marxism-digest V1 #2693

aphillips at SPAMtrinity.utoronto.ca aphillips at SPAMtrinity.utoronto.ca
Thu Oct 5 10:54:50 MDT 2000


is there anyway i can request one email per day?


>marxism-digest       Thursday, October 5 2000       Volume 01 : Number
2693
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>==============
>
>   Marxist Interventions site upgraded
>   Re: marxism-digest V1 #2692
>   Re: NATO Bombs Tel Aviv
>   PAE: Phil gets the last word... sort of
>   Forwarded from Anthony (reply to Gyan)
>   Fw: S.L.P: Yugoslav Elections - A Lesson In Outside Interference
>   Cuba condemns Israel's 'barbaric acts'
>   Re: PAE
>   Re: A Serb striker speaks out
>   Forwarded from J Plant (on Human Resources)
>   India, Russia sign strategic pact
>   Boris Yeltsin and the miners
>   "It would be illegal in the United States"
>   The explosion - "The Other Israel" Briefing No. 19
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 00:23:53 GMT
>From: "Tom O'Lincoln" <red_sites at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Marxist Interventions site upgraded
>
>http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/
>
>This site is mainly about Australia. The new articles are:
>
>"A red revolutionist and ranter" - Communist writer Jean Devanny
>"From the Plague to Reith" - trade unions and the law
>"Socialism in Our Time" - Communists and the Labor Party in the Depression
>"Thirteen wasted years?" The Accord between Labor and the unions, 1983-
1996.
>"Bushrangers - From Ben Hall to Ned Kelly" -- Social banditry.
>"Walls of Cant and Walls of Custom" -- Henry Lawson's poetry
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:53:18 +1300
>From: Philip Ferguson <plf13 at it.canterbury.ac.nz>
>Subject: Re: marxism-digest V1 #2692
>
>Me earlier:
>>>arms spending cannot create boom conditions.  Arms spending is
>>>*predicated* on their being masses of surplus-value to draw from.
>
>
>Tom:
>>Well the conventional view is that deficit spending can TEMPORARILY
>>stimulate demand. For example, you put people in uniform, they have more
>>money to spend, the shops make more sales, etc etc.  All my empirical
>>observations seem to confirm this, as does all bourgeois economic opinion
>>from "left" to right, and I always thought Marxists didn't dispute it as
far
>>as it went. This pump priming does however soon create inflation, which
>>undermines the boom. Because, as you say, it's not real wealth creation;
and
>>this is where Marxists disagree with bourgeois economics. Anyway that's
what
>>I'm talking about in the current exchange. I take it you think this
doesn't
>>occur.
>
>
>I pointed put ealrier on that there is a big difference between a bubble
>and a boom.  Yes, of course, deficit spending can create a bubble.  But I
>don't think it is helpful to call this a boom.  When the bubble - quickly
-
>bursts, the position is *worse*.  A genuine boom, like the postwar boom,
is
>a protracted period of economic growth.  It involves real wealth creation.
>
>Maybe we are not entirely in disagreement here.  But I thinbk it much more
>useful to refer to deficit spending as creating a 'bubble' or an
>'artificial boom' or something else that indicates it is not a *real
boom*.
>
>
>Me:
>>>Are you arguing there were two different booms?  One after WW2 and
another
>>>under the impact of Vietnam War spending?
>>
>>Yes. There was:
>>
>>1. A longterm expansion of the system caused by the PAE,
>
>
>Eh?  I thought we had agreed that the postwar boom was *not* caused by
arms
>spending.  Otherwise, we are back to this strange idea that deductions of
>part of surplus-value actually leave us with more surplus-value!
>
>
>
>>which was running
>>out of legs by the late sixties, as evidenced by declining profit rates -
>>and as predicted by Kidron and Harman.
>
>Show me where Harman and Kidron predicted this.  I quoted Kidron in his
>book stating that PAE was a *permanent offset* to the falling rate of
>profit.
>
>
>
>>
>>2. An additional TEMPORARY and very unhealthy revival due to the
"Keynesian"
>>effects of the Vietnam War.
>
>
>Nope.  This was the fag end of the postwar boom.  Keynesian methods of
>pump-priming were used, and put some more money into the economy - the
>effect of which was inflation, for the reasons I outlined.  I think it
just
>muddies the waters to refer to this as a boom.  We need to be more precise
>about what a real boom is.
>
>AS we seem to agree, the effect of this was to make matters worse - and
>very quickly.  So much for Kidron's idea of a *permanent offset*.
>
>
>
>
>>It is true that the two phenomena overlap in practice, but they are
>>conceptually distinct.
>>
>>You may ask why the Vietnam War didn't have a healthier effect along PAE
>>lines. The answer is the limitations to the PAE which Kidron identified
and
>>which by the late sixties were making themselves felt.
>
>Eh?
>
>In 1970, repeat 1970!, Kidron argued in his book that PAE was a *permanent
>offset* to the falling rate of profit.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>result of the war spending on Vietnam ... great for the Japanese economy
>>
>>But obviously that had flow on effects for the world system, including
the
>>US.
>
>Its flow-on effects for the US were all negative.  US decline in relation
>to Japan.
>
>
>
>
>>>But for the US capitalist class as a whole (as opposed to the arms
>>>capitalists), the war spending was a disaster.  Deficit spending had to
be
>>>used to finance the war and the government's social programs, inflation
>>> >rose rapidly the rate of profit in the
>>>arms sector falling even faster than in other commodity production, the
>>>economic decline of the USA relative to Japan and Germany and so on.
>>
>>Yes I don't disagree. It created a TEMPORARY revival but with disastrous
>>consequences later on, because of the factors you mention [all of which
>>Kidron foresaw - they are among the reasons he thought the PAE could not
>>work beyond a certain point].
>
>
>And yet, on the eve of the greatest slumpo since the 1930s, Kidron argued
>that PAE meant a *permanent offset* to the falling rate of profit.  Even
>the title of the theory - PERMANENT arms economy - points this up
>
>Philip Ferguson
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:50:06 -0400
>From: Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxxxx at xxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: NATO Bombs Tel Aviv
>
>Please, can somebody locate this article urgently (the web address)?  I
could not.
