel/Palestinian and other neighbouring now Arabic-speaking Levantines.[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-96)[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-97) The same study then re-asserted the suggestion that Palestinians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians) and Bedouins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouins) from the Levant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant) represent "early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area" albeit with "additional lineages from more-recent population movements", largely from the Arabian Peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Peninsula).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#cite_note-87

[graffic]

Palestinians, like most other Arab-identified Arabic-speakers today commonly called "Arabs", are said to combine ancestries from those who have come to settle their respective regions throughout history and the pre-existing ancient inhabitants; a matter on which genetic studies described below has begun to shed some light.[74]

The palestinian Arabs are indistinguishable from their Arab neighbours and there was no reasonable reason why they were not assimilated into neighboring Arab lands like most refugees have in history.

The recent phenomenon among intellectual anti-Israel scholars claiming Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites is a strange one considering the "Canaanites" disappeared from the face of the earth three millennia ago and no one knows if any of their descendants survived, or if they did, where they are. The Jewish claim to the land (which is undisputed by historians) goes back 3,000 years and the "palestinian" claim goes back 1,000 years, dating back no further than the conquest of Muhammad's followers in the 7th Century.

I don't like talking about racial boundaries or divisions because i don't believe in them. But it's quite clear that the palestinian desire for self-determination is a modern phenomenon dressed up and over-emphasised by people who hate Israel or Jews. And the progressives in the region interested in peace who don't care so much about race or religion are living on the west side of the border and not strapping bombs to themselves or firing rockets at civilians.

[willdw79]

What do you think of this perspective?

[We do] not take sides in bosses' battles. We support the human rights of Palestinians, for instance, but our line is that workers have no stake in some internecine ruling-class dogfight between Hamas, Fatah, and the Israeli government. Instead, working class Palestinians and Israelis need to unite in solidarity and smash all of these gangs of bosses. Same deal with Iraq. Many, many groups talk a great deal about supporting "the Iraqi resistance." What you never hear is about supporting the Iraqi working class who is undergoing wholesale slaughter not only by US and allied imperialists, but by various "resistance" factions and religious extremists.

[9]

What do you think of this perspective?

[We do] not take sides in bosses' battles. We support the human rights of Palestinians, for instance, but our line is that workers have no stake in some internecine ruling-class dogfight between Hamas, Fatah, and the Israeli government. Instead, working class Palestinians and Israelis need to unite in solidarity and smash all of these gangs of bosses. Same deal with Iraq. Many, many groups talk a great deal about supporting "the Iraqi resistance." What you never hear is about supporting the Iraqi working class who is undergoing wholesale slaughter not only by US and allied imperialists, but by various "resistance" factions and religious extremists.

I appreciate your perspective, but to be honest, I think it is idealism to an extreme. I posed a question earlier in this thread to those who share this perspective with you, and I never received any response.
So I will repeat it--



Originally Posted by Apikoros:
As to the rest of the opinions opposing Palestinian resistance, I am a bit mystified. If the Palestinians aren’t supposed to fight back against the occupation and subjugation, what are they supposed to do? “Unite with the Israeli working class, of course!” you say. But that’s a bit hard when there is a WALL between the Palestinians and the Israeli working class, and harder still when the Israeli working class, by and large, doesn’t want anything to do with the Palestinians. And while I expect many will take issue with the latter part of that analysis, the unfortunate fact of the matter – in spite of idealistic insistence to the contrary – is that the vast majority of the Israeli working class doesn’t want to join together with the Palestinians or support the Palestinian cause, or any common cause the two groups theoretically share.. as if somehow this nice shiny 'theory' we have trumps reality and takes precedence over the situation that's actually ensuing.
It is like telling slaves in colonial America that they can only revolt if they unite with the white working class, when the white working class is on the side of the oppressors. The white working class is beating them and lynching them, but somehow, they are expected to unite with the white working class if they are to get our support.

[willdw79]

I appreciate your perspective, but to be honest, I think it is idealism to an extreme. I posed a question earlier in this thread to those who share this perspective with you, and I never received any response.
So I will repeat it--

[/SIZE][/FONT]
I never implied that Palestinians should not fight back. But the problem is Palestinians are not fighting back. Reactionary factions of Palestinians i.e. Fatah Hamas are fighting for their own self interests. I support working class mass resistance not martyrdom nor adventurism. They have a right to fight, no doubt, but if they win, what will they have? Capitalist oppression by Muslims ruling class instead of by Jewish ruling class. Both options suck so,from what I can ascertain most Paestinians strongly hate Israel but they also resent the major Palestinian political parties.

