Doug Henwood wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >I think Yoshie's point can be underlined. The question is not what is the
> >proper solution for the Paletinians to pursue -- that is their decision.
>
> You say this often, but are the directly involved the only ones who
> have anything interesting or useful to say about a situation?
Probably not. In the course of attempting to counteract Zionist propaganda in the U.S. it is usually necessary to cite Palestinian critiques of (and attacks on) Arafat and the Peace Process to which Arafat committed himself. But having "interesting or useful" things to say about Palestine can only be part of opposition to U.S. interference there. Internally, there is much to distinguish the U.S. in 2000 from Germany in 1939 -- differences which can be summed up by saying resistance in theU.S. (outside the Black community) is hardly as dangerous as was resistance in Germany in 1939. But from the viewpoint of the *rest* of the world, the U.S. today is clearly a greater threat than was Germany in 1939. (It would have been defensible for residents of India in 1939 to have adopted a pro-German position. It is not defensible for residents of Yugoslavia or Argentina today to take a pro-U.S. position.)
> This
> sounds like the standpoint thinking that most Marxists identitarians
> usually rail against. What about solidarity?
How does my post deny solidarity? Nothing I (or any other resident of the U.S.) might say or do would somehow raise the power of PFLP relative to Hamas among Palestinians -- but I can work to interfere with U.S. government interference. I can point out that (as Yoshie argues in a post responding to Justin) that between Zionism and [the worst Palestinian force you can name] the latter is, at worst, the lesser evil in a situation where lesser-evilism makes sense.
> What about our own
> implication in the situation of Palestines and the imperial strength
> of israel? If Arafat is really a bogus leader, shouldn't we point
> that out to an audience that might not know that?
Yes -- but only if we remember that the Palestinians (resident and non-resident) will make the final decisions on Arafat's place in Palestinian leadership.
> I suspect
> Palestinians have plenty interesting to say about what policy the
> U.S. should pursue. Is it only metropolitan leftists that are under
> this gag rule?
Yes -- more or less. But it isn't a gag rule: it's an argument as to the framework of political action within which we should say whatever we have to say. Note that among a fairly large number of U.S. leftists "saying" what they thought was true about Milosevic has gradually morphed into more or less active support for a political change in Yugoslavia which can only be disastrous for the future of the Balkans. This has been a potential from the beginning. Early in the NATO attack on Yugoslavia one young Marxist, reporting on demonstrations at his university, mentioned a demonstration by Serb immigrants which, he said, he "of course" had nothing to do with. That is the kind of picking and choosing which I think is utterly unconscionable.
Carrol
>
>
> Doug