----- Original Message ----- From: <brettk at unicacorp.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:57 PM Subject: RE: Desire for Justice in the Unjust World re: Doug: "Whuppass th ose mofos!"
>
> Hi Seth,
>
> The analogy you present here isn't valid, in my opinion. The Palestinians
> are the victims of oppression, not terrorism. Their rights are being
> trampled by an oppressor with overwhelming military superiority. Should
> the Palestinians resist at all? Yes, certainly they should. Should they
> resist violently?
>
> This is a tough question. I've usually supported the non-violent
> resistance approach, but recently I've begun to question that position.
> Chomsky made a point on this in an interview with David Barsamian which
has
> stuck with me. Non-violent opposition only works if the oppressor is not
> willing to, or is restrained in some other way from, wiping you out. He
> even gave an example of a Palestinian town which refused to pay its taxes.
> They were crushed. Their stand was not reported in the US, nor was the
> Israeli reaction, which was to forcibly throw the people out of their
homes
> and seize their property. The Israeli citizenry did not protest either,
so
> the tax revolt merely resulted in the dispossession of a villiage.
>
> Under these kinds of conditions, taking a "no violence" pledge means you
> are essentially surrendering. I can still respect someone who says
violent
> resistance is still not justified, but I can see the logic of armed
> rebellion too, at least in that environment. However, you can support
> armed insurrection without supporting terrorist attacks on discos and
> pizzarias, as Yoshie states quite clearly. Just because you take up arms
> doesn't necessarily mean anything goes.
>
> Besides, nobody is saying the US shouldn't use force in its response to
the
> 9/11 attacks. The terrorists should be forcibly taken into custody and
> forcibly removed from society so they can't hurt anyone else. They should
> be fired upon if they shoot at police or other security forces that are
> trying to apprehend them. But bombing a foreign country, where 99% of the
> population is just trying to live through the winter and had no part in
the
> atrocity, is simply out of the question. Those people are innocent, and
> the US right to use force to find and apprehend the guilty parties stops
> when these people are put at risk by any potential response.
>
> Brett
>
> Yoshie wrote:
> >> Our position, I believe, should be to cut U.S. aid to Israel, so that
> >> frustrated Palestinians won't have to resort to suicide bombings of
> >> discos & pizzerias (attacks on military targets are another matter).
> >> In other words, we should work hard to create a political world in
> >> which better political tactics than suicide bombings become effective
> >> for Palestinians, i.e., the world that will foster the growth of the
> >> secular & democratic Left (as opposed to fundamentalist "political
> >> Islam") among Palestinians.
>
> You responded:
> >Agreed. But what about the Palestinians themselves? Should they take a
> >simple "No War" position on the struggle against occupation because the
> >struggle has involved some horrific attacks on civilians? If not, why
> should
> >Americans take a "No War" position against a war to eliminate terrorists
> who
> >killed 6,000 people?
>