Interesting article from last Sundays Observer (5/7/09)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/05/gaza-israel-palestine-war

Dismissing my views as proselytizing and claptrap, and not considering whether capitalism is of importance – this is a definite political position or view, regardless of whether you are in any sort of group or not.

Also it is not an uncommon view. You are not alone. Plenty of people think like you. In other words, just like me, you are product of the world you have lived in, and you are part of a specific social layer. Though, in my opinion, not a large percentage of the population.

For socialists (materialists, philosophically – being determines conciousness) who battle to end the war against the world's oppressed ( of which of course Palestine is one of the prime examples) political analysis of history and society is the only basis on which a political program can be found to solve the problem.

Norma, you disgree with me about what the problem is.

Bock, I wonder how many people who had previously not considered the points I raised found them of relevance?

A tenet of socialists is that the mass of humanity is receptive to discussion, in the struggle to transform the world. Very often, people who dismiss socialism, also dismiss the ability of mankind to radically change our circumstances.

To overcome Zionism and create a united secular state, for instance.
I firmly believe this can be achieved in the coming period. I don't think it's automatic; but neither do I think it's in any way impossible.

However, you also seem to be the only one here who needs to set out a manifesto before expressing an opinion.

As I said before, this site isn't a soapbox.

You say I have no right to discuss the Palestinian struggle.

I am not personally piqued by your assertion. I have no beef with you because you state MY rights should be curtailed. It is not my view that individual rights are paramount; but, it is absolutely essential for the oppressed of the world that discussion is open and all-encompassing. This is the greater morality.

The terrorized masses of Gaza are ill-served by a closing off of discussion, a shutting down of topics. A denial of airtime to selected political positions.

I started my discussion in this post by stating that I did not agree with James Carr’s assertion that Israel had a propaganda victory. I will make another point now on James' submission and say that I do not believe Obama needs any coercion into unconditionally supporting the Zionist agenda. I do not believe he is an “unpredictable factor”. Rather I would hold that the Israelis have been emboldened by the emplacement of Obama. His public statements before the latest Israeli invasion; and his choice of Cabinet, make clear to anyone who wishes to see, that he is a committed and utterly reliable office holder for continued war and oppression against the world’s peoples – including the American people (and is clear to anyone who understands that the Democrats are as much a party of American Imperialism as the Republicans). Barack Obama is on message.

These are my views on James Carr’s topic. They are based on my socialist world outlook which I have openly declared on other posts; but which I feel inhibited to declare less I am told this is not the issue! Rupert Murdoch would not take exception to the denial of discussion to socialists.

You are stating I have no right to express these views.

I will defend to the end your right to express your opinion. Not because of some abstract, supposed eternal right that falls from the skies which must be upheld; but because the defense of hard-won democratic rights is a pre-requisite in the development of the struggle of the peoples of Palestine. Not least because the political opposition to the oppressors, has, in my view, fundamental shortcomings and cannot progress without completely open discussion. Primarily, in my view, the lack of mass-based class-conscious political parties which clearly enunciate that the way to end the horrors of our times is to end capitalism.

I would surmise that you support the status quo, in the sense that you do not believe the issue is the ending of capitalism; but rather is purely a national question of establishing the democratic right to an independent Palestinian state, within the current world capitalist economic system. That, I believe, would be a position of yours? Would be a significant, if not thee most significant, element of your world outlook?

In the rich history of struggle in the twentieth century a fundamental question arose on the method of struggle. Some parties and individuals proposed and promoted the development of Popular Fronts, primarily against Fascism. These were organizations, not unlike the Palestinian Defense groups of today, where people of differing political views came together, suppressed and did not discuss their political differences, and campaigned and fought (literally fought, as in the Spanish Civil War) on the single issue of being against Fascism.

There were others however, who promoted the concept of the United Front. Stating that joint action against Fascism was essential; but the open declaration of the political positions and program of each group in the Front was equally essential – in the struggle to educate and lead the mass of humanity in its war with the Fascists. How else were the people to develop politically?