>
>I have to respond to a friend who is not convinced by the story.
>
>merci,
>
>Xxxx
>
> Tuesday October 3 5:57 PM ET
>
>>  Bombing Campaign Commences Against Israel
>
>>  By John Jackson, Associated Press Writer
>
>>  TEL AVIV (AP) - NATO aircraft have begun the threatened bombing
campaign against
>> Israel Tuesday in response to the six-day massacre of Palestinians
conducted by
>> Israeli troops, a spokesman for the military alliance confirmed tonight.
>
>>
>
>- --
>
>Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
>PhD Student
>Department of Political Science
>SUNY at Albany
>Nelson A. Rockefeller College
>135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
>Albany, NY 12222
>
>
>
>_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
>   http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 02:08:53 GMT
>From: "Tom O'Lincoln" <red_sites at hotmail.com>
>Subject: PAE: Phil gets the last word... sort of
>
>Phil
>
>1. OK, what you call a bubble, I call a temporary boom. Left unity at
last.
>
>2. We have now started to re-open the PAE debate, which we didn't intend,
>and the argument is getting very bitsy. Let's leave it here. Your
>annihilation of my views can be the last word. :-)
>
>regards
>Tom
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 22:00:36 -0400
>From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
>Subject: Forwarded from Anthony (reply to Gyan)
>
>Hi Lou:
>
>I would like to respond to Gyan's question posted last week,
>
>"1)Why "ism" after name of Trotsky? What contribution of Trotsky to
Marxist
>theory/practice like Lenin and Mao?"
>
>I think Lou's response was inadequate. It could be paraphrased: "permanent
>revolution, transitional program, Leninist party - but the followers of
>Trotsky pretty much misunderstood it all, and fucked up the rest.
>
>Trotsky's contributions to both the theory and the practice of Marxism
were
>immense.
>
>Trotsky's contribution to the "practice of Marxism" - and of revolution,
>should be mentioned first.
>
>Trotsky was the President of the St. Petersburg Soviet in the 1905 Russian
>revolution. Trotsky, unlike Lenin, recognized the revolutionary importance
>of the Soviets from the beginning, and became their first and most
>important leader.
>
>In 1917 Trotsky again became the leader of the Soviets - and Lenin's most
>trusted ally. Trotsky outside of the Bolshevik Party, and Lenin within the
>Bolshevik Party advocated a program of no support for Kerensky's
>provisional government, and an end to the war. Stalin and Kamenev at the
>time the leaders of Bolshevism within Russia "critically" supported
>Kerensky's pro-imperialist government. Lenin won the fight within the
>Party, and Trotsky led his organization into a merger with the Bolsheviks.
>
>During the July Days reactionary counteroffensive against the Soviets,
>Trotsky mobilized the soviets militarily against the danger of General
>Kornilov - saving for the moment Kerensky's government -but bringing into
>being the militias that were to become the Red Army after October.
>
>During the preparation for the October Revolution, with Lenin in exile in
>Finland, Trotsky led the struggle within the Bolshevik Party against the
>conservative policy of Kamenev and Zinoviev. Trotsky's policy - of first
>winning the elections to the Soviet's, and then organizing the
insurrection
>through the Soviets rather than in the party's name alone - won the day -
>and was the strategy which actually won the insurrection.
>
>For his role in the revolution alone, Communism might justifiably be
called
>Trotskyism - not Leninism, certainly not Maoism, and anything but
Stalinism.
>
>Trotsky's other contributions to the practice of Marxism were also
>important. He was the Commissar of War and the founder of the Red Army
>during the Civil War which followed the October Revolution. He was the
>ideological leader of the Russian Communist party within the communist
>international, and the strongest proponent of its formation.
>
>Trotsky and Lenin both understood that the Russian revolution would not
>survive if it were not soon joined by successful socialist revolutions in
>Europe. Unlike other Bolshevik leaders, who came to see the Communist
>International as something along the spectrum of an international
>association of comrades to a useful appendage of Russian diplomacy in a
>capitalist world - Trotsky and Lenin, saw the Internationals the world
>party of socialist revolution, and as a practical necessity for the
>survival of the revolution - not as a diplomatic tool, but as a party to
>lead social revolution around the world, but especially in Europe, and
>especially in Germany.
>
>Trotsky led the struggle against the political degeneration of the Russian
>Communist Party as it became increasingly bureaucratized and conservative
>in the reactionary period of the 1920's.
>
>Trotsky led the struggle to form a new revolutionary international party
>after the Communist International and its German party allowed the Nazis
to
>come to power in Germany through their suicidal "third period" policy.
>Trotsky's struggle to build a new revolutionary international party bore
>important fruit. Parties in countries like Vietnam, China, Bolivia, Sri
>Lanka, France, Great Britain, the USA, and later in many other countries
>began to lead important workers, social and anti-imperialist struggles.
>
>To take just one example, The Socialist Workers Party of the United
States,
>of which many writers on this list are former members of, led one of the
>most important workers struggles int he history of the United States, the
>Minneapolis Teamsters and General Strike. This was one of the three
strikes
>that led to the formation of the modern industrial unions in the USA. That
>organization also played a central, maybe the central, role in the mass
>movement against the war in Viet Nam in the USA - which was one of the
most
>important reasons the Vietnamese revolution won. Second only to the
>struggle of the Vietnamese people.
>
>Trotsky's contribution to Marxist theory, are also underrated by Lou.
>
>Trotsky's theory of the Permanent Revolution, began as the understanding
>that democratic revolutions to succeed must achieve socialist tasks -
>foremost the destruction of monarchical or other state apparatus of class
>rule. This implied that to succeed, the working class would have to win
the
>leadership the democratic revolution, and transform it into a socialist
>revolution. This idea was first writing in a book called "Results and
>Prospects." This understanding guided Trotsky's practical contributions
>mentioned above.
