abstractmentality
19th March 2004, 19:23
i must say i agree completely with bozg. i will be in san francisco tomorrow, but i know that the marching is not going to stop the occupation. its a good thing in that it shows us (those against the occupation) that there are many others out there who feel the same way. but if we think that marching in the streets to a government permit, down specific streets so that we dont "harm" anything is going to stop any occupation, then we are really not thinking in the correct frame of mind. below is an article by someone who came to my college a while back to give a talk (an amazing speaker) critiquing the anti-war movement here. also, i would suggest that people check out Ward Churchill's book Pacifism as Pathology.
The Anti-War Movement
Amer Jubran Challenges the Anti-War Movement in the U.S.: "Is the US
Anti-War Pro-Resistance?"
By Amer Jubran (with Editor's Note by Les Blough)
Feb 6, 2004, 12:59
Editor's Note: As many of you know, Amer Jubran was forced to leave
the country for the "crime" of speaking out in support of the people
of Palestine. Until his departure in January, he was arguably the
most powerful Pro-Palestinian leader on the East Coast of the U.S.
He was an inspiration to Palestinian Americans across the United
States, to Palestinians abroad, and to people everywhere who are
fighting for justice and freedom for the courageous Palestinian
people. The Zionists in this country used every underhanded
strategy they could muster to employ the services of the FBI and INS
to force his departure. We believe these extraordinary measures to
silence his voice and example are evidence of his effectiveness.
To read the history of Amer's work in the U.S., read the articles
listed at the bottom of this page. People often ask me if I am not
afraid to speak out against the U.S. Government as I do. Much of
the courage that I have been able to muster fed off the example this
man has set for us all. I have said for many years that the U.S.
Government leaves us so-called "activists" alone - until we pose a
real threat to the corporate structure that really governs America.
Through his leadership and words, Amer Jubran became such a threat
to them. They had to try to silence him. But as evidenced in this
article, they failed.
In this first article received from Amer since he arrived in Jordan,
he challenges - not the government - but those "activists" who think
"protesting" is asking for a government permit and allowing
ourselves to be herded like sheep into that same government's "free
speech zones". I say, he's "right on the money".
We are happy to begin publishing the new work of Amer Jubran from
Jordan. - Les Blough, Editor
--------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, it is a waste of time to discuss the perfidy of the
US government. It is established beyond doubt that Bush, like
presidents before him, represents the interests of a prosperous war
industry. What is worth researching, though, is the methods by which
the US managed to achieve its vast criminal empire. Such research
needs not focus on the well-known economic and military machinery
and its political consequences, but rather on the unconventional and
secret strategies employed by the US to encircle and strangle its
prospective targets. These strategies include client regimes,
large-scale media propaganda, and co-opting opponents of the system.
One such opponent is the United States "antiwar movement."
As one administration after another wages war with impunity,
culminating with Bush ignoring 10 million antiwar protesters on
February 15, 2003, any hope one might have that this movement could
bring change has become wishful thinking. In order to bring the US
war machine to a halt, insights are needed into why the antiwar
movement has not been effective. This must include an examination of
the leadership, culture, theoretical and practical goals, mission,
and strategies of the movement as it stands today.
During the Vietnam era, the US government spent a great deal of
resources on researching the movement and its impact. It responded
to the movement with imprisonment, harassment, and assassination of
leaders. A entire system of social rewards was developed to buy
people off. The government's most effective strategy, however, was
its choosing to contain the opposition rather than attempt to
eradicate it. It was by this means that a "loyal opposition" was
created - an opposition which the government could manipulate and
control, allowing it enough power to reach a large segment the
population, and to disseminate a message of change, but withholding
the power necessary for such change to be in any way implemented .
In the Vietnam era many realized the government could not be
trusted. The pretense of a democracy in which two parties struggled
against each other and kept the mighty USA honest would no longer
work. Elite planners understood that non-governmental organizations
could do what the Democrats had formerly done. That is, they could
push for reform of policies set by Republicans, and their free
expression of political frustration could be promoted and used as a
sign of a healthy, confident democracy. Such organizations could
thus continue work vital to the government's longevity, absorbing
the opposition In the name of reform, and the Democrats and
Republicans could more openly merge forces.