That is, it is of primary importance to air and fight out the political issues, while maintaining a United Front against the enemy. Restricting the political struggle to a few elementary defensive slogans (‘Freedom’, ‘Democracy’, etc) will not mobilize the masses for the struggle to defeat reaction.

You can read all about this concept if you search the internet. (Felix Morrow on Spain, for example)

It is just this issue which in my view is at the heart of the war against Zionism and Imperialism. Is the burning question at the heart of fight to defeat the butchers of Gaza.

It is my belief that a two state system is a positive solution and a vital one, also the "right to return" for Palestinians has to be put on the table as a realistic and achievable solution, now do I see this happening in my lifetime, the answer unfortunatly is No.
Therefore my "world view" and my beliefs collide.
In the fight for Justice, Equality and Civil and Human Rights, It has become almost mandatory to brand any form of resistance "terrorist" the word should be banned, because it's conotations have the not so subliminal effect of forcing the human psyche to atomatically press the reject button. If one affords any rights to an organisation branded "terrorist" then they are identified as "outside" the collective, and that is very damaging to the individual psyche.
Is your objective to promote Socialism as a form of solution in Israel/Palestine ?
You express the belief that the "underpinning" of problems for the Palestinians is one of "class" That I have to say is utter and total rubbish, if that is how you really view the situation for Palestinians then you truly have no right to issue forth on their plight, because not so subtly it means you have bought into the vile propaganda promoted by a section of Israeli government and populace.

I am new to this site; but it seems to me most contributors would be of the opinion that what the Israeli state is doing is barbarous and unjustified; and their claims of self-defence are blatantly hypocritical. I do say most, there are quite a few who have the view that the onslaught by the IDF is warranted.

Both these opposing views on Gaza are informed by the contributor’s world outlook.
(Bock used the term ’belief system’. On another post, after elaborating my view I concluded that this was my “unshakeable belief”. If you look again at my post above in reply to Bock, you will see I do not use the term ‘belief system’. Bock made it clear, on a separate topic, that he views any person who is informed by pre-existing or a set viewpoint with disdain.)

Logic would tell you however, that this view of Bock’s is in itself a belief, as he defines it; and perhaps more – according to his own parameters it is his ’belief system’, perhaps.

Arguing strongly for a viewpoint – for instance, that the Israeli state’s actions are a war crime – does not, per se, make the person who forcefully puts this view narrow-minded. Rather, I believe, such forcefulness is the result of two inter-related factors – the heinousness of the actions of the Israeli state, and the relentless propaganda throughout the world that apologizes for these crimes. That tells us black is white. The Big Lie.

In defence of the Palestinians, in response to the tidal-wave of lies, in fighting the other side, a viewpoint is FOUGHT for. It can be no other way if the world itself is divided into opposing camps. Of course it would be strategically wrong-headed not to try and win people over from the other side; but they will not be won by pleas; but by perspective, a political program and aan analysis which does answer the questions, and raises questions they did not even consider.

It is my view that underpinning the struggle in Palestine, I repeat the struggle in Palestine, is the issue of class.

If I did not have this perspective then perhaps I might believe the American government props up Israel because of the ‘Jewish Lobby’ and that Jews are inherently evil. Or if Washington actually is not influenced by the Jewish Lobby then it is just simply that all American governments are evil; and maybe Americans are evil, full stop.

On the fabled question of staying ‘on topic’ . Maybe I should post in future the what the Israeli Government is doing is (a) awful; and (b) everyone in their right mind should pressure the Israelis to stop; and (c) if everyone posted this and got out and marched then problem solved. It's all a matter of numbers don't you see. Not politicsand perspective and program, 'belief' or 'ideology' (like for instance if we all told a friend to turn off a light at home then Global Warming would be solved Think Globally Act Locally! Let's 'think' about the Palestinians, tell all our friends and go downtown to the march!)

Of course, I believe that instead od curtailing discussion and points the issue should be expanded and the discussion opened. And I have that view because I consided that the ‘belief systems’ that have been held to date on Palestine have failed miserably.

Mervyn, do you know what?

You're coming very close to being fucking sworn at.