>
>Trotsky's development of this idea after the Russian revolution is
embodied
>in the Resolutions of the First Five Congresses of the Communist
>International. There you will find the theory of the Permanent Revolution
>developing - Trotsky now clearly understood that socialist revolution
could
>not survive within any one national framework, and that its survival in
>Russia or anywhere else such a revolution might occur - would depend on
the
>development of revolution in some or all of the most important imperialist
>countries.
>
>The correctness of Trotsky's understanding was, very unfortunately, proven
>in the negative. Between the Russian Revolution and the usurpation of
power
>in the Russian Communist Party by Stalin in 1927, revolutions were
defeated
>in Germany, Italy and Central Europe, General strikes and mass mutinies
>were defeated in France and England. Fascism came to power in Italy. The
>1927 Revolution in China was defeated. Then came the deluge: Nazism came
to
>power in Germany, the Popular Fronts of Spain and France demobilized the
>working classes of those countries paving the way for Franco's victory in
>Spain, and Hitler's invasion of France. Nazism conquered Europe, Japanese
>imperialism conquered China and East Asia. (Trotsky's writings on all of
>these subjects are in themselves an important contribution to Marxism.)
>
>The Soviet Union was isolated, and increasingly backward in relation to
>imperialism (a backwardness which became masked by Soviet atomic and other
>military technology, and by the limited revolutionary victories following
>WWII in China, Vietnam, Korea, and in Eastern Europe.) France and Italy -
>were kept out of the ranks of revolution by the Communist Parties of those
>countries working directly with the Russian communist Party.
>
>Trotsky's two other contributions to Marxism are related. First are his
>ideas about a democratically planned economy - some of which you can find
>in his works from the 1920's, the New Course and the Platform of the Left
>Opposition- and his leadership in the early Soviet ideas on planning, and
>work with thinkers such as Preobezhensky.
>
>Second, and even more important is his analysis of the degeneration of the
>revolutionary workers state into a bureaucratic workers states. The latter
>work, presented in its most complete form in "The Revolution Betrayed"
>remains the best analysis of how and why Soviet Communism was corrupted,
>and how it began to corrupt the international communist movement.
>
>It is one of keys to understanding the history of the 20th century.
>
>Unfortunately Trotsky's ideas are not well known within the remnants of
the
>broad Marxist movement because Trotsky, his movement, and his ideas were
>brutally repressed by the Soviet government. Trotsky wrote many of the
>works alluded to above while in exile and in hiding. From 1927 until 1940
>he was constantly on the move from Turkey, to France, to Norway, and
>finally to Mexico. He was assassinated there in 1940 by the KGB. Tens of
>thousands other Trotskyists were killed or imprisoned in the Soviet Union,
>and thousands killed in other countries by Stalinist parties. This is not
>to mention the repression suffered by the Trotskyists in Nazi Europe, the
>generals' Greece, the generals' Argentina, etc. Or even for that matter,
>the USA, where the Trotskyists were the first and most often prosecuted
and
>persecuted during the anti-communist witchunts.
>
>Gorbachev, Stalin's final assistant in digging the grave of the Russian
>revolution, "rehabilitated" Bukharin and Zinoviev, but not Trotsky. He did
>so for good reason - he was a capitalist roader, not a revolutionary.
>
>This sketch barely scratches the surface. I think that Trotsky, and his
>followers, contributed immensely to Marxism- in practice and in theory. If
>Marxism is to survive and be revived - an open question in my view - it
>will be thanks to Trotsky and his followers work in the 20th century. If
>Trotsky's followers were less than he, so were Lenin's followers, and
>Marx's followers. For that matter, so were Mao's follwers.
>
>I personally think every Trotskyist who dared go against the tide of 20th
>century political reaction deserves respect.
>
>This is true even recognizing that they fucked up big time.
>
>Anthony
>
>
>Louis Proyect
>Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:48:39 -0700
>From: "Macdonald Stainsby" <mstainsby at tao.ca>
>Subject: Fw: S.L.P: Yugoslav Elections - A Lesson In Outside Interference
>
>Just some food for thought...
>
>Macdonald
>
>
>> SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY
>> ======================
>>
>> YUGOSLAV ELECTIONS -
>> A LESSON IN OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE
>>
>> At the invitation of the Socialist Party of Serbia, Britain's Socialist
>> Labour Party sent a three-person delegation to participate in
>international
>> monitoring of the Yugoslav elections held on 24 September. We were the
>only
>> British representatives among  250 observers invited from around the
>world.
>>
>> Our delegation travelled extensively throughout the country, was able to
>> talk to officials and voters and visited numerous polling stations,
>gaining
>> first-hand experience of what was actually taking place during an
election
>> which was being misreported in many parts of the world.
>>
>> >From what we saw, the Federal Electoral Commission, an elected all-
party
>> body, did everything in its power to ensure that people were able to
cast
>> their votes without intimidation and in an orderly manner - and
certainly
>in
>> accordance with procedures which we would expect in a democratic, free
>> election.
>>
>> In Serbia, we visited the Muslim areas of Kraljevo and Novi Pazar as
well
>as
>> observing polling in the capital, Belgrade.
>>
>> It was only in Montenegro that we observed the following irregularities:
>>
>> the so-called Democratic Opposition which boycotted the elections in
>> Montenegro nevertheless gathered outside polling stations there in clear
>> violation of election procedures, using intimidating behaviour towards
>> prospective voters;
>>
>> we received many first-hand reports from people who stated they had been
>> threatened with the loss of their jobs if they turned out to vote;
>>
>> we were in no doubt that countless refugees from Kosovo had been
>> deliberately excluded from the electoral lists in Montenegro despite the
>> fact that their identity cards, issued in 1999, gave them the right to
>vote,
>> and were thus also prevented from voting.
>>
>> We could only conclude that these tactics of intimidation and
>> disenfranchisement were designed to benefit the so-called Democratic
>> Opposition.
>>
>> We were also appalled at the blatant outside interference in the
>procedures
>> from Western governments which are obviously seeking to influence the
>> outcome of these elections by promising economic aid and the lifting of
>> sanctions if the Yugoslav people vote in accordance with the wishes of
>these
>> governments and the European Union.