[Dean]

I've emailed Chomsky and directly asked him questions about supposed "zionist" leanings; I found no evidence, except to the contrary.

[Dean]

The palestinian Arabs are indistinguishable from their Arab neighbours and there was no reasonable reason why they were not assimilated into neighboring Arab lands like most refugees have in history.

The recent phenomenon among intellectual anti-Israel scholars claiming Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites is a strange one considering the "Canaanites" disappeared from the face of the earth three millennia ago and no one knows if any of their descendants survived, or if they did, where they are. The Jewish claim to the land (which is undisputed by historians) goes back 3,000 years and the "palestinian" claim goes back 1,000 years, dating back no further than the conquest of Muhammad's followers in the 7th Century.

I don't like talking about racial boundaries or divisions because i don't believe in them. But it's quite clear that the palestinian desire for self-determination is a modern phenomenon dressed up and over-emphasised by people who hate Israel or Jews. And the progressives in the region interested in peace who don't care so much about race or religion are living on the west side of the border and not strapping bombs to themselves or firing rockets at civilians.

No, its a phenomenon from people kicked out of their own lands, or severely oppressed within their own lands. I don't see how you can possibly blame it on other "arab nations" unless you are indeed drawing the conflict along racial lines.

[luchtoibre]

The palestinian Arabs are indistinguishable from their Arab neighbours and there was no reasonable reason why they were not assimilated into neighboring Arab lands like most refugees have in history.

The recent phenomenon among intellectual anti-Israel scholars claiming Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites is a strange one considering the "Canaanites" disappeared from the face of the earth three millennia ago and no one knows if any of their descendants survived, or if they did, where they are. The Jewish claim to the land (which is undisputed by historians) goes back 3,000 years and the "palestinian" claim goes back 1,000 years, dating back no further than the conquest of Muhammad's followers in the 7th Century.

I don't like talking about racial boundaries or divisions because i don't believe in them. But it's quite clear that the palestinian desire for self-determination is a modern phenomenon dressed up and over-emphasised by people who hate Israel or Jews. And the progressives in the region interested in peace who don't care so much about race or religion are living on the west side of the border and not strapping bombs to themselves or firing rockets at civilians.you don't want to talk about racial boundaries..??youve been spouting racist zionist crap against palestinians and anyone who supports them, all through this thread[etc] .and now cos it doesn't suit your half-arsed zionist ideas,.."no need for "racial divisions.."" all of sudden?.
by the way what makes you a socialist/leftist ???

[RGacky3]

Reactionary factions of Palestinians i.e. Fatah Hamas are fighting for their own self interests.

The huge support that Hamas has from the palistinians dispite everything else going against them, might show they are what the palestinians want (at least as opposed to the alternatives), I think its time people stop thinking they know best about what the palestinians want and let THEM decide and support what they want for themselves.


The palestinian Arabs are indistinguishable from their Arab neighbours and there was no reasonable reason why they were not assimilated into neighboring Arab lands like most refugees have in history.

Using that logic you'd have nothing against Austria being taken away from austrians and just relocating everyone to germany right?

Maybe brits can just go the America and someone else can have england right?

[willdw79]

I said: "Reactionary factions of Palestinians i.e. Fatah Hamas are fighting for their own self interests. "

RGacky says: "The huge support that Hamas has from the palistinians dispite everything else going against them, might show they are what the palestinians want (at least as opposed to the alternatives), I think its time people stop thinking they know best about what the palestinians want and let THEM decide and support what they want for themselves."

I am not telling them what to do, I have no way to address them. If I could I would say, "don't fight so that the boot of the Israelis that is on your neck can be replaced by the boot of a muslim. The working class should unite and fight for communism which puts the boot on the neck of the capitalists and religious reactionaries."

[luchtoibre]

I said:
I am not telling them what to do, I have no way to address them. If I could I would say, "don't fight so that the boot of the Israelis that is on your neck can be replaced by the boot of a muslim. The working class should unite and fight for communism which puts the boot on the neck of the capitalists and religious reactionaries."well thats easier said than done...the fact is the palestinians are under occupation.we should support them in ending the occupation.also most palestinians don't support hamas.

