Israel
I welcome Philip Mendes' reply (Write On, GLW #471) to my letter in GLW #470. I would suggest he read my letter again. He has tried to confuse my attitude toward the Israeli state with my attitude toward individual Jews in Israel.
Secondly, it is neither useful nor productive, when discussing the nature of states, to launch into a futile search for "bad" and "good" people. It is accepted Marxist practice to speak of oppressed and oppressor nations. Irrespective of individual ethical behaviour, all Askhenazi Jews enjoy certain social privileges simply by being Israelis.
Coming to emigration, I had suggested it as a course only for the Ashkenazi elites (many of whom have strong ties with the US), if they cannot countenance living in a secular, democratic state — which would be no problem for ethically humane individuals.
Moreover, I had clearly argued for the abolition of the Israeli state, not the inhabitants of the territory ruled over by this state. Abolition of the capitalist Australian state (what GLW aspires to achieve) would not be carrying out a genocide of the Australian population!
Mendes' suggestion for preserving a peaceful status quo denies the Palestinian refugees the political right to return to their homes, the autonomy of the Palestinian territory (including roads, water and contiguous territories).
Mendes' claims that no remotely secular or democratic state has ever existed in the Arab or Muslim world (his implication being that Israel is both secular and democratic). His argument ignores the role of imperialism in the region. Clearly, an international struggle for socialism includes in itself the struggles for national liberation, secularism and democracy.
I wonder if Mendes' raising of non-existent moral objections to my views is a less strident effort at labelling opponents of Zionism as anti-Semites, a well-established tactic of Zionists.
Narendra Mohan Kommalapati
Canberra [Abridged]
Labor MPs
Is it not interesting how many Labor MPs (such as Duncan Kerr and Anthony Albanese) are now denouncing Howard's anti-refugee policy as racist and demanding that Labor should take a "principled" stand?
Could this be simply because, realising that voters saw right through and rejected Labor's "me-tooism" on this issue, they are now hoping to manoeuvre themselves into a position where they hope to regain some credibility? Surely not!
Geoff Francis
Hobart
Beyond preposterous
So BP Amoco, the world's second biggest oil company, wants the Kyoto Protocol ratified now that it has been completely gutted of any meaningful content. Well, ho-bloody-hum.
In 1999, Greenpeace awarded BP chief executive John Browne an "Academy Award" for the "Best Impression of an Environmentalist". Environment groups awarded BP another greenwash award in July 1999 and again in March 2000. BP was also voted one of the 10 worst corporations of 2000 by Multinational Monitor writers Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman.
BP has pulled out of the major US climate sceptics lobby group, the Global Climate Coalition, but the company still participates in corporate front groups actively opposing the Kyoto process such as the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
According to oil industry researchers Greg Muttitt and James Marriott, it will take 1250 years for BP's renewable energy production to overtake its oil and gas production. In April, Browne admitted that the new slogan "Beyond Petroleum" didn't reflect an intention to withdraw from the fossil fuel industry: "'Beyond Petroleum' just means we are giving up the old mindset, the old thinking that oil companies had to be dirty, secretive and arrogant."
According to the June 19 (London) Sunday Times, BP and Shell have admitted using a private investigation agency with links to the British secret service to spy on the protest activities of Greenpeace and other environmental groups.
BP needs to go Beyond Propaganda and the company's sycophants in the environment movement are Bloody Pathetic.
Molly Wishart
Coledale NSW
War on terror
Out of 30 countries surveyed in a recent Gallup Poll, in only two — Israel and the US — did a clear majority support what the Pentagon calls "the war on terror". According to Benjamin Morgan (Write On, GLW #471) these people are naive because terrorism could one day come to Australia.
If such a simple argument were universally applied, all 19th-century colonialist style wars the United States engages in are OK — including its wars against its own indigenous people, against national liberation movements in South America and Asia, and Somalia; they were OK because terrorists are everywhere a threat.
I personally think that people are being far from naive in opposing this war. How naive is it to expect to end terrorism by capturing bin Laden when there are 13,000-25,000 people to take his place in that organisation alone?
And as we did eight years ago with the US military expedition to Somalia, we are also entitled to ask — what price do ordinary working-class people have to pay for the nationalist ambitions of different terrorist networks in the world — starting with the greatest terrorists of all time in the US government?
No, Mr Morgan, we are not naive, nor "anti-American" as some people claim. We simply see the class interests behind the war and protest against that which is unjust.
Here we have a colonialist war where the people are punished for the actions of a few who own the wealth and power. In this case, there is no justice for workers in this war.
Matthew Davis
Perth
Is the war over?
Taliban control over large parts of Afghanistan has collapsed with astonishing speed. Will they collapse totally? Politically, the Taliban is very unpopular. Militarily, they are up against the most powerful country in the world. So I would not rule out a total collapse. Nevertheless, I would sound a note of caution.
The collapse has mainly been a result of local commanders changing sides. Many of these commanders joined the Taliban in the mid-nineties when the latter were on the way up (with the backing of the Pakistan armed forces). They have now deserted to join the Northern Alliance, whose backing from the US made them appear as the likely victors.
But there may be some ideologically committed supporters of the Taliban who are willing to fight on. Time will tell.
Secondly, ethnic issues could prevent or delay a total victory of the Northern Alliance. The latter is based amongst ethnic minorities, whereas the Taliban was based among the Pashtuns, who are the largest single ethnic group. Ethnic solidarity may help the Taliban to survive (though they have reportedly been driven out of some Pashtun areas such as Jalalabad).
The other possible source of ongoing war is conflict among the different forces who make up the Northern Alliance. These groups have fought each other in the past and may do so again in the future.
The forces that comprise the Northern Alliance have a very bad record of atrocities, including murder, rape and looting. (We should remember that the Taliban were initially welcomed because of the atrocities of the forces who now constitute the Northen Alliance).
It appears that the people of Kabul have welcomed the Northen Alliance forces. Will this continue? Or will they revert back to previous form and alienate the population? The latter seems more likely, but maybe they will show some restraint while the international media spotlight is on them.
Chris Slee
Melbourne [Abridged]
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, November 21, 2001.
Visit the