>>
>> Mick Appleyard        Liz Screen               Ian Johnson
>
>================
>Macdonald Stainsby.
>
>Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion.
>http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
>- ----------
>http://www.geocities.com/leninist_international/
>http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:55:32 -0700
>From: "Macdonald Stainsby" <mstainsby at tao.ca>
>Subject: Cuba condemns Israel's 'barbaric acts'
>
>Cuba condemns Israel's 'barbaric acts'
>             The Associated Press
>
>HAVANA, Cuba (October 3, 2000 7:07 p.m. EDT
>http://www.nandotimes.com) - Cuba condemned Tuesday what it called
>"barbaric acts" of Israeli troops against Palestinian protesters in
>Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
>
>Cuba "demands an immediate cessation of the brutal and criminal
>actions" by Israeli troops that "could lead to a dangerous escalation
>of violence and unforeseen regional and global consequences," the
>Cuban Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
>
>Cuba "emphatically condemns the provocations and barbaric acts
>perpetrated by Israeli forces," the statement continued, placing the
>blame for the confrontations, which have left more than 40 dead and
>scores injured, squarely on the Israeli government.
>
>Havana accused the United States of "unconditionally supporting"
>Israel.
>
>"Once again, Cuba reaffirms its total and unconditional solidarity
>with the Palestinian people in their legitimate fight for the
>establishment of an independent and sovereign state and the return of
>all occupied Arab territories," the statement concluded.
>
>- -----          ----------
>================
>Macdonald Stainsby.
>
>Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion.
>http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
>- ----------
>http://www.geocities.com/leninist_international/
>http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:07:53 +1300
>From: John Edmundson <JWE21 at student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>Subject: Re: PAE
>
>Tom O'Lincoln wrote:
>Well the conventional view is that deficit spending can
>TEMPORARILY stimulate demand. For example, you put people in
>uniform, they have more money to spend, the shops make more
>sales, etc etc.
>
>Me:
>But deficit spending and PAE are not the same thing. Deficit
>spending is about the government borrowing in order to spend. The
>spending may or may not be on arms. Deficit spending I don't
>doubt, can pump-prime the economy, bringing about temporary
>recovery without solving the underlying problems. Arms spending is
> a non-productive use of the money obtained. By treating deficit
>spending and arms expenditure as identical you are conflating two
>quite different things.
>Cheers,
>John E
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:09:39 +0200
>From: "Johannes Schneider" <Johannes.Schneider at gmx.net>
>Subject: Re: A Serb striker speaks out
>
>Julio Pino wrote:
>
>> Like Lech Walensa
>
>I was waiting for this one to pop up. Actually the Polish strike movement
>was defeated in 1980 and the following years. This defeat was a
precondition
>for the back door deal between the old party beaucracy and some Catholic
>intellectuals bringing Walesa to power. But though the Polish strikers had
>been defeated at the beginning of the eighties, the vague remeberance of
>their power puts some limits to West European (mainly German) capitalist
>colonization of Poland. Take a look at the talks to join the European
Union.
>BTW: in Poland the former Communists (like President Kwaszienewsci) are
the
>liberal reformers.
>
>> and Boris Yeltsin?
>
>He was Moscow Party secretary, wasnt he? His rise is similiar to that of
>Milosevic, using a mixture of Russian nationalism and anti-beaurocratic
>rhetoric, not so much specific working class content.
>
>> Julio Cesar
>>
>> Johannes:
>> >I think the opposition is playing a dangerous game by calling for a
>general
>> >strike. If Kostunica will be a president by the grace of the working
>class,
>> >he will have to pay it back some day.
>> >
>> >Johannes
>> >
>
>I share much of the skepiticism about pure working class action expressed
>here, but I want to insist that the appearance of the working class on the
>political stage is a precondition for any progressive development. As a
>Marxist I believe in the dynamics of social processes.
>
>Johannes
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 09:27:19 -0400
>From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
>Subject: Forwarded from J Plant (on Human Resources)
>
>I cringe every time I see that phrase. In UK there was a thing called
>"IT82" - in 1982 the govt wanted to promote interest in information
>technology by making people think about it (as against making it free as
>in France). One of their gimmicks was to run a competition among local
>government to make a presentation about the impact of IT by the year 200
>(which seemed a long way off). I was working for the labour left Greater
>London Council (GLC - became famous led by Livingstone) and was chosen to
>take part in the team. I let my brain run free and invented loads of
>silly, impossible ideas - computer aided gambling, web addiction, etc,
>included in which was the idea that traditional "Personnel" sections
would
>be replaced by a radical new 1984 style "Human Resources" approach. How
my
>drinking friends chuckled - what an ironist, they exclaimed, spilling
beer
>in their mirth. Even before the damn thing was in print there were
>vacancies for posts of "Directors of Human Resources", and now you can
>select it as a "career path". Time for a vodka (isn't it always ?)
>
>Regards
>
>Louis Proyect
>The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:40:35 +0530
>From: "Ulhas Joglekar" <ulhasj at bom4.vsnl.net.in>
>Subject: India, Russia sign strategic pact
>
>Wednesday
>4 October 2000
>
>India, Russia sign strategic pact
>
>By Ashwani Talwar
>www.timesofindia.com
>NEW DELHI: India and Russia on Tuesday signed a declaration of strategic
>partnership, pledging to join hands on international issues and firm up
>their cooperation on long-term defence and military-technical matters.
>Afghanistan emerged as one common concern, on which the two countries have
>formed a joint working group.
>The declaration, which aims to take Indo-Russian ties to an ``even higher,
>qualitatively new level'', was the showpiece among the agreements signed
at
>Hyderabad House where Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and visiting
>Russian President Vladimir Putin met for talks. Though specific arms deals
>were not mentioned, an agreement on military-technical matters was signed
>and a joint commission set up.
>The declaration is being projected as a pact of fundamental significance
in
>the class of the 1971 Peace, Friendship and Cooperation Treaty and the
1993
>Friendship and Cooperation Treaty. Indicating the extent of the strategic
>partnership, the document says the two countries will inform each other of
>``planned foreign policy initiatives in the international arena''.
