Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
San Francisco IMC Solidarity Statement w/Latuff and imc-ch
Statement of solidarity with Latuff and Swiss IMC, from the general SF Indymedia collective.
STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY FROM SAN FRANCISCO INDYMEDIA
04 March 2002
San Francisco IMC exists to facilitate communications and information distribution in support of struggles against oppression, exploitation and state violence -- in our local community and as part of a larger network. We recognize that amongst these struggles is the Palestinian intifada. We recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination and their right to resist the unjust and murderous Israeli occupation.
We stand with the Switzerland IMC as they respond to charges of anti-semitism from Aktion Kinder des Holocaust. We condemn the legal threats which have created a climate of censorship that attacks the core of information freedom.
We stand with Latuff, whose cartoons are a powerful expression of solidarity with the millions of people rising up against capitalism and apartheid everywhere.
From Brazil to Palestine to Switzerland to San Francisco, we recognize that this form of global solidarity is necessary and on the rise within struggles around the world.
04 March 2002
San Francisco IMC exists to facilitate communications and information distribution in support of struggles against oppression, exploitation and state violence -- in our local community and as part of a larger network. We recognize that amongst these struggles is the Palestinian intifada. We recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination and their right to resist the unjust and murderous Israeli occupation.
We stand with the Switzerland IMC as they respond to charges of anti-semitism from Aktion Kinder des Holocaust. We condemn the legal threats which have created a climate of censorship that attacks the core of information freedom.
We stand with Latuff, whose cartoons are a powerful expression of solidarity with the millions of people rising up against capitalism and apartheid everywhere.
From Brazil to Palestine to Switzerland to San Francisco, we recognize that this form of global solidarity is necessary and on the rise within struggles around the world.
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org/
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
We were beginning to wonder about IMC and support for zionism
thank you for taking a stand
Viva La Revolucion!
What the fuck does that word mean?
Let me guess ... it means "hide your bias behind journalistic language which is aimed at convincing your readers that you have no emotional, cultural or personal stake in what information does or does not get out" ... haha, find out what indymedia is about first
Insha'Allah, the movement will have better guidance from THIS statement than the weird UC statement that even tried to draw a distinction between zionists and nazis! (as if they weren't both peas from the same fascist pod).
Long live Palestine, may Fascism rise again!
and when are we gonna get rid of those pesky Joos anyways?
That is bullshit, and I think western anarchists who live with the benefits (and downfalls, sure, but nothing compared to occupied refugee status) provided by *their* state need to recognize that self-determination means just that -- self-determination. Not western anarchist determination.
To be such an anarchofanatic as to suggest that the immediate and overwhelming benefits of a Palestinian state are not acceptable to you is absurd, and it means that you will not have much solidarity with people fighting class struggles all over the globe. Is it so much to admit that fighting for some form of statehood can be the goal of a class struggle? It might not be anarchist revolution, but it *is* class struggle.
"If you think Carlo Giuliani is that no different than a Palestinian kid throwing rocks at IDF, then you need to examine your class analysis. Carlo Guiliani died fight class war. Neither geo-political, neo-imperialist proxy war, nor petty tribal turf war is class war. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a little of both. But class war it isn’t. It should be."
So let me get this straight. By your western, anarchist standards, the overwhelming majority of Palestinian resistance groups fighting for statehood are not engaged in a class war. Living in an occupied refugee camp which is maintained by the United States military machine is not a fight against neoliberalism. It is a "petty tribal turf war" ... unbelievable to me. And the height of imperialist arrogance. Obviously Carlo Giuliani is an anarchist (i guess) and so that means more to me. And obviously I do not expect people to run out and join a group like Hamas which is flagrantly anti-anarchist.
But this conflict is not just fought by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It is fought by everyday people living in refugee camps that your government has created and keeps running. People who participated and participate in popular committees, especially during the last intifada. To say that Palestinian people are not daily engaged in class warfare against a neoliberal system of western design is unbelievable.
My class analysis is straight and I understand *what* you are saying. Except to say that this is not class war -- it is, it just isnt the kind you like. Or rather, the people who are fighting it are not sufficiently concerned with your western political philosophy. I am more interested in ways that anarchism can become more relevant. And one of those ways is finding common ground with people who are fighting a class war whose goals you do not 100% endorse. Anything else leads to the insular and apathetic ghetto of western anarchoculture that plagues our country.
How many single-party states in the Muslim world do you need as evidence to show that "self-determination" will only result in a new set of oppressors against the Palestinian working class?
Oh yeah, in your analysis this is a "Western" standard. People are much better off in Libya and Iraq with rulers like Qadaffi and Hussein.
Get a clue you anarcho-fraud! Anarchists are against the State, period! If you are not against the State you are not an anarchist. An anti-imperialist perhaps but not an anarchist.
Explain to me your strategy towards a stateless society then, please? Because as I am clearly stating, this is a strategy towards anarchist ends. We already know that most anarchists in the USA wont do much of anything besides write a zine about how they feel. Apparently, your idea of strategy involves being non-involved in anything remotely non-anarchist (read: just about everything real going on all over the world) and just hoping that someday all these uneducated masses will see your side of the story. Or, put another way, the luxury of your imperial lifestyle enables you to sit around doing nothing in comfort so that is what you will do.