[willdw79]

well thats easier said than done...the fact is the palestinians are under occupation.we should support them in ending the occupation.also most palestinians don't support hamas.
I agree it is easier said than done. But we don't do what is easiest do we? The easiest thing to do is to pick the lesser evil and support them. But how does selecting one of the religious factions help the cause of a revolutionary communist?

[luchtoibre]

I agree it is easier said than done. But we don't do what is easiest do we? The easiest thing to do is to pick the lesser evil and support them. But how does selecting one of the religious factions help the cause of a revolutionary communist?its nothing to do withl "lesser of two evils",or picking sides or which ever faction.
what has happened to the palestinians is a continuing injustice.even if they were all card carrying commies,it would obviously make life easier.but the facts of the situation there remain.
and like i said hamas aren't supported by most palestinians.just like most lebanese don't support hizbollah

[RGacky3]

If I could I would say, "don't fight so that the boot of the Israelis that is on your neck can be replaced by the boot of a muslim. The working class should unite and fight for communism which puts the boot on the neck of the capitalists and religious reactionaries."

SOcialism is about democracy, democracy is about the people choosing, we should be for palestinian autonomy, if they want a muslim society, thats THERE choice, we might not agree with it, we might not think its the right thing, but we should support their right to autonomy.

[willdw79]

SOcialism is about democracy, democracy is about the people choosing, we should be for palestinian autonomy, if they want a muslim society, thats THERE choice, we might not agree with it, we might not think its the right thing, but we should support their right to autonomy.
If they choose religion, which all indications point to, then it still sucks. My revolutionary discipline does not allow the lesser-evil thing to let me take my eye off the prize.

Sure some peoples lives could possible be improved under an Islamic government, but their relationship to the means of production wouldn't.

I support the ouster of Israel from Palestine but I don't support anything that the would-be ousters plan to set-up.

In short, I have no dog in a fight for one regimes capitalist domination over another. I only support and always support a communist revolutionary working class that fights for egalitarianism/equality for everyone and destruction of the class system. Any solution other than that can be reached through emmigration.

[RGacky3]

If they choose religion, which all indications point to, then it still sucks. My revolutionary discipline does not allow the lesser-evil thing to let me take my eye off the prize.

Sure some peoples lives could possible be improved under an Islamic government, but their relationship to the means of production wouldn't.

I support the ouster of Israel from Palestine but I don't support anything that the would-be ousters plan to set-up.

In short, I have no dog in a fight for one regimes capitalist domination over another. I only support and always support a communist revolutionary working class that fights for egalitarianism/equality for everyone and destruction of the class system. Any solution other than that can be reached through emmigration.

In short you support democracy and autonomy, unless they don't have YOUR values.

[willdw79]

In short you support democracy and autonomy, unless they don't have YOUR values.
Yes, and so does everyone else in the world, right?

Don't give me the relativists argument man.

The Israelis can use it too, but cultural relativism is bullshit. I base my opinions/support off of an attempt to address material conditions.

[RGacky3]

Yes, and so does everyone else in the world, right?

Don't give me the relativists argument man.

The Israelis can use it too, but cultural relativism is bullshit. I base my opinions/support off of an attempt to address material conditions.

Its not relativism at all, or cultural reletavism.

Its like this, do you support unions? If so then you support the unions desicion when they want to strike, you don't say "Oh they have enough money they should'nt ask for more," Supporting a union means you support the workers making desicions and acting on them for themselves, the same goes with democracy.

Either you support their right to autonomy or you don't.

Now maybe you think one way is a good desicion and another way is not, but the fact is, the fight for autonomy is a fight for what the palestinians want, not what you think is best for them.

[9]

I only support and always support a communist revolutionary working class that fights for egalitarianism/equality for everyone and destruction of the class system. Any solution other than that can be reached through emmigration.

Could you elaborate on that last point (specifically, the part I put in boldface)? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "solution[...]reached by emigration".

[graffic]

No, its a phenomenon from people kicked out of their own lands, or severely oppressed within their own lands. I don't see how you can possibly blame it on other "arab nations" unless you are indeed drawing the conflict along racial lines.