>They will also not take part in any conflict, military-political alliance
or
>agreement that threatens the national security interests of the other
side.
>But just to set the record straight, the declaration says - and Vajpayee
>stressed during the joint press conference - that the strategic
partnership
>was not directed against any other state. It also does not ``seek to
create
>a military-political alliance''.
>Afghanistan figured in the talks, and the two sides decided to evolve a
>common strategy to deal with the Taliban threat. Moscow, which accuses
>Taliban of training Chechen rebels and feels the militia could threaten
>Central Asian states under its sphere of influence, is understood to have
>elaborated on its concerns.
>Asked later about a Russian envoy's visit last week to Islamabad to
discuss
>Afghanistan, National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra told reporters that
>New Delhi was not concerned on that count. It was Russia's ``sovereign
>decision'' to engage Pakistan on this. ``We have been assured there will
be
>no relations with Pakistan to the detriment of India,'' he said.
>``The context (of the Pakistan visit) was explained,'' Mishra said. He
said
>the joint working group would go deeper into the Afghanistan problem.
>The declaration says India and Russia will cooperate against international
>terrorism, separatism, organised crime and trafficking in narcotics. ``We
>condemn the use of terrorism as an extension of state policy,'' Vajpayee
>said at the press conference.
>There was no discussion on Kashmir, Mishra said. But in his statement to
the
>Press, Putin did express Russian hopes there would be specific efforts to
>renew the process of negotiations between India and Pakistan.
>Though there was not much discussion on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
>(CTBT), the nuclear non-proliferation issue appears prominently in the
>declaration. The two leaders, the document says, will intensify efforts
>aimed at complete disarmament and reduction - and eventual elimination -
of
>nuclear weapons worldwide.
>India and Russia will work for closer cooperation at the United Nations,
the
>declaration promises. Putin reiterated his country's belief that India
was a
>strong candidate for a permanent place on the UN Security Council.
>The other documents signed - by ministers and senior officials - reflect
the
>issues highlighted in the five-page declaration. The pacts covered
>cooperation in fields like science and technology, banking, agriculture,
>joint exploration for natural gas, postal communication, and legal
>assistance on civil and commercial matters. Putin said several other
>agreements were being drafted.
>Mishra confirmed that negotiations on India's second aircraft carrier,
main
>battle tanks and Sukhoi fighter planes were on. The two leaders have
agreed
>on summit-level meetings every year, and Vajpayee has already accepted an
>invitation from Putin to visit Russia. The dates have to be worked out.
>For reprint rights:Times Syndication Service
>Copyright ) 2000 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.  Disclaimer
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 09:44:53 -0400
>From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
>Subject: Boris Yeltsin and the miners
>
>The New York Times, July 12, 1990, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
>
>Soviet Miners Strike for the Day, In Hope of Power and Better Life
>
>By FRANCIS X. CLINES, Special to The New York Times
>
>KEMEROVO, U.S.S.R., July 11
>
>The nation's coal miners held a daylong protest strike today to demand the
>resignation of the Soviet Government and greater local powers for industry
>and labor.
>
>Though the nominal target of the protest was Prime Minister Nikolai I.
>Ryzhkov, the miners' intended effect was to press President Mikhail S.
>Gorbachev to ease their lives by quickly providing them with better pay,
>better housing and more available goods. Hundreds of thousands of miners
>displayed their most confrontational attitude yet toward the troubled
>reform program of Mr. Gorbachev, saying a full-scale walkout would follow
>if their situation did not improve.
>
>The militant edge was a reminder of the three-week strike that shut down
>the mines a year ago in protest against living and working conditions, a
>crippling walkout costly to the Soviet economy and the Gorbachev
>leadership's prestige.
>
>Even before the protest walkout, Mr. Gorbachev charged that it was
>instigated for political reasons and was not truly the miners' idea.
>
>Today, miners rallied in the hot sun of the city square here, frequently
>praising Boris N. Yeltsin, the President of Russia, the largest of the
>nation's 15 republics, and playing him off against Mr. Gorbachev. The
>strikers denied that they were motivated by anything but hard times and
>their desire to prod the Government.
>
>
>Louis Proyect
>The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:18:25 -0400
>From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
>Subject: "It would be illegal in the United States"
>
>Los Angeles, October 5, 2000, Thursday, Home Edition
>
>U.S. ATTEMPTS TRICKY BALANCING ACT TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY IN YUGOSLAVIA
>
>NORMAN KEMPSTER, TIMES STAFF WRITER
>
>The turbulent days following Yugoslavia's disputed election have become a
>test of whether the Clinton administration can help bankroll the
opposition
>to Slobodan Milosevic without allowing the Yugoslav leader to label his
>foes foreign stooges.
>
>There can be no question of the U.S. financial stake in Vojislav
>Kostunica's first-place finish in last month's election. More than $ 35
>million over two years was openly spent to support independent media,
>get-out-the-vote campaigns and grass-roots democratic organizations, all
>aimed at ending Milosevic's rule.
>
>The U.S. embrace has proved to be embarrassing to Kostunica, who even
>before the Sept. 24 balloting had warned that American support only played
>into Milosevic's hands.
>
>A State Department official, who declined to be identified because of the
>sensitivity of the situation, said of U.S. ties to Kostunica: "Any
>connection with him only hurts him."
>
>There is little doubt that money from the United States and its allies in
>Europe helped the multifaceted Yugoslav opposition mount an effective
>political campaign behind Kostunica, although the opposition leader
himself
>refused to accept U.S. funds.
>
>Unlike the CIA-orchestrated coups of previous generations that brought
down
>governments that the United States found inconvenient in places such as
>Guatemala, Iran and Chile, the funding for the Yugoslav opposition seems
to
>be completely open. If there also have been covert funds, the secret has
>been kept better than usual.
>
>The U.S. government spent $ 10.7 million in support of democracy in
>Yugoslavia in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 1999, and $ 25 million
>more in the year that just ended. Congress is considering appropriations
>for the current fiscal year totaling $ 50 million for democratic forces in
>Serbia and another $ 50 million for Western-oriented Montenegro, Serbia's
>junior partner in the Yugoslav federation.
>
>Officials say most of the money has gone for basic democracy-building
>programs, and has paid for items such as printing presses, computers and
>fax machines. There is no direct support for the strikes and
demonstrations
>that have been mounted against Milosevic, the officials said, although
they
>concede that U.S. funds for one purpose could free up locally generated
>money for other purposes.
>
>Ever since the Truman administration subsidized anti-Communist political
>parties in post-World War II Italy, the United States has spent
>money--sometimes openly, more often clandestinely--to influence foreign
>elections. But the process requires more subtlety than the U.S. political
>system usually displays.
>
>"It is not easy to do it openly but discreetly, and not stand up and
>broadcast it as has often been the case in this town," said John Fox,
>Washington director of the Open Society Institute, a foundation that
>advocates the building of democracy abroad.
>
>Nevertheless, Fox said, the Clinton administration had run out of other
>options.
>
>"We went for 10 years where we did everything except support the
democratic
>forces in Serbia," Fox said. "We did everything else first."
>
>With Milosevic refusing to concede defeat at the polls, U.S. officials say
>Washington will continue to support the democratic opposition, even if the
>backing sometimes embarrasses the recipients.
>
>"There are some who say it would be illegal in the United States for a
>candidate to take money of this sort," said Daniel Serwer, a scholar at
the
>U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington. "But this money did not go to
>individual candidates."
>
>"This program supported civil society," Serwer said. "There was a lot of
>attention to getting out the vote and monitoring the election and less to
>supporting particular leaders or political parties. The money was clearly
>well spent. The effort was more successful than anyone had thought it
would
>be."
>
>Unlike many foreign aid programs, the funds for the Yugoslav opposition
>enjoy strong support on Capitol Hill. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), chairman
>of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is an outspoken backer of the
>effort.
>
>
>Louis Proyect
>The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:39:00 +0200
>From: L.WILLMS at link-f.frankfurt.org (Luko Willms)
>Subject: The explosion - "The Other Israel" Briefing No. 19
>
>- -------- Zur Information und Dokumentation
>- -------- Weiterleitung von "The Other Israel" Verteiler
>- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   If you appreciate receiving this pass it on to
>   your friends; if not, send a "no more" message to
>   otherisr at actcom.co.il.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>                  THE EXPLOSION - Briefing nr 19
>
>Tel-Aviv, October 3
>
>We knew that it would come; in a way we saw it coming, and still - it
>took us by surprise. On the first Friday when we heard of "rioting" on
>Temple Mount - the morning after  Sharon had paid a "visit" to the Al
>Aqsa Mosq - we still thought that this was a one day event, an
>outburst at an occasional offense, and maybe also a reminder  like
>there had been before as to what the explosion would be like if the
>peace talks would come to naught. Gradually we start to realize that
>the big explosion is happening here and now. From talking to
>Palestinian friends it seems it also surprised them. Nobody had really
>expected that there would be such an overreaction by the police, whose
>only response to what started with stone throwing was shooting to
>kill.
>
>On Saturday there were riots all over the Palestinian territories,
>which was the first day of Rosh Hashana (holiday marking the begining
>of the Jewish new year). Activists of Gush Shalom and Committee
>Against House Demolitions started calling each other, mobilizing
>within a few hours via phone and email a tiny vigil - including of
>course Uri Avnery - at the Prime Minister's residence in Jerusalem,
>with as its most remarkable event: a religious bypasser, supporter of
>the Shas Party, complaining "why did Sharon have to do it the day
>before Rosh Hashana. Now I can't go pray at the Wailing Wall."
>
>On Sunday, Oct. 1, at 8.00 o'clock - after public transportation
>restarted at the end of the two-day Holiday, and after another day of
>violence and bloodshed - and the spreading of the terrible pictures of
>the killing of a so obviously innocent child.  On the pavement in
>front of Dizengoff Centre, Tel-Aviv main shopping mall, as central a
>place as can be found to address the metropolitan public, we arrive,
>some forty peace activists. We know most faces, though some have not
>been seen for years. Different groups are represented: Gush Shalom,
>Committee Against House Demolitions, Hadash, Women for Political
>Prisoners, Nuclear Whitleblowers... in fact, many participants have
>overlapping organizational affiliations. Some have brought signs with
>them. Others take up marking pens and improvise their own slogans,
>sitting down on the sidewalk. Soon, two ragged lines take up position,
>holding both sides of the intersection. Sign after sign is displayed
>to the bypassers and the motorists halted at the traffic light: "Stop
>shooting!" - "Down with the Occupation" - "Stop the murder of
>demonstrators!" - "We have no children for unnecessary wars!" - "Get
>out of the Territories - Now!" - "Killing Palestinians is not the way
>to peace" - "Hands off Temple Mount" - "Sharon sets the fire, Barak
>kills" - "Enough blood has been shed" - "Yes to the 1967 borders" -
>"29 dead Palestinians on Rosh Hashana - Happy New Year!".
>
>We have come with some trepidation to this site. During the Intifada,
>on days similar to this one, peace demonstrators have more than once
>been violently assaulted on this very spot. But this evening there is
>nothing of the kind. There are, in fact, astonishingly few reactions
>of any kind. Most bypassers just glance at the signs and continue on
>their way. How are we to interepret this indifference? As lack of
>support for what the army and police are doing? As lack of moral
>concern? Probably a bit of both - and what does that say about Israeli
>society at the start of the Third Millenium?
>
>A police patrol car stops by, then another one. A mild-mannered
>officer approaches the line. -"Who is your leader?" -"We have no
>leader". -"Who is responsible for this demonstration?" -"We all are".
>- -"Who organized it?" -"The Internet". He scratches his head. For a
>moment he seems about to arrest us, or at least some. Then he goes
>back to the patrol car. Half an hour later, he comes again,
>accompanied by a female colleague. "Listen, you guys! Do you know that
>the whole of Jaffa has burst out in violence? More than half our force
>is over there, and here you are tying up two patrol cars. Can you not
>end this, so that we can go to reinforce our fellows over there?" We
>find it difficult not to laugh. Just before the officer came over we
>had held a  quick consultation and decided to pack up the signs and go
>to Jaffa so as to stand in the way of the police which had reportedly
>started shooting the (not so innocuous) "rubber bullets".