Show me above where I said "support for PLA (sic) and Hamas" ... there are more groups fighting in Palestine than just these 2 groups. By most people's definition, showing solidarity for Palestinian *people* includes opposing the Palestinian Authority, which is a front group for western interests. (Ever wonder why Oslo happened? In what way will *this* intifada be sabotaged?) There are several Marxist groups fighting in Palestine as well. Oh, I know, blah blah the Marxists hate anarchists.
Tell me, the reactionary organizations like PLO have their supporters around the world -- including the United States Government. Where do the revolutionary Palestinian organizations get their supporters from around the world? I guess NOT from American anarchists, who are far too pure and enlightened to bother.
I'm also interested in finding out how a worldwide revolutionary struggle against neoliberalism will happen if uneducated non-anarchist people around the world are not good enough for you to work with?
Or, put another way, what would this intifada look like if there was heavy anarchist involvement in the first intifada? If there were anarchist institutions just like there are Marxist institutions, and Hamas community organizations?
Ok. So what goals do you agree with that relate to the Palestinian struggle? Are there any? Are you involved?
"I don't agree with setting up another government"
Tell me, would you give up your statehood today in exchange for being a refugee in an occupied camp? Then you could live without a government. You could live the Palestinian anarchist paradise, without a governing body. (which isnt totally true as the US Government installed the PA and gave them governing authority)
As for the Israeli peace movement, allow me to switch the tables on you. The Israel peace movement implicitly acknowledges that Israel is a legitimate state. Is it? There's *one* goal you do share with Hamas, Nessie, which is the overthrow and destruction of the State of Israel -- since it is a government in the world, you as an anarchist must be concerned with getting rid of it, right?
The Israeli peace movement is good, and the deserter movement is good. Ultimately there are other issues within Israeli activist circles, including racism and classism against Palestinians.
I agree with you that there must be co-ordinated action between protesters in the occupied territories and within Israel. But there are significant barriers, including Mossad, racism/classism that Israeli's have, mistrust and prejudice Palestinians have of Israeli's, etc.
Either way, there is fucking *plenty* that anarchists can do within this struggle, which put them towards anarchist ends as well as teaching them a thing or two about cultural differences in the world and what a global revolution would really look like. All you have to do is hold your nose and admit that maybe a governing body would be an immediate benefit to people. Anarchosolipsism is what brought us to today, now is the time to find common ground and solidarity throughout the world and finish these capitalists off.
I have become a fan of nessie. His comments are 99% knowledgeable, humane and often instructive.
He makes two 100% telling comments in his above posting: “The killing of women and children is an atrocity no matter who does it” and Nationalism sucks.”
I come to a different conclusion on a couple things however. First, the “We always support the underdog’ statement. It’s not quite true true that Americans always support the underdog. In fact, we would all be supporting the Palestinian cause, without reservation if that were so. I like to support underdogs and that is why I support the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and yes, the Palestinians.
All of these people when attacked by US bombs, sanctions or repressive policies are underdogs against the most powerful country in the world. The major reason they are underdogs, but not treated as underdogs, has to do with the most effective propaganda entity ever--the American media. The mainstream media is largely controlled (I’m not saying totally, 75% is enough to do the job.) by wealthy, right-wing, racist, anti-Arab/Muslim Jews.
Our mainstream media has been able to convince the majority of American people that war is good. The kind of discussion we have here--much saying that war is bad, would be censored on big media.
Nessie, I also differ with you on the idea that the two sides must resolve the conflict by temselves. It’s true, that the two sides must participate in solving the conflict, but that is not realistic in my opinion. Sharon can continue his policy of ethnic cleansing with his superior military power. He can forcibly destroy or take over all Palestinian lands, one bulldozed home at a time. The Palestinian are not match for F 16s, tanks and nuclear weapons, and also the $3,000,000,000 a year that we give the Sharon government to help fight his war. That is why the two sides cannot do it alone, and that is why we have international laws.
A fair and equitable solution to the problem must be imposed by the U.S. Certainly, extremists on both sides will have objections. The U.S. with the assist of the UN should be able to handled all objections, and if we are serious about it, even the extremists on both sides will understand that time for peace has come.
Peace
Interesting, it's logic that would appeal to the David Duke fans of the world, but those of us with a half a brain need to stand up and confront this racist crap.
Coorelation is not causation Rene. You have yet to prove, in any way, shape or form, that the religious-ethnic-nationality of any media owner has directly influenced them.
You have shown no content analysis study, no smoking gun, no nothing except that fact that many are Jewish.
One example: One of the worst warmongers in the world, Natanyahu, has on open invitation to appear on mainstream TV stations. Often, without anyone to counter his vicious propaganda, and with compliant interviewers who do not dare ask embarrassing questions. While the debate was going on in this country, regarding going to war against Iraq in 1991, he was virtuallly living in this country spewing his hatred of Arabs in the welcoming American media. By comparison, I have never seen an Arab or Muslim on mainstream TV allowed to make their propaganda without the interviewer or someone else there to make vigorous contrary responses and ask tough questions.
It makes no difference? Can anyone with the least bit of honesty, say that the coverage of Middle East conflicts would be unchanged if the Arabs/Muslims were the major owners the mainstream media? Get real.
As Elephant Memory pointed out in another thread
> There is a very interesting article on ZNet about how
> fundamentally racist, these conspiracy theories are, in
> the end:
> http://www.zmag.org/parecon/conspiracy.htm
US media supports Israel because the US government supports Israel. The same types of interests control the government's foreign policy and the media - large corporations. Very little dissent on foreign policy comes through.
