Bcc: X Friends, Thanks for all the comments sent in to recent postings. I'll send those out soon. In the meantime I'd like to share some more dialog with X, who was featured in the "ruminations" piece. rkm http://cyberjournal.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- X> ... How can the two sides reverse direction and start looking towards the future? For the Israelis, the answer is obvious (even to many Israelis) though not easy. Declare the occupation over; recognize a Palestinian State including East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza; announce a quick time-line for dismantling the West Bank settlements; and, on this basis, offer negotiations to settle other differences... The Palestinians have one bold option that can break this futile violence. That option is nonviolent resistance. In a previous column I wrote that the Palestinians have never tried this option, but a number of readers informed me that I was wrong. In 1983 Mubarak Awad, an American- educated Palestinian with a doctorate in counseling, returned to Jerusalem, where he was born, and started a nonviolent movement. Through his efforts, the first Palestinian intifada had a small, experimental nonviolent component that incorporated acts of reconciliation with Israeli Jews with nonviolent direct action against the Israeli occupation. Awad's nonviolence was not embraced by Palestinian leaders. They did not rally to his defense when, in June 1988, he was expelled by Yitzak Shamir's Likud government -- one of the many Israeli mistakes that has led to the current violence. Or maybe it wasn't a mistake. The Likud Party is opposed to a Palestinian state. Perhaps Shamir feared that Awad's nonviolence was the most likely way for the Palestinians to achieve their dream of statehood... rkm> For the Palestinians and the Israelis, you identified something each could do that might improve things. I don't have any better suggestions for either of those parties. Unfortunately, the Israeli government will not follow your suggestion. And as I argued before, no action of the Palestinians will get anywhere because Israel is intent on maintaining and expanding the settlements and eventually finding some final solution for getting rid of the Palestinians. There are at least two other parties involved. International peace activists are putting their bodies on the line in Palestine, which is good, and that's about all they can do. And there is the USA. Washington could impose a solution. Unfortunately, it is as unlikely to do so as Israel itself. This is unfortunately one of those many problems that cannot be remedied until much more basic problems in the world are dealt with. Such as elite rule & capitalism. X> Richard, I think you caricature Israel. There is a left and a peace movement; one that is larger than in most other countries of the world. rkm> In a sense I did caricature, in that I referred to Israel as a single-willed agent. But I am aware of the political diversity in the country, and somewhat of the political process. The Sharon wing has gained control, and they have the means and the will to retain that control for some time. It is from that perspective that I spoke of what Israel could and could not be expected to do. The settlements have been growing under a variety of governments, and abandoning them would be an explosive political undertaking. I just don't see it happening without ~determined~ U.S. insistence. As long as the settlements continue, with all that entails, the Palestinians remain essentially prisoners in their various enclaves, subject to arbitrary treatment at any time. X> The strategic error of Palestinian action is that they have forced it to duck for cover. rkm> You speak as if there had been some kind of acceptable status quo, and that the Palestinians undertook to disturb that for some anticipated gain. I don't believe that was the scenario. Instead, the Palestinians were subjected to an escalating spiral of abuses, making their daily life unlivable and threatening their future existence. How long can a people put up with increasing abuses before they strike back in desperation? It is unfair to paint their response as being a peace-breaking initiative. The peace was broken by the Israeli oppression. X> A nonviolent strategy would also split Jewish opinion in the U.S. and Canada (don't know about Europe) and totally undermine the current influence of the Zionist opinion. rkm> What do you think the Israeli response would be to large, politically effective, non-violent demonstrations? My guess would be that some kind of violent incident would occur... a scuffle with IDF personnel, shots fired by a settler, whatever. The gathering would be declared illegal, more violence would ensue, and a program of enforced curfews would be set up. Or something else along those lines, as you indicated in the Awad case. Any politically effective initiative would be undermined, one way or the other. The key factor in the whole scenario is the fact that Israeli policy makers intend to incorporate the occupied territories into Ersatz Israel. The settlements pave the way, as did western settlements in 19th Century America. The settlers, and the policy makers, have the same attitude toward the Palestinians that the American settlers had toward the redskins. A friend of mine lived on a Kibbutz, and I asked what the young people did when they grew up. She said, "All the young men think about is joining the army and killing as many Arabs as possible." Neither violence nor non-violence saved the Native Americans, and neither will save the Palestinians. Only a major political shift in Israel and / or the U.S. can do that. And the Palestinians will not be permitted to carry out any political strategy which might encourage such shifts. --- X> Your comment about capitalism is one that needs full discussion. Like many on the left I used to believe that capitalism caused or at least enflamed racism and other forms of intolerance, while socialism heeled. ... I'm not saying socialism supports racism, just saying that the neat division of capitalism/bad socialism/good, when it comes to racial and similar issues, does not totally hold up. There are good reasons to oppose capitalism but I'm not sure that race is one of them. rkm> You're making some unwarranted assumptions here. My critique of capitalism does not emphasize racism or intolerance, and my understanding of credible new-society scenarios is not oriented around socialism. Capitalism is unsustainable, and it is inherently characterized by elite rule. Indeed, the adoption of capitalist government policies is already evidence that those elites have taken over. For a century or two, the growth of capitalism seemed to serve the interests of Western populations. They were willing to ignore or rationalize the imperialist exploitation that underpinned their prosperity. Globalization is a response by elites to the fact that global growth was slowing down to unacceptable levels. Capitalism ~must~ always have growth, and globalization is the process of squeezing out more growth by totally unleashing corporations to do whatever is necessary for that purpose. African famines, genocidal wars, monopolization of water supplies and seed crops, implementation of police states and crowded prisons in the West - WHATEVER IT TAKES - is what globalization is about. And globalization is simply the natural and inevitable outcome of Capitalist evolution. Capitalism has become totally dysfunctional in every way and it must be abandoned if humanity is to survive in any kind of acceptable way. What to replace it with is a deep question, and 'Socialism' does not answer that question for me. Economics needs to be sustainable, but that leaves a great deal of room for local variation. The people of Chiapas and of Montana, for example, probably each prefer different economic systems. I think the more central question, regarding new societies, is the question of politics / governance. What would real democracy look like? Without that, no economic system would be sustainable. If elites rule, even if through manufactured 'majorities', then eventually those elites will start reorganizing the new system for their own benefit. stay in touch, rkm http://cyberjournal.org
Share: