Press Action ::: Some Reflections

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Some Reflections

By Abu Spinoza

1. Quite some years ago there was widespread outrage when Palestinian terrorists shot and killed Leon Klinghoffer, a man in a wheelchair. There was even a Broadway opera, The Death of Leon Klinghoffer. Recently, Israeli Occupation Forces shot dead Sheik Ahmed Yassin. Yassin, who was a quadriplegic, nearly deaf, and partly blind, was also confined to a wheelchair. Yassin was the head of the political wing of Hamas, a militant Islamic group in occupied Palestine. Shooting a man in a wheelchair, along with his civilian bodyguards and other civilians, is a cowardly thing to do. And that’s exactly what Israel’s actions amount to, besides providing fuel for the escalation of violence in Palestine and Israel. Steve Niva’s comments in a Counterpunch article are quite right: “Given Sharon’s track record, it should surprise no one that Sharon ordered the assassination of Yassin at this time.” He adds: “None of this should be taken to exculpate militant Palestinian groups that conduct suicide bombings, who have proven more than willing to seize upon Sharon’s provocations through their myopic preoccupation with revenge to bring untold misery upon both Israelis and Palestinians. Their actions have soured the Israeli public on peace and played right into Sharon’s efforts to justify quarantining them behind the massive wall.”

2. Professor Noam Chomsky has apparently given a de facto endorsement of John Kerry, even after acknowledging: “Kerry is sometimes described as ‘Bush-lite’, which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.”

Chomsky (“Noam”) is the most perceptive of U.S. dissidents. He is a towering intellectual figure of our times and a man of remarkable integrity. With all due respect to Noam, I rather agree with Phil Gasper that this endorsement is a mistaken one. While it is not unreasonable to expect that under Kerry there will probably be some minor and even some meaningful improvements in U.S. domestic policy but there is no good reason to believe that John Kerry will not continue the Anglo-American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and support for state terrorism against the Palestinian and the Colombian peoples. Even the more “rational” and “enlightened” wings of the American ruling class are not too troubled by neoconservative policies, despite occasional notes of concerns in the pages of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy magazine. The U.S. policies of war and aggression will continue under a Kerry administration, as long as the U.S. business class as a whole doesn’t perceive that the costs of such policies outweigh the benefits of such.

The progressive movement must do everything to raise the cost of continuing such policies for the U.S. ruling class. The “limited differences” between the Republicans and the Democrats remain quite narrow, probably less than various brands of infamous carbonated drinks. Until and unless there are national political parties that electorally mobilize the people and that can be organizations representing the interests of the working people, the choices will remain limited.

3. This brings to question what the anti-war movement and U.S. progressive community should do. There are no easy answers. I do think that anti-war demonstrations are necessary and useful but not sufficient. U.S. progressives must operate both within the realms of conventional politics, such as letter writing and lobbying Congress people, exposing the serious flaws of the corporate controlled media, and countering the so-called Israel lobby, but also think of new, unconventional, non-violent strategies that promote the interests of the working class and the cause of peace and justice. The anti-war movement needs to reach out more to the ethnic communities, labor unions, teachers, students, farmers, small business people, soldiers and soccer moms, environmentalists, and even many conservative folks, Republicans, and libertarians. There is serious and sustained opposition to war in mainstream U.S. society in spite of the barrage of propaganda, misinformation, and nationalist hysteria fueled by the talk of “war of terrorism,” allegations of threats emanating from (non-existing) weapons of mass destruction, and so forth. Social and cultural factors make it difficult for isolated and alienated individuals to express their views about the ongoing imperial wars. The progressives in the United States can, should, and need to provide the institutional bases for creating organizations and forums to channel people’s dissent to constructive causes of peace and justice, ranging from efforts like American Friends Service Committee, Center for Social and Economic Rights, and Institute for Public Accuracy. These organizations are merely some examples of what has been, can and should be done. The objectives of the progressive community should be to scale up and multiply such efforts, inform the public, break the barriers that create social isolation and vulgar selfishness, and collectively organize for social change.

Abu Spinoza is a columnist for Press Action.

More from Abu Spinoza