US foreign policy supports Israel not because Jews control foreign policy, but because the US needs to divide and conquer in order to rule the Middle East. The US has supported various Arab states in the past, notably Saddam Hussein in the '80s when he gassed Kurds. Not a lot of corporate media criticism at the time, which one would expect if the "Jewish" media simply wanted to spew out anti-Arab propaganda.
Quack replies:
No, i don;t agree with you.
Rene's 'proof':
One example: One of the worst warmongers in the world, Natanyahu, has on open invitation to appear on mainstream TV stations. Often, without anyone to counter his vicious propaganda, and with compliant interviewers who do not dare ask embarrassing questions. While the debate was going on in this country, regarding going to war against Iraq in 1991, he was virtuallly living in this country spewing his hatred of Arabs in the welcoming American media. By comparison, I have never seen an Arab or Muslim on mainstream TV allowed to make their propaganda without the interviewer or someone else there to make vigorous contrary responses and ask tough questions.
Quack replies:
Anecdotal stories is not 'proof' Rene. P-r-o-o-f Rene, c'mon sweety, a smart person like you who makes such claims should be able to back up their statements with more than, "oh and Netanyahu was on TV the other night and....."
Rene goes on to say even more:
It makes no difference? Can anyone with the least bit of honesty, say that the coverage of Middle East conflicts would be unchanged if the Arabs/Muslims were the major owners the mainstream media? Get real.
Quack replies:
Excellent, shift the debate and dodge the fact that you are a racist antisemite. This isn;t about whether ot not things would change if Arabs owned media outlets, it is about your assertion that their is a direct 'control' of the media by right wing jews. Their is no difference between your claims and those found on david duke's website, NATALL, etc. Racist is as racist does.
I will just explain this once more. Americans to not benefit for any race or religion having a controlling interest of the mainstream media. I do not like the current ownership of the media primarily because it is pro-war and racist. Actually, I hate all war profiteers, not only Jewish war profiteers.
And quack, you say that I only offer anecdotal evidence. I am completely content to let the readers decide if that all it is from their own TV viewing. Free people can make their own conclusion.
Below is an article from the Washington Post regarding the Saddam gassing you bring up.. You will think that this also was written by a Nazi.
Media Wahington Post on Middle East Afairs
Iraq & Iran: Rush to Judgment
October 1988, Page 51
"It is time for a decisive geopolitical tilt toward Iran. " Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1988.
The media are Arab bashing again. The clubs this time are allegations that after the shooting war with Iran stopped, the Iraqi army used poison gas to mop up Kurdish militias that had sided with the Iranians.
The US government at first said it had no evidence. Then, it said two members of the US Embassy staff in Ankara had seen "8 or 10" people with serious skin rashes and had talked to refugees who had heard from other refugees that poison gas had been dropped from aircraft.
Turkish physicians treating the sick and injured among 80,000 Kurds who streamed across the Iraqi border said they had not seen a single victim. They attributed skin rashes to malnutrition and poor sanitation. George Shultz's State Department then said it had "other evidence," presumably intercepted military communications, that the Iraqis had used gas. The case began to smell like exhumed Middle Eastern red herring from 1967 or 1970 when "other sources" turned out to be Israel, which has a proven track record in manufacturing false electronic traffic which Western powers or the Soviets then mistakenly attribute to Arab states.
At this writing there is no incontrovertible evidence either that Iraq did or did not use poison gas after the cease-fire with Iran. Iraq denies the charges. Turkey backs up Iraq. American and other journalists in both countries have not found a single Kurdish victim nor any physical evidence. Yet knee_ jerk pro-Israel New York Times columnist William Safire demands that the US take firm measures against Iraq. And Charles Krauthammer, who regularly expresses public loathing for all Middle Easterners who don't happen to be Israelis, demands in the Washington Post "a decisive geopolitical tilt toward Iran" in the interest of "realpolitik." Why Iran should be rewarded for Iraq's unproven sin isn't clear, since even Krauthammer admits that, of what he calls the "two evils in question, only Iran's is for export." In Congress, pro-Israel California Congressman Tom Lantos calls for sanctions against Iraq.
Before America follows the advice of its pro-Israel claque and starts "tilting" either way, however, a review is in order. During their eight year-long war Iraq, outnumbered three-to-one, introduced poison gas and Iran retaliated in kind. The world condemned Iraq. Iran then claimed Iraq was planning to mount poison gas warheads on missiles aimed both at troops at the front and at Iranian cities.
The propaganda backfired dramatically. Iranian troops deserted and two million civilians fled in panic from Tehran. As his war front and home front collapsed, the Ayatollah Khomeini swallowed his "poison pill" of agreement to the cease-fire Iraq had accepted a year earlier.
Not long before Khomeini threw in the towel, the world had been horrified at photos of dead civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja. Kurds said Iraqis had dropped the gas canister or canisters that killed the civilians from an airplane. The Iraqis said it was an Iranian plane. Whoever you believe, and most observers believe the Iranians because it was they who brought in the journalists, the poison gas was dropped on the same day or the day after the village was wrested from Iraqi troops by Iranian troops. it's possible, in fact likely, that whoever dropped the poison gas believed he was hitting enemy troop concentrations in a deserted village. Whatever the motive, it's indisputable that the gas was used at Halabja well before the war was over and while the village was literally in the front lines.