>
>Could the outbreak of spontaneous anger of Arabs in one of the most
>miserable slums in Israel be combined with the more measured protest
>of middle-class leftist Jews?  But when we pile into taxis and private
>cars and arrive in the Ajami Quarter of Jaffa - a short distance, yet
>worlds away, from downtown Tel-Aviv - we find Yeffet Street, the main
>throughfare of Arab Jaffa, completely empty: pavements strewn with
>stones, many smashed windows, some scorched paches on the pavement, no
>demonstrators.
>
>At home on a later hour, we hear - among all the dispatches from
>further away - a report of "a new outbreak in Jaffa, ending the shaky
>ceasefire agreed between the police and the Jaffa Arab leadership". Of
>our own action, not a word. On such a day, editors do not seem to
>consider a demonstration without violence to be news.
>
>Today (Monday) we are more than a hundred, outside the Defence
>Ministry. From the outside there is not much to see of the nerve
>centre of all that is going on in the Territories. But as soon as we
>take up positions on the parking lot opposite the main gate, an armed
>sodier in full battle gear crosses the street in between and
>approaches us, with a suspicious look on his face, talking quickly
>into a small communications device. A quite unusual sight. We
>demonstrate here quite often, and in general the only soldiers you
>encounter are unarmed office staff going out to grab a quick lunch.
>
>Again, as yesterday, there responses are surprisingly mild. Not many
>pass here on foot, but the traffic on the narrow Kaplan Street is
>heavy and congested. Civilian and military drivers pass slowly and get
>a full sight of our ranked slogans, especially of the giant banners
>prepared by Gush Shalom and Hadash; they could hear the full-throated
>chanting "Peace - Yes! Occupation - No!" and "How many children did
>you kill today?". Yet the amount of heckling, the number of reactions
>of any kind, seems no greater than in vigils held here on normal days.
>At the very end, just as we are about to pack up, a lone TV crew at
>last appears. We discover, however, that it is of the Japanese
>Television. For the mainstream Israeli media, our protest is still non-
>existent.
>
>A phone call from Jerusalem: some 170 people, mostly youths, had
>turned up for the simultaneous demo outside the Prime Minister's
>residence. That event had a quite complicated history. It was
>originally called by Peace Now; this movement seems, however, in
>crisis - many of its leaders shying away from any criticism of Barak,
>the Labour Prime Minister which practically all of us supported in
>last year's elections. The Peace Now manifesto published today in
>Ha'aretz apportioned blame for the violent outbreak between Sharon and
>the Palestinians, effectively clearing Barak of share. A few hours
>before it was to take place, Peace Now called off the action,
>apprehensive lest "radicals" like ourselves would appear with their
>own slogans and turn the protest in "unwanted" directions, Still, a
>dissident faction, mainly from the more militant youths, decided to
>hold the demonstration anyway, though not under the Peace Now name -
>and did it quite well, with help from Meretz youths as well as the
>Jerusalem activists of Hadash, the Bat Shalom women and  Gush Shalom.
>
>Another phone call - from Lili Traubman, Bat Shalom activist at
>Kibbutz Meggido in the north. They had their own women's vigil - right
>there, very near the storm center of the riots inside Israel. The Arab
>women who planned to join could not arrive - roads blocked by police -
>but expressed support on the phone and told of shootings and police
>brutality at their doorstep. Ten Bat Shalom women stood at the
>highway, with signs reading "Peace will win" and "Jewish-Arab
>parnership". They did get many reactions - no indifference at that
>part of the country. Some positive reactions, many hostile. In a sad
>harmony, some Jews and some Arabs had the same reaction: "Peace? What
>peace? There can never be peace with THEM!"
>
>And so,  it is late evening - another evening after a long day of
>escalation and violence and bloodshed which we could not stop. And how
>many hale young people, living and breathing at this very moment, will
>be in their graves by tomorrow night?
>
>***
>How did we come to be in this miserable situation - two months
>after the high hopes of Camp David, less than a week after Barak and
>Arafat met for what was described as a "highly cordial meeting" in the
>living room of the Israeli PM's private home? Obviously, the fuse was
>lit by the notorious Ariel Sharon, leader of the opposition Likud
>Party, in a calculated provocation - designed, at least in part, to
>bolster his position in the right-wing against the intended comeback
>of former PM Netanyahu. There was no need of the accumulated wisdom of
>the US State Department pundits to guess what would result from the
>trumpeted "visit" of a man whose entire military and political career
>consisted of fighting Palestinians and killing them. A visit to the
>sensitive Temple Mount/Haram A-Sharif Compound,  made even more
>sensitive since the failure of Camp David. (To add insult to injury,
>it took place precisely on the anniversary of the 1982 massacre at the
>Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut, a massacre carried out by
>the armed militias which Sharon as Defence Minister had let into these
>camps.)
>
>But it is far too easy to put the entire blame on Sharon - as the
>Americans and some Israelis do. The conflagration would not have
>started, if not for the decision of Prime Minister Barak to let Sharon
>trample into this sensitive spot, exactly at the moment when an a web
>of delicate international diplomatic formulas was being woven to find
>a mutually-acceptable arrangement for the holy place's future. In fact
>Barak - and the PM's second in command, Prof. Shlomo Ben-Ami, the
>prominent "dove" who holds a unique combination of the Foreign Affairs
>and Police portfolios - did more than let Sharon into the Mount. They
>provided the Likud leader with an escort of more than a thousand
>police and semi-military "Border Guards", effectively reconquering
>Temple Mount (actually, it was a far bigger Israeli force than that
>which originally conquered the place in 1967). Add to this the well-
>known fact that Israeli police in general, and its "Border Guards" in
>particular, tend to regard Arabs as dangerous enemies - and the result
>was inevitable.