After thirty years under this system the movement has established
its right to freedom of expression, and not much else. The focus has
changed from demands for changes in government policy to just having
the right to express those demands .
Unlike the 60's, when antiwar protesters were attacked by dogs,
sticks, and water hoses, protesters today are accompanied by police
motorcades. The government issues rally permits, marching permits,
sound permits, and vending permits. Some consider it a victory just
to obtain a permit to protest. This reflects how demoralized the
antiwar movement has become. Of course, once a protest is permitted,
it will then be subjected to massive police supervision, as we have
all seen.
For some whites and excluded minorities such as Natives, Blacks,
Arabs, Latinos, and others whose political tone was too radical, the
US developed more serious measures. The strategy was to hit these
groups hard, away from public view. This resulted in a big
percentage of those who could leave choose to do so, and work within
the system. Some whites saw the double standard and this made them
sensitive about their privilege but paralyzed in their ability to
take initiatives. Naturally, the minorities reacted with contempt
toward whites. Part of the antiwar movement was thus divided, and
thus conquered.
"Give Peace A Chance"
Today in the US, there are many groupings in the movement. The
biggest two differ in their political positions and tone, but are
comparable in their behavior. One takes the position of reforming
The system by appealing to the president, government, Congress, and
voters. During the Gulf War of 1991, this group demanded the US "let
the sanctions work." Similarly, leading up to the occupation of Iraq
in 2003, it said, "let the inspections work." No matter what the
outrage, this bloc's song is "Give peace a chance."
The moral base for this bloc is "peace" - an abstract goal that no
one disagrees with but which lacks critical definition. It does not
seek to address root causes - the fundamental need for justice as a
requisite for peace, and the immediate necessity of stopping the US
war machine in order to obtain that justice. Instead, it claims to
be objective, to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and blames
bad leaders on both sides - a US president and a third world tyrant,
Bush and Saddam, Sharon and Arafat - as if both sides were equal.
The dominant philosophy in this bloc is pacifism - at any cost. Not
only does this ensure zero risk to themselves in confrontation with
the authorities, it leads them to condemn the resistance even of
those being oppressed. Only if the victims of the US are purely
oppressed and do not fight back does this bloc advocate for them. It
joins with the US government in labeling resistance movements as
"terrorist."
The most troubling area in this bloc's politics is its position on
Palestine -- its complete failure to understand the long history of
racism, killing, displacement, and torture used against
Palestinians. Its position on Palestine is not very far from the
official public position of the United States, Israel, and the Arab
client regimes. The leadership of this bloc accepts only "good
Palestinians" as activists in their movement. A good Palestinian is
one who accepts their vision of peace between what it contends are
two populations --Israelis and Palestinians -- competing for equal
rights. History is thus erased. The oppressor is put on an equal
footing with the oppressed. Worse, the Israeli aggressor is treated
as the victim.
This bloc's leadership is composed mainly of white liberals, and is
heavily infiltrated by Zionists. It draws its constituencies from
left democrats, churches, academics, and some students. Normally,
the constituencies are loyal. Members are steady in their numbers
and contributions .XXX "Bring the Troops Home Now"
Criticism of the second bloc is more important than of the first.
The first practically announces itself as a loyal opposition. The
second does not -- its opposition is more formidable..
The second bloc takes a strong stand against US imperialism but does
so on the basis of the material self-interest of another
abstraction-the working class. With this group, the needs of working
people at home take priority over support for resistance in
countries under US attack. Instead of spending money on war, this
group says, money should be spent on providing jobs, education, and
health care. Their priority demand, "Bring the troops home now,"
comes close to the mainstream's "We support our troops," and is a
betrayal of those people in other nations whom "the troops" are busy
shooting at, bombing, and colonizing.