There are now some 20 million Kurds in the world, half of them in Turkey, large numbers in Iran and Iraq, and small numbers in the Soviet Union, Syria, and-as recent urban migrants-in Lebanon as well. Although Iraqi governments and their Kurdish citizens have been fighting off and on for 40 years, and Iraq has been resettling rebellious Kurdish mountaineers in the plains for many of them, in fact the Kurds enjoy more autonomy in Iraq than in the other countries. In northern Iraq, Kurdish children can study in Kurdish schools, using the Kurdish language and Kurdish textbooks. A major issue between the Iraqi government and two groups of Kurdish leaders, however, has been whether or not the city of Kirkuk and its major oil fields are to be inside or outside the area where such Kurdish educational and cultural autonomy exists.
These leaders, Jalal Talabani and the sons of the late, long-time Kurdish rebel leader, Mullah Mustapha Barzani, threw in their lot with Iran in the second year of the Iran-Iraq war. Now that Iranian troops have been pushed out of Kurdistan and a cease-fire is in place, the Iraqi army has moved with a vengeance against the followers of those leaders.
There is no doubt that those followers think the Iraqis are using, or might use, poison gas against them. There is no doubt that the resulting panic has contributed to the sudden influx of Kurdish refugees into Turkey. But there's no proof, so far.
Although we'll soon read, correctly, that mustard gas vanishes after use, its victims don't. Troops gassed in World War I suffered permanent lung damage. They coughed rackingly for the rest of their lives. Let's not rush to judgment until after we meet some victims with seared lungs.
Meanwhile, it's instructive to see what's happened since the cease-fire in Iran. We almost chose a different photo for this page. It shows four young Iranians hanging from ropes tied to girders in a construction site high above onlookers in the western Iranian city of Kermanshah. The photo wasn't smuggled out of Iran. It and others like it from other Iranian cities have been printed on the front pages of major Tehran newspapers.
The young people were accused of welcoming the Iranian rebel "People's Mujaheddin" forces, who fought alongside Iraqi troops through the last year of the war, and whose armored vehicles were making a lunge across western Iran in hopes of reaching Tehran when the war ended. They withdrew, but hundreds or perhaps thousands of Iranians were arrested on suspicion of supporting them. They are being hung in public squares throughout western Iran "by the tens," to use the words of the mullahs. These aren't rumors. These and reports of other mass executions inside Iranian prisons are real events that the crowds of Iranians pictured on this page are protesting.
Seventy-seven members of Congress, led by Mervyn Dymally of California, have at this writing protested the well-documented actions of the Khomeini government against its own people. This is being ignored by Israel's media friends. Is it because they hope to revive, with non-Arab Iran, a US-Israeli-Iranian entente against Israel's Arab neighbors-like Iraq?
If so, shouldn't the US just say no to tilts?
-Richard Curtiss.
I will just explain this once more. Americans to not benefit for any race or religion having a controlling interest of the mainstream media. I do not like the current ownership of the media primarily because it is pro-war and racist. Actually, I hate all war profiteers, not only Jewish war profiteers.
And quack, you say that I only offer anecdotal evidence. I am completely content to let the readers decide if that all it is from their own TV viewing. Free people can make their own conclusion.
Below is an article from the Washington Post regarding the Saddam gassing you bring up.. You will think that this also was written by a Nazi.
Media Wahington Post on Middle East Afairs
Iraq & Iran: Rush to Judgment
October 1988, Page 51
"It is time for a decisive geopolitical tilt toward Iran. " Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1988.
The media are Arab bashing again. The clubs this time are allegations that after the shooting war with Iran stopped, the Iraqi army used poison gas to mop up Kurdish militias that had sided with the Iranians.
The US government at first said it had no evidence. Then, it said two members of the US Embassy staff in Ankara had seen "8 or 10" people with serious skin rashes and had talked to refugees who had heard from other refugees that poison gas had been dropped from aircraft.
Turkish physicians treating the sick and injured among 80,000 Kurds who streamed across the Iraqi border said they had not seen a single victim. They attributed skin rashes to malnutrition and poor sanitation. George Shultz's State Department then said it had "other evidence," presumably intercepted military communications, that the Iraqis had used gas. The case began to smell like exhumed Middle Eastern red herring from 1967 or 1970 when "other sources" turned out to be Israel, which has a proven track record in manufacturing false electronic traffic which Western powers or the Soviets then mistakenly attribute to Arab states.
At this writing there is no incontrovertible evidence either that Iraq did or did not use poison gas after the cease-fire with Iran. Iraq denies the charges. Turkey backs up Iraq. American and other journalists in both countries have not found a single Kurdish victim nor any physical evidence. Yet knee_ jerk pro-Israel New York Times columnist William Safire demands that the US take firm measures against Iraq. And Charles Krauthammer, who regularly expresses public loathing for all Middle Easterners who don't happen to be Israelis, demands in the Washington Post "a decisive geopolitical tilt toward Iran" in the interest of "realpolitik." Why Iran should be rewarded for Iraq's unproven sin isn't clear, since even Krauthammer admits that, of what he calls the "two evils in question, only Iran's is for export." In Congress, pro-Israel California Congressman Tom Lantos calls for sanctions against Iraq.
