Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 16:52:26 +0200
From: Ilan Shalif <gshalif-AT-netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: AUT: Imperialism = main contradiction?


Hi People.

Harald Beyer-Arnesen wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hamilton <s_h_hamilton-AT-yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: AUT: Imperialism = main contradiction?
>
> The demand for a dual state solution is the only
> realistic solution one on the agenda at the moment,

May be it is the only one the Israeli naZionists backed by
US will agree to, but it is not different from other imperial
meddling in the region.

For instance, the curving of Syria into three parts - part
annexed to Turkey, part established as pseudo independent
Lebanon and only the remaining as Syria (before Israel
grabbed in 1967 the region East north of the Northern Lake).

The West of the Jordan Palestinian Region was cut from the
East of the Jordan Palestinian region is a joint venture of the
Hashemaite kingdom and Israel... intending to make Israel
policing the unruly Palestinians of the West side of the Jordan.

> and is strongly supported by for instance the former
> prime minister and leader of the conservative party here
> in Norway.

And the center and left naZionists.

> There is nothing particular left to this.
> I strongly suspect he would also much have preferred
> a secular one-state solution, which seems far more
> rational also from a capitalist perspective.

No it is not. From capitalist point of view it is better to separate
the more capitalist developed region as Israel, and the less developed
as Palestine. Like they keep the border strong between US
and Mexico.

> The fusion
> of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon (and perhaps also
> Jordan) into one state would make even more
> sense, also from a capitalist perspective.

Lebanon is not really part of the equation, but Jordan was
artificially separated, as even there, the majority of the population
is originated from the west bank of the Jordan - refugees of the 1948
and 1967 wars, and internal migration as the two banks of the Jordan
were under the same rule from 1948 till 1967.

> There is nothing mysterious about the anti-anti-imperialist
> position. It is is pretty self-evident from a social revolutionary
> as opposed to some kind of social democratic position,
> liberal or rationalist capitalist position. Namely a consistent
> opposition towards all forms of exploitation and oppression
> and the support for all (potentially) social-revolutionary (by
> definition anti-nationalist) forces.

The support - even if conditional, for the struggle of working people
against oppression and special exploitation based on difference of
nationality, is NOT conditioned on being social-revolutioary. Just as
the support of workers in work place class struggle or women, or
other sections of society is not conditioned on that.

Ilan




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---