Yeah thats a good point that most oppressed nations/peoples have had a larger desire for self-determination.

I'm talking about the people governing over those peoples in the middle east. The leaders of Arab nations at the time of Israel's creation bare responsibility for selfish and you could argue anti - semitic decisions made which hurt both palestinians and the Israeli's. The zionist terrorists and elements of the aliyah who were aggressive in settling also share blame.

[willdw79]

Its not relativism at all, or cultural reletavism.

Its like this, do you support unions? If so then you support the unions desicion when they want to strike, you don't say "Oh they have enough money they should'nt ask for more," Supporting a union means you support the workers making desicions and acting on them for themselves, the same goes with democracy.

Either you support their right to autonomy or you don't.

Now maybe you think one way is a good desicion and another way is not, but the fact is, the fight for autonomy is a fight for what the palestinians want, not what you think is best for them.
False dichotomy, there is nothing in logic or the real world that forces me to fully support any organization or idea. I support them in proportion to how much eveidence I feel I have, thats it.

[willdw79]

Could you elaborate on that last point (specifically, the part I put in boldface)? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "solution[...]reached by emigration".
I mean that if they don't want to become communists, then I could support them to leave. I think that every person if they are somewhere they don't want to be should be free to go. In this case, Israel and the Palestinian factions they are fighting against have made Palestine a terrible place to live, so I do support any effort to let people leave the war zone, which to Israel is the whole country.

But like I said before, I have no reason to support people who want to fire machine guns in streets where kids play and people live, so that they can be the new rulers. I only support war for egalitarian communism.

Somewhere in my mind, I want the Palestinian factions win, because Israel is such a fascist country. Israel is the 'greater evil' in this case. But Hamas and Fatah are full of shit too, just not AS full of shit.

Do you know anything about the Palestinian People's Party? I see a website for them. If their politics are decent, then I could back them to fight. Because a group with a stronger ideology than the religious groups I named before may bring good results for the working class there.

[RGacky3]

False dichotomy, there is nothing in logic or the real world that forces me to fully support any organization or idea.

Its called consistancy, i.e. not being hypocritical.

[willdw79]

You say these things:


Quote:
Yes, and so does everyone else in the world, right?

Don't give me the relativists argument man.

The Israelis can use it too, but cultural relativism is bullshit. I base my opinions/support off of an attempt to address material conditions.
Its not relativism at all, or cultural reletavism.

Its like this, do you support unions? If so then you support the unions desicion when they want to strike, you don't say "Oh they have enough money they should'nt ask for more," Supporting a union means you support the workers making desicions and acting on them for themselves, the same goes with democracy.

Either you support their right to autonomy or you don't.

Now maybe you think one way is a good desicion and another way is not, but the fact is, the fight for autonomy is a fight for what the palestinians want, not what you think is best for them.
__________________

I don't know how deeply you think, but let me try this, I will assume that you think deeply. Follow this logic.

You can believe in part of something, but not the whole of it.
1. I believe that that Copernicus was correct about the Earth being round and that it is not central within the solar system. But I don't believe in his explanation of the movement of planets.

2. Newton's explanation works better for predicting the location of planets than does Copernicus'.

3. Therefore I believe that Copernicus was right, but only partially.


This sort of idea (of partial belief) is not a contradiction or hypocritical, it is simply the best assessment that a person can make, given the evidence.

Please believe it.

[RGacky3]

You can believe in part of something, but not the whole of it.
1. I believe that that Copernicus was correct about the Earth being round and that it is not central within the solar system. But I don't believe in his explanation of the movement of planets.

2. Newton's explanation works better for predicting the location of planets than does Copernicus'.

3. Therefore I believe that Copernicus was right, but only partially.


What are you talking about, that is a question of science, hard facts, what we are talking about is rights, the right of self rule and autonomy, science is'nt based on human rights.

[willdw79]

What are you talking about, that is a question of science, hard facts, what we are talking about is rights, the right of self rule and autonomy, science is'nt based on human rights.
It appears that u carch my drift. Now apply it to our conversation. I am done with this conversation because we are in agreement. Even if you say more, all you have to do is refer to this response and you will find our answer.

Thanks.