Before America follows the advice of its pro-Israel claque and starts "tilting" either way, however, a review is in order. During their eight year-long war Iraq, outnumbered three-to-one, introduced poison gas and Iran retaliated in kind. The world condemned Iraq. Iran then claimed Iraq was planning to mount poison gas warheads on missiles aimed both at troops at the front and at Iranian cities.
The propaganda backfired dramatically. Iranian troops deserted and two million civilians fled in panic from Tehran. As his war front and home front collapsed, the Ayatollah Khomeini swallowed his "poison pill" of agreement to the cease-fire Iraq had accepted a year earlier.
Not long before Khomeini threw in the towel, the world had been horrified at photos of dead civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja. Kurds said Iraqis had dropped the gas canister or canisters that killed the civilians from an airplane. The Iraqis said it was an Iranian plane. Whoever you believe, and most observers believe the Iranians because it was they who brought in the journalists, the poison gas was dropped on the same day or the day after the village was wrested from Iraqi troops by Iranian troops. it's possible, in fact likely, that whoever dropped the poison gas believed he was hitting enemy troop concentrations in a deserted village. Whatever the motive, it's indisputable that the gas was used at Halabja well before the war was over and while the village was literally in the front lines.
There are now some 20 million Kurds in the world, half of them in Turkey, large numbers in Iran and Iraq, and small numbers in the Soviet Union, Syria, and-as recent urban migrants-in Lebanon as well. Although Iraqi governments and their Kurdish citizens have been fighting off and on for 40 years, and Iraq has been resettling rebellious Kurdish mountaineers in the plains for many of them, in fact the Kurds enjoy more autonomy in Iraq than in the other countries. In northern Iraq, Kurdish children can study in Kurdish schools, using the Kurdish language and Kurdish textbooks. A major issue between the Iraqi government and two groups of Kurdish leaders, however, has been whether or not the city of Kirkuk and its major oil fields are to be inside or outside the area where such Kurdish educational and cultural autonomy exists.
These leaders, Jalal Talabani and the sons of the late, long-time Kurdish rebel leader, Mullah Mustapha Barzani, threw in their lot with Iran in the second year of the Iran-Iraq war. Now that Iranian troops have been pushed out of Kurdistan and a cease-fire is in place, the Iraqi army has moved with a vengeance against the followers of those leaders.
There is no doubt that those followers think the Iraqis are using, or might use, poison gas against them. There is no doubt that the resulting panic has contributed to the sudden influx of Kurdish refugees into Turkey. But there's no proof, so far.
Although we'll soon read, correctly, that mustard gas vanishes after use, its victims don't. Troops gassed in World War I suffered permanent lung damage. They coughed rackingly for the rest of their lives. Let's not rush to judgment until after we meet some victims with seared lungs.
Meanwhile, it's instructive to see what's happened since the cease-fire in Iran. We almost chose a different photo for this page. It shows four young Iranians hanging from ropes tied to girders in a construction site high above onlookers in the western Iranian city of Kermanshah. The photo wasn't smuggled out of Iran. It and others like it from other Iranian cities have been printed on the front pages of major Tehran newspapers.
The young people were accused of welcoming the Iranian rebel "People's Mujaheddin" forces, who fought alongside Iraqi troops through the last year of the war, and whose armored vehicles were making a lunge across western Iran in hopes of reaching Tehran when the war ended. They withdrew, but hundreds or perhaps thousands of Iranians were arrested on suspicion of supporting them. They are being hung in public squares throughout western Iran "by the tens," to use the words of the mullahs. These aren't rumors. These and reports of other mass executions inside Iranian prisons are real events that the crowds of Iranians pictured on this page are protesting.
Seventy-seven members of Congress, led by Mervyn Dymally of California, have at this writing protested the well-documented actions of the Khomeini government against its own people. This is being ignored by Israel's media friends. Is it because they hope to revive, with non-Arab Iran, a US-Israeli-Iranian entente against Israel's Arab neighbors-like Iraq?
If so, shouldn't the US just say no to tilts?
-Richard Curtiss.
I don't care if you're a right-wing extremist, right of center, centerist, left of center, a left-wing extremist, or don't even consider yourself to be on the political clothes line, no reasonable person wants war. We all wish they and every other nation and/or people would learn to talk out their problems and live in peace.
Now for the unpopular part.
Whenever you have, in this case, two "entities" who have goals that conflict with each other such that compromise is seemingly not an option, peace comes when one of of those "entities" abandons their goal. By that, I mean they are defeated in war.
I get no thrill from saying that. I don't want war. You don't want war. Disagreeing is one thing. Killing each other over disagreements is a whole other level. But these people hate each other. They have a long, long, long, long history of hating each other. If a compromise isn't worked out soon, it certainly looks like they're going to come to blows where there is no turning back. Maybe through war, they will eventually have peace, for a while.
But, I sincerely hope they learn to compromise. And soon.
BTW, this hope for a classless and non-Nationalist society is an unrealistic dream. There will always be rich and poor, there will always be nations. If anarchists want to continue this notion that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and are therefore undesirable, then your fight will be neverending, because your desires will never be accomplished. It just ain't gonna happen.
Defeated in war, lose its will to continue, what’s the difference, the result's the same, which was taylor’s point, they gave up their goal.
