ANSWER and the Answer

[Max Sawicky]

c-zero:
> Yes, it's good to hear strong language condemning the current atrocities
> in occupied Palestine, but it has to be put into context. The IAC has a
> long track record of shallow anti-imperialism. They will support dictators
> and brutal governments of countries being attacked by the U.S., simply
> because they are fighting back against the United States. They don't
> understand the difference between supporting a population against
> imperialism and supporting theri government against the U.S. In many
> cases, those government where former U.S. clients who engaged in all kinds
> of crap against their people. Iraq is a good example.

mbs:  I'm not making any brief for what the IAC does at other
times, or what is in their heads.  They've got a better bead on
the moment is all I meant.


> Another problem with the IAC statement is that it personifies the
> conflict: "the Bush/Sharon war on Palestinians." This implies that a
> change in leaders would solve the conflict (perhaps in this case, with
> these two crazy guys, it might), but we all know that there has been a
> long-standing support of the U.S. for Israel. The Clinton regime is just
> as complicit with their "peace process" in manufacturing the current
> crisis as the Bush regime is.

mbs:  I think this is 180 degrees off.  You focus on the guys in charge
in agitation and save your dissertations for other occasions.  You also
distinguish  between the routine level of awfulness and special moments,
like the present, of supreme awfulness.  Otherwise history is just one long
run of one damn thing after another, and there is no cause at any particular
moment to get more riled up than usual.