Israel, Algeria, Guilt by Association, Cockburn, etc.

Pyle writes: describes the The French Communist Party "flunked out
by saying that the liberation forces should make moderate, partial demands 
so as not to freak out the French moderates and rely on the Metropolitan 
French left to come to power and liberate them. That's the kind of vibes I 
get off this Feldman post. It was a big mistake then and now."  He says the 
Israeli peace movement is simply a result of the Israeli peace movement.

First, as a matter of logic it is one thing to make an argument by analogy 
and another to actually carry forth the logic of an argument.
This argument, above, seems to be guilt by association, as if
I am somehow defending imperialism against Algeria.  What is interesting to 
me is how the independence movement failed to produce or sustain a 
democratic and non-militarist Algeria and how the politics of violence might 
be connected to that.  The Algerian situation is not relevant because what 
we have in this conflict is something more like a civil war or a war that 
involves both a defense against terrorism (however wrongly conceived) and a 
war to defend a colonial possession.

Second, some radical Palestinians have embraced non-violence and so
I wonder if Pyle implies that you have to be violent to be "radical."
Palestinians themselves do not reach this conclusion, but Pyle does.
Are these Palestinians sell outs?  There is a very radical tradition based 
on non-violence and there are tactical questions based on the utility of 
violence.  The IRA's sorry embrace of the cycle of violence is just one 
example of how violence masks itself as "radicalism."
The Palestinian case for self-defense is certainly more justified, but
my arguments have nothing to do with radicalism.  One idea which I reject is 
that non-violent revolutions become more coopted than violent ones.  Perhaps 
the idea comes from Sartre and Fanon.  I think these persons did not 
consider fully the limits of Third World militarism, but it also depends on 
the nature of the tactical situation and solidarity system (see below).

Third, he suggests or iplies that I call on the Palestinians to make 
moderate and  partial demands.  I didn't write that but this argument seems 
to be based on the second premise that violence is somehow "radical."  My 
own view is that Israel should return to pre-1967 boundaries, although 
Jerusalem should be shared or divided or divided and shared.  I also think 
some form of economic integration between Palestine and Israel should be 
promoted that extends technological assets to development in the former so 
that the former does not end up an economic colony of the latter.  I would 
also help if
this economic development extended to Lebanon, Jordon, and parts of Sinai to 
provide further platforms for absorbing Palestinian refugees.
In this fashion the economic size of "Palestine" could be extended since it 
is this size that is relevant.

Fourth, Pyle suggests that international solidarity alliances somehow 
disempower the groups within the alliance. This occurs when the support 
group makes tactical claims vis-a-vis the colonized group.  We know in the 
case of South African divestment campaigns and the anti-intervention 
movements that such solidarity systems can be useful in promoting 
decolonization.  It is just that the role violence plays in the Middle East, 
particularly against civilians, reduces the possibility of such solidarity 
systems.  Furthermore, I would argue that the strength of these solidarity 
systems would diminish the likelihood that: a) a revolution is coopted by a 
conservative election after the revolution, e.g. Nicaragua; b) a society is 
forced to move to the right because it has no economic links other than 
those mediated by the IMF, World Bank, etc. (In other words, solidarity 
movements can involve democratic and cooperative exchanges between the 
former colonial zone and the solidarity movement in Europe or the USA if 
this involves a progressive development banking system; I refer to this kind 
of idea as "selective divestment" in my book related to U.S. intervention).  
This would therefore place constraints on the Algeria problem (or others 
like it) where revolutions become coopted by militarists or right wing 
pressures orchestrated by the USA.

Fifth, Pyle says the Israeli peace movement is simply a byproduct of armed 
struggle. That seems reductionistic, if not wrong. He offers no evidence for 
this claim.  The peace movement has many causes and this is one of them.  
Even before the Intifada there was a left tradition within Israel to support 
a binational state, a view which is certainly resonant with a peaceful 
resolution of the conflict.  The Israeli Left faces many constraints, some 
of which are based on opportunism but some of which are based on the actions 
of groups like the suicide bombers.
You want an analogy, look at what September 11th did to the Left and even 
liberal agenda.  Even if Pyle's claim were true, it does not mean that 
everything done in the name of violence is worthwhile or radical or even 
tactically useful.

Finally, the burden is really on those embracing "armed struggle" to come up 
with a theory of Sharonism and the constraints upon it.  Every day that goes 
by offers very little evidence of the utility of violence.  This is not just 
about saying "we shall overcome" while the tanks roll onwards.  I agree 
largely with Alexander Cockburn's recent posting which goes far beyond the 
simple formula of "armed struggle":

http://www.counterpunch.org/nightmareisrael.html


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/B140lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

"[C]apital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and 
dirt."
--Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 31

Community email addresses:
  Post message: marxist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subscribe:    marxist-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Unsubscribe:  marxist-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  List owner:   jplst15+@xxxxxxxx

Shortcut URL to this page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist

Also take our one-question survey at
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist/polls 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/