You say to-ma-to, I say to-mat-o, you say po-ta-to, I say po-tot-o……
When in the last 5000 years of recorded history has there not been those that are rich and those that are poor? When in the last 5000 years of recorded history has there not been nations upon the earth?
Does someone want to point out when there was a revolution anywhere followed by a sustained anarchy?
Let’s call anarchy what it is; it’s chaos. Under anarchy, if I want to take my car onto freeway and drive 150mph, I can. If not, why not?
More importantly, why is it I can read peoples posts and understand the point they are making while others nit-pic??
Because there has been domination and oppression for 5000 years. What about the rest of human history? Why no records of domination and exploitation from those thousands of years ... that's a question I will leave to the primitivists.
(Sitting back in his easy chair) This answer I gotta see.
"Does someone want to point out when there was a revolution anywhere followed by a sustained anarchy?"
Sure, the Spanish Revolution in the mid-1930's, during which anarchy was sustained for a year before being crushed by a combination of Fascist attacks and treachery from Stalinist, liberal, and conservative "allies".
"What about primitive man and the "rest of human history? Was there not a pecking order? Isn't hierarchy like this one way in which status is determined?"
Different societies had different systems, but many indigenous societies did and still do have very egalitarian systems: no pecking order. In fact, the democracy of the Iroquois - believed to be more than 800 years old now - was one inspiration for the designers of US democracy.
collectives can work when they are comprised of volunteers, as nessie's article points out.
they don;t work so will on the grand scale. not all people give equally, and that is a big problem when everyone expects to get equally.
Cheese Board pizza is the opium of the masses
Damn ... if only those "radicals" in the 60s woulda started, we'd be that much closer. Everything we have today seems to have been built by 20-something punk kids. So what the fuck happened?!
I’ll go along with taylor’s definition of anarchy: all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and are therefore undesirable.
Iroquois held a democracy. Democracy is a form of government, therefore undesirable.
One year in Spain does not a sustained period of time make. 65 years of constant organizing followed by a year of results is not a good investment. Give me a 100-year plus example. Someone could convince a group of people to stand on their heads and gargle peanut butter for a year, 100 years is a lot different. A grand scale would involve several million people, let’s say at least 20 million. Yes, I set high standards. I demand high standards. In fact, I’m really low-balling you here. It’s not even the very minimum that you would need today in order to pull it off and make it worth while.
Over 5000 years ago, people did a lot of things they don’t do now. No reasonable person wants to live life 5000 years in the past. All cultures, past and present, had leaders. All cultures had laws whether written down or not. Laws require some form of enforcement. Enforcement would be by those selected to carry out that function. Those who carry out that function make up, whether formal or informal, a government. All forms of government are undesirable.
Fred in the “anarchism is a way of life to practice” world of the future drives 150mph on the freeway. Who’s to say he can’t? A group of fellowcitizens gets with Fred to tell him he needs to slow down. Fred flips ‘em off and tells them they are “interfering unjustly with his individual liberty”. Now, in order to stop Fred, you’ve either got to make a law regarding speeding, throw Fred in jail, or take away Fred’s car. Some form of judgement must be made on Fred. All of these involve enforcement of some type. In order to enforce, some type of government, whether formal or informal, must be in place. All forms of government are undesirable.
My roommate for my final 3 ½ years at Cal was an anarchist. He went to every protest and was a part of every campus group that was against something it seemed. I went with him to several of these, mainly because he knew everyone, and I mean everyone, so it gave me the opportunity to go along with him to pick up chicks. A little protest, a few speeches, hey girls come back to the apartment and we’ll talk some more about the ‘movement’, a gallon of sangria later they’re naked, and the fun begins. Ah, college days.
I’d ask him these same questions, and he couldn’t answer them, just as you can’t. I’d ask others and got the same results. I’ve been around the block on this too many times.
Since the beginning of time, the human race hasn’t changed that much. There’s nothing new under the sun. Some people are leaders, some are followers. Equal cooperation on some matters are marginally possible, but even if you were able to close you eyes, tap 3 times with your red slippers, and repeat “There’s no place like anarchy, there’s no place like anarchy,” and it magically transformed the world into this place you people dream the world can become, leaders will eventually emerge, groups are going to form who will oppose each other, jealousy will raise its head, someone will be perceived as ‘keeping back a portion’ and not sharing as others do, some will not carry their portion of the load, fingers will be pointed, strife will take place; it will be chaos.
The human race functions best under a set of laws, that way everybody knows the rules of the game. Law requires enforcement. Enforcement requires government. Government is directly opposed to anarchy. Anarchy is not sustainable on a large scale for an extended period of time.
The sign above the doorframe leading to anarchy reads “Lasciate Ogni Speranza Voi Ch’entrate,” and for a reason, it’s a dead end street.
BTW, my old roomy hung on to his anarchy political views for about 6 months after we graduated. After seeing it didn’t pay the bills, he cut his hair, shaved, bought a suit, and headed to Market Street. He’s been working his way up the corporate ladder ever since. I know numerous of others who did the same thing, what you would call “selling out”, what I call “waking up”. Speak among yourselves, you know what I’m talking about. The anarchy movement is for the 20-year-old punk kids; the rest of us have responsibilities to our families.
Anarchism is untenable because there exists a natural law that says humans function best when being beaten by the people's stick by a bunch of vanguardists. Great work Briggs.
That is all you had to write, that one sentence. It is all we need to know how dishonest you are to make up natural laws to further your a priori assumption.