[luchtoibre]

I'm talking about the people governing over those peoples in the middle east. The leaders of Arab nations at the time of Israel's creation bare responsibility for selfish and you could argue anti - semitic decisions made which hurt both palestinians and the Israeli's. The zionist terrorists and elements of the aliyah who were aggressive in settling also share blame.give some facts to the above statements.


I mean that if they don't want to become communists, then I could support them to leave. I think that every person if they are somewhere they don't want to be should be free to go. In this case, Israel and the Palestinian factions they are fighting against have made Palestine a terrible place to live, so I do support any effort to let people leave the war zone, which to Israel is the whole country.


your either stupid,think everybody else is stupid or your a fkin racist.so you "..support the palestinians to leave".in other words you agree with zionist policys of ethnic cleansing?




If they choose religion, which all indications point to, then it still sucks. My revolutionary discipline does not allow the lesser-evil thing to let me take my eye off the prize.

Sure some peoples lives could possible be improved under an Islamic government, but their relationship to the means of production wouldn't.

I support the ouster of Israel from Palestine but I don't support anything that the would-be ousters plan to set-up.

In short, I have no dog in a fight for one regimes capitalist domination over another. I only support and always support a communist revolutionary working class that fights for egalitarianism/equality for everyone and destruction of the class system. Any solution other than that can be reached through emmigration.
and you think your gonna fool everyone that your a lefty....?

Could you elaborate on that last point (specifically, the part I put in boldface)? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "solution[...]reached by emigration".
yeah ,he never appeared to give a non-bs answer to that...

[RGacky3]

It appears that u carch my drift. Now apply it to our conversation. I am done with this conversation because we are in agreement. Even if you say more, all you have to do is refer to this response and you will find our answer.

Thanks.

Ok, so you don't support autonomy or democracy (which are moral based), your one of those who think ethics and human rights are irrelivent because they are based on morality.

We are NOT in agreement, I believe in autonomy, democracy, human rights and socialism, you do not, clearly. (socialism is based on autonomy, democracy and human rights.)

[willdw79]

give some facts to the above statements.

your either stupid,think everybody else is stupid or your a fkin racist.so you "..support the palestinians to leave".in other words you agree with zionist policys of ethnic cleansing?




and you think your gonna fool everyone that your a lefty....?

yeah ,he never appeared to give a non-bs answer to that...
I don't have to select one of your dichotomies.

lLike I said: If they don't want to become communists, then I could support them to leave. I think that every person if they are somewhere they don't want to be should be free to go. In this case, Israel and the Palestinian factions they are fighting against have made Palestine a terrible place to live, so I do support any effort to let people leave the war zone, which to Israel is the whole country.

I don't support religious or capitalists to become rulers of the working class, PERIOD.

I can support a group that wants to have a working-class revolution, but not a religious revolution. If you want to call that Zionist, then whatever.

[9]

I mean that if they don't want to become communists, then I could support them to leave. I think that every person if they are somewhere they don't want to be should be free to go. In this case, Israel and the Palestinian factions they are fighting against have made Palestine a terrible place to live, so I do support any effort to let people leave the war zone, which to Israel is the whole country.

But like I said before, I have no reason to support people who want to fire machine guns in streets where kids play and people live, so that they can be the new rulers. I only support war for egalitarian communism.

Somewhere in my mind, I want the Palestinian factions win, because Israel is such a fascist country. Israel is the 'greater evil' in this case. But Hamas and Fatah are full of shit too, just not AS full of shit.

I think the situation for most Palestinians is that they do want to be where they are, but they want to be able to live in some reasonable state of security. I think the suggestion that "you should believe what we think is right, or else, we will support you leaving the land where you and your ancestors have been since time immemorial" would be profoundly offensive to many Palestinians, but then, I am just speculating. I hate to use these analogies so much, but in the case of Native Americans being uprooted from their land in colonialist America, would your support for their struggle for autonomy have been contingent upon their adherence to your ideology, or else you'd support their removal to some place else? To me, this issue just transcends communism and comes down to the very fundamental matter of human rights - that human beings have a right to live on the land that's sustained them for millenia without being isolated and walled off from their families and friends, and bombarded by a huge military machine, and massacred, and forced to exist without the bare essentials of life under the boot of a vicious imperialist regime. And that western communists would offer them an ultimatum of "think like us or leave".... it just strikes me as being little better than Zionist imperialism's attitude toward them.