This group rightly points out the existence of an "economic draft"
but does not grapple with the fact that poor and minority people who
have been taken in by the economic draft are capable of moral
choice, did not have to join, and are just as guilty of the crimes
of imperialism as George Bush if they pull the trigger. Also not
recognized is that many of the "troops" bring with them the
prevalent US diseases of ignorance and racism, and fight because
they believe in what they are doing. A significant number are not
minorities .
Some come from military families. The best reason for wanting these
particular soldiers to come "home" is to stop them from killing
people. To appeal for their return on the basis of an injustice done
to them twists both logic and morality, yet more ink will be spent
on one GI resister in this bloc's newspapers and leaflets than on a
thousand Iraqi resisters who gave their lives confronting Uncle Sam.
Indeed, more ink will be spent on the need for domestic health care
and education and decent jobs in the relatively wealthy US than on
the right of Iraqis just to live.
>It is important for any movement's leadership to take a position on
issues. Constituencies need clear analysis in order to understand
world events and mobilize in response to them. However, clear,
strong positions are of no use if an organization's main goal is to
build numbers. Building numbers means slogans with broad appeal and
minimum controversy which generate the largest possible protests.
The goal becomes flexing political muscle and self- promotion which,
in turn, establish the power of an organization, and give it
credibility in negotiations. The negotiations are carried out on two
tracks. The first track is with the US government.
When concerns about permits, collecting funds, and event promotion
become more important than changing a brutal system, the movement is
in trouble. After the dramatic protests of Seattle and Quebec City,
the government became more serious about permits to protest. It
asserted its right to control when, how, and where protesting could
take place. Lengthy negotiations with protest organizers became
necessary. Concessions were required. The result was a long stream
of non-violent, peaceful, and inconsequential protests in several
years of some of the most blatant military and economic violence the
world has ever seen.
The protest against the World Economic Forum in New York City in the
winter of 2002 provides an example. The authorities cleared all
protesting from twenty city blocks around the where the forum was
taking place, except for the area of the official protest.
Protesters who wanted to get to the designated area were allowed to
do so only through numerous and arbitrary police barricades. They
were then corralled into narrow pens along the street, block after
block, standing for hours in miserable, cold weather. The only
action was speeches and chanting. If anyone wished to break away and
march to the Waldorf Astoria, where the Forum was being held, they
had to go through the security marshals of the protest organizers
before getting to the police lines. At the end of the day, the
statement came from the stage: "Go home in small groups; we have won
today by showing the ruling class that the movement is strong and
present." In fact, the ruling class only learned that the movement
is willing to sit in pens and police itself all day long, and mount
no challenge whatsoever to the fat capitalists assembled in the
forum.
The second track of negotiations is with the liberal "peace" bloc of
the antiwar movement .XXX Using slogans to recruit and build numbers
is an act of sectarianism. Sectarian attitudes focus on recognition.
Milder politics lead to greater numbers and resources. The second
bloc wants to tap into these resources, but also wants to be
recognized as dominant in the movement. An ideal strategy is
building a principled position and allowing people time to discover
its consistency and clarity. But overcoming differences in political
opinions with the other bloc requires a compromise. At this point,
language is made to serve both sides of an issue. For example,
demands like "Free Palestine . . .Victory to Palestine . . . Long
live the Intifada" and "Stop US Imperialism" become "End the
Occupation" and "Support the troops--bring them home."
With time, the importance of such issues as Palestinian and Iraqi
resistance could be brought to the weaker bloc, but such effort
would meet with decisive opposition from Zionists both within and
outside the movement who are in a position to dictate the political
agenda. To maintain numbers, popularity, power, and financial
backing, the anti-imperialist bloc is forced to sacrifice principles
and make deals. Sometimes, these deals require dropping an issue or,
worse, presenting it diluted. The blood and suffering of victims of
US imperialism are thus used to serve the purposes of power
politics.
Another critical problem is this bloc's readiness to adjust its
agenda to its sources of funding, making such decisions without the
knowledge of its wider constituency. For example, funding from the
Muslim clergy shifted the focus of the April 2002 demonstration to
Palestine, a focus which was correct, but which should not have
depended on money. On October 25, 2003, funding from the liberal
donors of the Vanguard organization resulted in Palestine being
dropped from an west coast antiwar protest. With funds pouring in
from Vanguard, key organizers who had once been in support of
Palestine attempted to veto a speaker for the Palestinian resistance
from addressing the San Francisco audience. However, they did allow
the Democrats to speak on the stage that day.