Ain’t gonna happen, at least any time soon. Let’s be practical here. Step one: stop the killing.
==>All cultures have leadership.
Leadership requires hierarchy. Hierarchy is a form of government. All forms of government are undesirable.
==>If it’s not written down, it’s not a law. It’s a custom. We favor custom. Law is abhorrent.
==>Custom is enforced by mutual agreement.
And way too often, customs eventually become law. What’s to prevent it from happening again? Nothing.
==>What happens to Fred is up to those of his peers who are directly effected by his actions. Personally, I favor summary execution.
Just my point. His peers become those who can, in Fred’s opinion, “interfere unjustly with his individual liberty.” They wish to impose upon him something he does not want to obey. His peers become a ‘governing body’ which passes judgement on Fred. All forms of government are undesirable.
==>Give any segment of society the means to enforce laws and they use them to their own advantage.
Exactly what Fred’s peers would do to him.
==>College students don’t speak for all anarchists. It’s unfair to ask people so new to life to explain things, They’re still learning. Ask me. I’ve been around.
You haven’t told me anything I haven’t already heard
==>Anarchists don’t do this. Don’t judge us by your own standards. We aren’t you.
Bet you some of them will, eventually. Your wants and desires are no different that other human. Do you really believe there won’t be those who demand structure? Many someone will want to take charge. Many, many others will follow those someone’s. Just like you’re dissatisfied with the status quo now, they will also tire of the “anarchy status quo.” If not, why not?
==>Humans shouldn’t work unless they want to.
If a man doesn’t work, neither should he eat.
==>That’s an unsubstantiated allegation, one that was disproven in Spain. The sole and only reason we failed in Spain is because relied on others not to stab our backs. Never again.
There won’t be another chance. Had anarchism been sustainable on a grand scale, it would have happened by now. If it was obviously that great, you couldn’t keep all people from demanding it. But, I don’t want it. Many others feel the same way.
==>An astute observation, there, Nikos. You really know how to call them.
Astute? I’ll call it cute. He still never answered my questions. Neither have you.
==>That tells us everything about you we need to know.
Not really, but I did have a damn good time.
This is a Catch-22, but without the Section 8. Written law, unwritten law, custom; even if all these things are mutually agreed upon, are still “guidelines”, if you will, that are expected of a civilized people. These “guidelines” require enforcement, even if it’s by those “who are directly effected by his actions.” Those “directly affected” become a governing body to determine someone’s fate. All forms of government are undesirable.
I can press this same argument for eternity. You can’t describe to me a world where law is unnecessary, nor can you realistically describe an “anarchism is a way of life” world that will not require some type of enforcement of punishment for evildoers. Because, once it is determined to administer punishment, whether it be by a king, a tribal counsel, or a “group of peers directly effected by his action”, you have “governed” over that individual. All forms of government are undesirable.
Obviously Brigg has read nil or little of any anarchist theory and this thread is not really big enough to answer all his misconceptions, and even if we did it would still be fruitless.
>>Brigg:"You can’t describe to me a world where law is unnecessary, nor can you realistically describe an “anarchism is a way of life” world that will not require some type of enforcement of punishment for evildoers."
Do not bother replying to him, he has made up his mind; unless you want more dishonest polemic.
cry baby cry
make your mother sigh
she's old enough to know better
so cry baby cry
Briggs, stay on cue, you're absolutely driving them bonkers! There seems to be those here who've had a bit too much ale.
I'm not going to bother answering. You jackasses are so out of touch with anyone not eating your tofu mash that you can't engage in a political discussion. You think the thoughts in your head, your daydreams and generally masturbatory fantasy life is where social change will come from. Good luck, I say.
But the fact that you prowl around these boards attacking anyone who doesn't think like you is what got me to start posting in the first place. Nessie, nikos, anarcho, assorted other jabberheads have no interest in why the vast majority of humanity doesn't share their goals. You must be a "cop" or a "authoritarian" of whatever. It's getting tiresome.
What's so funny is that you guys think you are the social movement! You think no one else exists. When I turn off the Anarchist run sites, like SF.indymedia, I never, ever see an anarchist in my life.
Again, best of luck with your self-righteousness. It'll get you exactly where the anarchist movement has always gotten people - nowhere fast.
Remember me from earlier in this comment thread? I am an anarchist, I have been for about a decade, since I was a teenager. I will continue to be one.
I support the goal of a Palestinian state as part of a longer-term strategy for global revolution. And for many other reasons which I will not clutter this message with.
I share your feelings about this, burningman, to a degree. However, you should know that anarchist activists in Israel are very much involved (if not responsible) for the recent campaign to encourage IDF mutiny. Anarchists in Europe are far more realistic and involved in the Palestinian struggle. I personally know American anarchists who are very involved in Palestinian solidarity activism (including some people of Middle Eastern descent).
So, while I agree with you to a degree, your generalizations are starting to step on my toes. Get it?
Jewish Voices Against the Occupation
The extensive opposition within the Jewish community to Israel's 34-year long occupation of Palestine needs to be voiced boldly and loudly.
We are, therefore, planning to publish an ad in the New York Times calling for:
an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem
a complete evacuation of all the settlements
a return to the pre-1967 borders.
Given the urgency of the situation, we also call for:
the immediate deployment of an international peace-keeping force in the occupied territories
the suspension of military aid to Israel until the end of occupation.