As for the Palestinian Peoples' Party, my knowledge of them is limited; you'd probably be wiser to ask a comrade living in Israel. Dervish (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=24973) and Yehuda Stern (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16872) are the only Israelis I have encountered on revleft.com so you may want to pose the question to one or both of them.

[luchtoibre]

he should try the PFLP or DFLP..or countless other leftist factions

[willdw79]

I think the situation for most Palestinians is that they do want to be where they are, but they want to be able to live in some reasonable state of security. I think the suggestion that "you should believe what we think is right, or else, we will support you leaving the land where you and your ancestors have been since time immemorial" would be profoundly offensive to many Palestinians, but then, I am just speculating. I hate to use these analogies so much, but in the case of Native Americans being uprooted from their land in colonialist America, would your support for their struggle for autonomy have been contingent upon their adherence to your ideology, or else you'd support their removal to some place else? To me, this issue just transcends communism and comes down to the very fundamental matter of human rights - that human beings have a right to live on the land that's sustained them for millenia without being isolated and walled off from their families and friends, and bombarded by a huge military machine, and massacred, and forced to exist without the bare essentials of life under the boot of a vicious imperialist regime. And that western communists would offer them an ultimatum of "think like us or leave".... it just strikes me as being little better than Zionist imperialism's attitude toward them.

As for the Palestinian Peoples' Party, my knowledge of them is limited; you'd probably be wiser to ask a comrade living in Israel. Dervish (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=24973) and Yehuda Stern (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16872) are the only Israelis I have encountered on revleft.com so you may want to pose the question to one or both of them.
I hear you. I probably can develop my assessment in this area.

But, I can't get over this one hump. How do I justify supporting religious capitalists? It's not as if any of the factions fighting there want to return to the style of life that you cite when you say, "human beings have a right to live on the land that's sustained them for millenia". There is some sort of fallacy in a historic argument like this. And, I'm not being picky for no reason. When you say "lived there for millenia", you are not talking about anybody who is alive now, today. This corresponds directly to "the people" (the current people) not being interested in "living off the land". If any of the Palestinians want to share the land with each other and the want to end exploitation, and have equality for women... all people, then I wholeheartedly support them. But I don't think any of the factions advocate those things. If there are any, then I do support them.

So, I end up thinking that the Palestinian factions that I know of are reactionary, capitalists, who aim to be the top exploiters of the people, and moreover they intend to use religion to deceive and impose capitalism on the people.

I support the people leaving for the same reason I support people getting out of the ghetto in the U.S., because it sux to live there. Zionist Israelis are fighting a war against religious factions in neighborhoods where people live. I think people should be allowed to leave a war zone if they want. I don't think that it is a particularly progressive stance on my part. But I can't come up with anything better.

So, I know my mind can change with new evidence, new ideas, etc, but on this one, I just can't support the religious capitalists.

[graffic]

give some facts to the above statements.

You could start with the Peel Commission in 1937 and the famous palestinian leadership statement echoed in the rest of the Arab world that they would not except a Jewish state the "size of a postage stamp".

[9]

I hear you. I probably can develop my assessment in this area.

But, I can't get over this one hump. How do I justify supporting religious capitalists? It's not as if any of the factions fighting there want to return to the style of life that you cite when you say, "human beings have a right to live on the land that's sustained them for millenia". There is some sort of fallacy in a historic argument like this. And, I'm not being picky for no reason. When you say "lived there for millenia", you are not talking about anybody who is alive now, today. This corresponds directly to "the people" (the current people) not being interested in "living off the land". If any of the Palestinians want to share the land with each other and the want to end exploitation, and have equality for women... all people, then I wholeheartedly support them. But I don't think any of the factions advocate those things. If there are any, then I do support them.

So, I end up thinking that the Palestinian factions that I know of are reactionary, capitalists, who aim to be the top exploiters of the people, and moreover they intend to use religion to deceive and impose capitalism on the people.

I support the people leaving for the same reason I support people getting out of the ghetto in the U.S., because it sux to live there. Zionist Israelis are fighting a war against religious factions in neighborhoods where people live. I think people should be allowed to leave a war zone if they want. I don't think that it is a particularly progressive stance on my part. But I can't come up with anything better.

So, I know my mind can change with new evidence, new ideas, etc, but on this one, I just can't support the religious capitalists.