Although this bloc is a coalition, decisions on strategy and events
are made by only a few individuals. A central committee selects
people it wishes to represent various causes. These people are often
limited to describing first hand how the US government made their
lives miserable, leaving political analysis to the leadership.
Furthermore, if the representative criticizes a stand or how an
event is handled, regardless if it was right or wrong, this
individual will be iced. Instead of healthy debate, critics are
condemned.
The second bloc has difficulty maintaining loyal members and allies.
That is why it doesn't grow. Unlike the pacifists and reformists of
the first bloc, the constituency of the second bloc is made up of
radicals angry at injustice. These people possess the best qualities
of revolutionaries -- bravery, political sophistication, and a
willingness to sacrifice. Sadly, they find themselves sucked in by
something that talks of revolution, but doesn't deliver. As a
result, radicals either lose interest or disperse into smaller
groups with smaller resources and try to avoid sectarian conflict
with the larger bloc. They are miles ahead of the first bloc in
seeking to resist, but they are halted and slowed down.
Both blocs differ in their politics, but have like strategies.
During a crisis, they both call for a stand and make plans are made
for a massive protest. Inevitably, that protest falls on a Saturday.
A protest in a public park on a Saturday in Washington, D.C. might
maximize the numbers of those who attend, but it does nothing to
interfere with business as usual. The government is away for the
weekend. Why can't a day be chosen when someone is there to listen,
or when the White House or Congress is about to decide on a matter
important to the movement? When Turkey's Parliament was deciding if
it should join the US in invading Iraq, hundreds of thousands
opposing the war surrounded the building and threatened violence if
the resolution passed. The result was defeat of the resolution and
Turkey staying out of the war.
Both blocs of the antiwar movement take protest only so far as
political rallies with a stage and speakers, followed by a permitted
"march." Would the coalition proceed if a permit were rejected?
Anarchists who protest without permits and who do interrupt business
as usual, are denounced by some in the antiwar movement. Instead of
being viewed as a wing in the movement that counters inertia of the
pacifists, they are left to deal with police brutality alone. This
makes them distrust the rest of the antiwar movement. Is there
anyone in the US antiwar movement who resists the US government as
fighters in Vietnam, Columbia, Iraq, and Palestine have done? Is
there an underground that has recognized the futility of peaceful
protest and mobilized to directly stop US war and aggression? In the
current movement, anarchists have gone further along these lines
than anyone else, but no one has gone far.
Both blocs are reactive to whatever the US government does. They
wait for Washington to make the decisions. A clear strategy of
taking initiatives and putting the government on the defensive is
absent .XXX Every movement likes to brag about its victories and
achievements. Here is a short list of what the US has done since
Vietnam:
--attacked and started the war in Afghanistan 1980
--attacked Iran 1980
--pushed Iraq to attack Iran 1980
--attacked Central America 1980's
--attacked Lebanon 1983
--invaded Grenada 1983
--attacked Libya 1986
--attacked Iran 1986
--invaded Panama 1989
--attacked Iraq 1991
--invaded Somalia 1993
--attacked Yugoslavia 1999
--attacked Afghanistan 2001
--attacked Iraq again 2003
As well, the US continues to maintain Israeli oppression against
Palestine, it continues to wage war against Colombia using a phony
war on drugs as a pretext, it continues to defy international
treaties regarding war crimes, it continues to refuse to submit to
an international court of law, it continues to steal oil from the
Arab world, and it continues to support the dictatorships of its
many client regimes. At home it has created the police- state
Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the Border
Security Act, and the world's largest prison population.
Where is the list of achievements and victories of the antiwar
movement?
http://mail.onepalestine.org/mailman/listi...nepalestine.org (http://mail.onepalestine.org/mailman/listinfo/staff_onepalestine.org)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.