This ad will also support the lobbying efforts of Jewish advocates for peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
Click here for the text of the proposed ad Click here to sign the ad See which Israeli peace groups endorse this ad
As of February 25, 2002, 528 people have signed the ad and contributed $31,179. 435 of them sent us consent forms, agreeing that their name appear on this web site. 52 have pledged additional $2,100.
Amount needed for publishing the ad in the New York Time: $37,750.
Thanx. I appreciate the support. Stick around, a week isn’t enough time to see how lu-lu these people really are.
There’s a writer in here named Mike who nailed it better than anyone I’ve read. In an answer to a letter similar to yours, he wrote
“Dude, you gotta check these postings out more thoroughly. This place is Conspiracy Central. These clowns eat, drink and smell conspiracy. There's a conspiracy to spread Zionism, there's a conspiracy behind 9/11, there's a conspiracy to poison the pot supply, there's a conspiracy behind Enron; there's a conspiracy to hide all the other conspiracies; you name it and these guys reach for the Conspiracy Juice. Beats thinking, I guess. Challenge them on it and they besiege you with link after link proving their conspiracies. Holy cow, the paranoia on this board is so palpable (that means noticeable, for all you people in Oakland) it's like swimming through smoke. I love it. Come on in, the water's fine!”
You got all types in here, the main character being “nessie”, who I refer to as Don Quixote. He builds straw men and then valiantly slays them. And, he’s his own authority. He’ll try to make a point, and then attempt to back it up by linking to his own former writings. He’s a joke, but he’s quite harmless. They all are.
Another interesting thing I’ve noted is they will change terms in mid-stream. When I said “formal or informal gov’t”, he went to “culture”. When I said “governing body”, he went to “ad hoc”. Had I used the same terms he used, he would have changed to something else. Typical Nazi PC political hack maneuvering. They learned from the best.
They are also arrogant.
The worst thing they do is call you names, it’s all they’ve got to work with. You can either return it in kind or ignore it. It is truly like swimming through smoke. Invest 10-15 minutes a day here, it’s not worth any more than that, but it’s good for a kick.
Best to you.
Good luck to you and the others here who are confronting the lies head on.
1) i never ever hear the british blamed for the current situation, though it was them who so brutally stripped palestinian self-determination from the ottoman empire. or for that matter the romans (italians? the pope?? how rome ruined the world!) who really evicted the jews to start with. if you dont count that episode with the babylonians, or whatever may or may not have happened with the egyptians (ancient?) (black??) no, none of that-- it's all them ay-rabs and them nazi nazi jews. duh.
2) the palestinians are semitic too. it is impossible to be pro-palestinian and "anti-semitic". semitic: more than an ethnicity, not quite a race. where did they come from? well that's hard to say, but... some of them went on to invent monotheism, and got uptight about the paganism of the rest of them, who (centuries) later saw the light after all and left the golden bull &c behind for yahweh ala allah.
not to be cute-- just to say, it's complicated.
anyone who thinks semitic equals jewish equals semitic has been, um, paying too much attention to, um, the 20th century western press, or something.
3) in fact, i think half the reason everyone looks so ridiculous is because:
a- the lefties are trying to fit the conflict into an ideology, when it's an intra-ethnic rivalry over land/religion. those are usually the worst kind. think ireland-england. think greece-turkey. think pakistan-india. (and don't get saucy with me about "bloody great" britain, what do all you hotshots have to say about those latter ones?? you know, where the rhetoric isn't quite so canned, and the issues are as lively as ever?)
b- and the folks on the ground, the israelis and the palestinians, are cloaking the matter in respective nationalisms in order to bolster their p.r. with um certain influential parts of the world that have formally frowned on religious warfare since roughly the 1600s, while still making so much money off teaching the world how to conduct just those kinds of wars, better, for more money?
in other words:
4) just what is the issue? and to whom does it belong?
because face it, if you had been a jew at the end of ww2, you damn well would have demanded some satisfaction from people like, oh say, the brits, who'd made hitler possible in so many special ways. satisfaction like a lot of weaponry and a scrap of land, cuz baby it aint never goin down like that again.
were you brit, faced with this, palestine as israel would have looked like a downright elegant solution to several problems too boring to go on about here. fucking brits. yanks just took it from there...
the palestinians, for their part, could have handled even invasion better, if they'd been more ready to embrace the idea of an open society, for example, instead of one run by religious king-like folk, all-powerful and not-accountable to much besides the clerics and the yanks. like, say, most of the islamic world today.
5) but not least, the persistence of memory, if you will. one of the oldest towns ever found on the face of the planet is in the region-- jericho. they know this because they found a wall-- probably a fortification-- the oldest such ever found. people been killin each other over that patch of land for a long long time. and coming up with reasons for it after the fact-- reasons often sounding a lot like "God said," on all sides.
&c &c &c. these are just a couple of ideas, about why we go round in these circles and go nowhere while the bombs continue to have their way on all sides. but i hate to suggest we could use some knowledge of history and some deeper thinking. activists of all stripes tend to like their ideology to do all the thinking. tsk. it makes me unpopular. shoulda just kept me mouth shut...
but here we are. so, the big question:
can different kinds of people live together without killing each other, or being policed, or not? that, to me, is the critical question for social radicals, not who's the really real imperialist pig (yawn).