There are more points that I would like to address, but for now I will simply say that you can support the Palestinian peoples' fight for national liberation without supporting Hamas. I don't support Hamas in the political sense, but I support the fight for Palestinian liberation. It is not as though political support for Hamas is a necessary component of support for Palestinian liberation - I think many people become confused and believe they can only support national liberation if they also support the politics of Hamas.

[mannetje]

I still cant understand that Israel is supressing the palestine people. did they forgot what happened to their own people in wwII?

[willdw79]

There are more points that I would like to address, but for now I will simply say that you can support the Palestinian peoples' fight for national liberation without supporting Hamas. I don't support Hamas in the political sense, but I support the fight for Palestinian liberation. It is not as though political support for Hamas is a necessary component of support for Palestinian liberation - I think many people become confused and believe they can only support national liberation if they also support the politics of Hamas.
I agree, and I appreciate you clarifying that for me. Maybe the more progressive groups' achievements/work is supressed in the U.S., because all I tend to hear about are Hamas and Fatah. But the organization identified by luchtoibre (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=18102), I went to their website and I can get behind them more than any group I have seen so far.

I really do appreciate the conversation and it has brought Palestine into a new perspective for me. Although I didn't read enough yet or have not brought it up yet to others, I will try to learn more and discuss Palestinian issues.

It may sound ignorant, but I have always thought of the fight in Palestine as being principly between the Israeli Army-Hamas-Fatah/PLO. I want to determine the strength of the communist movement there, other than the sites of the two orgs that were already suggested, where else do you think I should look?

[leochaos]

Hi,
thanks for the reply.I am still trying to find out who this damn Blankfort is.His name popped up again in Counterpunch a few days ago(something about a failed protest against the war in Afghanistan).While searching I found this piece:
"
Do you believe Israel should exist, why and in what form? NICK HARRIS
As a Zionist youth leader in the 1940s, I was among those who called for a binational state in Mandatory Palestine. When a Jewish state was declared, I felt that it should have the rights of other states - no more, no less.
Why should the US exist, sitting on half of Mexico, including Florida, conquered in a violent racist war carried out in violation of the Constitution?
And we can ask much the same about other states. State formation has been a brutal project, with many hideous consequences. But the results exist, and their pernicious aspects should be overcome."

This is part of a "you ask the questions" article of the Independent(a major british newspaper),28 august 2006. You can check it out,I do not trust the internet but it looks like the real thing.
By the way, Blankfort had reported that C had once said -I am jut putting it down by memory- that when young he had sympathy for zionism to the point that he thought about emigrating to israel.And that people reading his writing may have to keep it in mind.
Two points: the fact that Chomsky was a zionist 60 years ago is not that important.I was a maoist at the age of 14-16,so what.We all change ideas.
If indeed C pointed out the fact that "readers should consider it", then he is at his best,politically honest. His readers(you and I) should always consider the possibility that the writer of...anything,may have a personal baggage.Right?
But my problem is that I can't find anything about Blankfort(I start "to hate" the guy).
Look,like many others I am trying to understand the Jewish lobby power in the USA.I know it exists,but I find difficult to believe that they are able to control the USA.
Still, history has taught us that strange things happen.
I can't be satisfied by somebody writing that the guy is nuts,you do need "content".
In your case you just sent me a reply about the fact than C is not a zionist.(It was probably a mistake on my part: I should have not written zionist in the headline,I guess you focused on it.)I agree,I have been reading C for ages now and only a mad guy would say that he is(a zionist).
But the real question is about his "being soft on israel".
Again, I am trying to find out something about B, because I do not want to spend too much time following some ideas written by somebody who is...? If the guy had a political past it would help(a little).Right now,internet plus 9/11 truthers, it is really difficult to get real.
Thanks again and good luck

[leochaos]

i forgot to mention that this is Chomsky's reply

Do you believe Israel should exist, why and in what form? NICK HARRIS

Chomsky:)As a Zionist youth leader in the 1940s, I was among those who called for a binational state in Mandatory Palestine. When a Jewish state was declared, I felt that it should have the rights of other states - no more, no less.

[bcbm]

but cultural relativism is bullshit

i don't think you understand what this term means. it doesn't mean accepting fucked up practices as ok, it simply means understanding the cultural context within which certain actions occur. it assumes no ideological content but is actually a very useful tool in dismantling oppressive cultural practices.

[9]

Hi,
thanks for the reply.I am still trying to find out who this damn Blankfort is.His name popped up again in Counterpunch a few days ago(something about a failed protest against the war in Afghanistan).While searching I found this piece:
"
Do you believe Israel should exist, why and in what form? NICK HARRIS
As a Zionist youth leader in the 1940s, I was among those who called for a binational state in Mandatory Palestine. When a Jewish state was declared, I felt that it should have the rights of other states - no more, no less.
Why should the US exist, sitting on half of Mexico, including Florida, conquered in a violent racist war carried out in violation of the Constitution?
And we can ask much the same about other states. State formation has been a brutal project, with many hideous consequences. But the results exist, and their pernicious aspects should be overcome."

This is part of a "you ask the questions" article of the Independent(a major british newspaper),28 august 2006. You can check it out,I do not trust the internet but it looks like the real thing.
By the way, Blankfort had reported that C had once said -I am jut putting it down by memory- that when young he had sympathy for zionism to the point that he thought about emigrating to israel.And that people reading his writing may have to keep it in mind.
Two points: the fact that Chomsky was a zionist 60 years ago is not that important.I was a maoist at the age of 14-16,so what.We all change ideas.
If indeed C pointed out the fact that "readers should consider it", then he is at his best,politically honest. His readers(you and I) should always consider the possibility that the writer of...anything,may have a personal baggage.Right?
But my problem is that I can't find anything about Blankfort(I start "to hate" the guy).
Look,like many others I am trying to understand the Jewish lobby power in the USA.I know it exists,but I find difficult to believe that they are able to control the USA.
Still, history has taught us that strange things happen.
I can't be satisfied by somebody writing that the guy is nuts,you do need "content".
In your case you just sent me a reply about the fact than C is not a zionist.(It was probably a mistake on my part: I should have not written zionist in the headline,I guess you focused on it.)I agree,I have been reading C for ages now and only a mad guy would say that he is(a zionist).
But the real question is about his "being soft on israel".
Again, I am trying to find out something about B, because I do not want to spend too much time following some ideas written by somebody who is...? If the guy had a political past it would help(a little).Right now,internet plus 9/11 truthers, it is really difficult to get real.
Thanks again and good luck

Frankly, I have no idea what you're getting at. What the hell have Noam Chomsky and your man, Blankfort, there got to do with anything? Why are you going on and on about them, why are they at all relevant to the topic at hand?
To be honest with you, I no longer have any patience for people who think a "Jewish lobby" controls the US. I have no more interest in refuting conspiracy theories then I have in refuting religion. Either way, nothing you've said really pertains to the topic at hand. If you'd like to start a thread on revleft about the "Jewish lobby", by all means, go for it; I'm sure some other members will have the patience to set you straight.

[graffic]

Apikoros, That's the problem with the thinking behind some of these extreme anti-zionist communist opinions. You start off with US gives money to Israel so Israel must be an Imperial outpost for America >> but then why would they? Probably because there are lots of powerful Jews in America>> Jewish lobby lobbies the government into Iraq war and pro israel policies>> so the Jews are behind the capitalist imperialist exploitation in the middle East.

So you have slowly but suddenly swung right round to national socialism

[9]

Apikoros, That's the problem with the thinking behind some of these extreme anti-zionist communist opinions. You start off with US gives money to Israel so Israel must be an Imperial outpost for America >> but then why would they? Probably because there are lots of powerful Jews in America>> Jewish lobby lobbies the government into Iraq war and pro israel policies>> so the Jews are behind the capitalist imperialist exploitation in the middle East. So you have slowly but suddenly swung right round to national socialism

Anti-Semites are opportunists. They always have been, and they always will be. Opposition to Zionism does not create anti-Semitism. It is merely something that anti-Semites latch onto in an attempt to legitimize their claims. This has absolutely nothing to do with communism and it certainly doesn't follow from a materialist analysis. On the contrary, most of the anti-Semites in question are just as vehemently opposed to communism as part of the "international Jewish-masonic-communist plot for word domination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaeo-Masonic_conspiracy_theory)". But I am already late for work, so I will have to elaborate on this later tonight.

EDIT: I forgot to add the completely obvious claim by anti-Semites of "Jewish Bolshevism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism)".