>
>Even that does not fully explain the extent and fast spread of
>the conflagration: forty Palestinians and four Israeli soldiers dead
>within a single weekend, with the number steadily rising by the hour;
>hundreds of wounded, many of them maimed for life; widespread riots
>all over the Palestinian Territories, often escalating into full-scale
>battles involving not only handguns but also anti-tank misslies,
>machine guns and helicopter gunships; the angery outburst spilling
>over to the Arab citizens of Israel itself, with large riots at
>practically all Arab population centers and the blocking of main
>highways.
>
>By this evening, at least seven Arab citizens of Israel have been shot
>to death by "their" police force...
>
> Such conflagrations do not result from a single provocation, gross
>and insulting as it may be. There had been quite a lot of fuel
>building up, mounting anger and frustration among the Palestinians.
>The normal routine of occupation, which rarely gets into the media:
>another row of olive trees uprooted by order of the Israeli miltary
>governor;  another settlement extending itself over a parcel of land
>which a Palestinian family had cultivated for generations; another
>rough search by Israeli soldiers at a roadblock; another late-night
>raid on a Palestinian home by Israeli "special units" -  all made the
>more unenduarable when peace negotiations are supposed to be going on
>with the declared aim of putting a definite end to the conflict, and
>when Barak has managed to convince much of international  opinion that
>"Palestinian intransigence" is to blame...
>
>At Camp David, and ever since its failure, Barak has striven to block
>off the Palestinians'  option of declaring independence unilaterally;
>using the particular conditions of the US elections year, Barak got
>the administration and Congress to take an openly biased position,
>condemning "a unilateral Palestinian step" while turning a blind eye
>to the ongoing settlement extention and other unilateral Israeli
>steps; also the United States' European and Japanese allies
>effectively withdrew their pledge to recognize the independence of
>Palestine.
>
>Barak had been striving to dictate rather then negotiate, repeatedly
>proclaiming that "the ball is in Arafat's court" and demanding that
>the Palestinians accept terms that - while more generous, on some
>issues, than offered by previous Israeli PM's - still fall short of
>the minimal Palestinian aspirations, especially with regard to
>Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees. Altogether, there was very
>much reason for all Palestinians - grassroots and leadership, Arafat's
>followers as well as those of the opposition factions - to feel
>frustrated and dissatisfied; Sharon's provoaction united them as
>nothing else could have.
>
>Israel's Arab citizens had their own load of long-standing grieveances
>- - decades-long discrimination in all spheres of life; an unemloyment
>rate double or more that in the Jewish sector; a government
>bureaucracy which treats them not much better than their brethern
>under occupation. And just recently, they have been stirred into anger
>by a series of inflammatory racist remarks uttered by Alik Ron,
>commander of the Gallilee Police. It might be more than a coincidence
>that Ron is rumored to be seeking a political career that he is known
>to have recently held a series of meetings with Sharon...
>
>"The New Intifada", as Palestinians now call it, has changed the focus
>of public opinion, both in Israel and internatioanally. From the
>debate on diplomatic formulas it returned to the harsh reality on the
>ground - the reality of occupation, once again flooding the
>international TV screens.
>
>Particularly poignant episodes were seen in living rooms across the
>globe, such as the 12-year old boy Muhammad Al-Dura - caught with his
>father  in a cross-fire outside Gaza City, desperately seeking shelter
>behind a small barrrel, and  shot to death by the relentless fire of
>Israeli soldiers. (The soldiers claim they did not know it was a
>child.)
>
>For Israelis, a public debate was opened (or rather, reopened) by the
>death of two soldiers in defence of settlement enclaves, inhabited by
>religious- nationalist fanatics and located in the midst of
>Palestinian territory. "He sacrificed himself for Netzarim, for this
>settlement which is perhaps not at all necesasary" said on TV the
>cousin of David Biri, the soldier killed in a Palestinian ambush while
>on settler convoy duty. This kind of sentiment could, in time, develop
>into a mass movement which may sway government policies - as happened
>with regard to Lebanon - but it would take quite a bit of time and far
>too much bloodshed.
>
>Is there still a chance of a more immediate solution, of a revival and
>successful conclusion of the negotiations which seemed moribund even
>before the present outbreak? Paradoxical and cynical as it may seem,
>earlier episodes in our region's history have shown vilolent outbreaks
>and confrontations serving as a catalyst to deadlocked diplomatic
>processes. The "Tunnel War", as the armed confrontations of September
>1996 came to be known, bore much similarity to the present outbreak,
>both having an Israeli provocation around Temple Mount starting the
>immediate conflagration throughout the Palestinian territories  - and
>in 1996 it ended with Netanyahu signing an agreement with Arafat and
>agreeing to withdraw from Hebron (most of Hebron, anyway). Earlier, it
>was the Yom Kippur war which broke a logjam in Israeli-Egyptian
>relations and eventually led to peace between the two countries and
>Israel's withdrawal from the whole of Sinai. But on more than one
>occasion, conflicts and violent confrontations have also been known to
>spiral uncontrolled, beyond what anybody planned or intended...
>
>With all the carnage, both sides so far avoided anything irrevocable;
>the Israeli tanks placed around Palestinian cities have not been sent
>in - not even to relieve the sorely-pressed garrison at Joseph's Tomb,
>in the heart of Palestinian Nablus; and though Hamas fighters are
>reportedly taking active part in the fighting, there have been so far
>none of the spectacular terrorist attacks which can rouse the people
>of Israel's main population centers to fear and anger. Clearly, room
>is still left for renewed negotiations. Indeed the basic maxim of
>recent Israeli politics - that an agreement with the Palestinians is
>vital to Barak's political survival - is, if anything, reinforced by
>recent events. And the alternative ploy occasionally mooted by Barak
>aides - getting Sharon into a "National Unity Government" - has just
>become far more illegitimate, inside and outside Israel.
>
>It is a tragic feature of what is going on now that at Camp David,
>Barak in principle agreed to give up many of the positions which are
>at present being  ferociously fought over (for example, the settlement
>enclaves in the Gaza Strip). He agreed to give them up - but only at a
>stiff price of Palestinian retrocessions, some of them very
>unpalatable and others completely unacceptable to the Palestinian
>side. Will he now soften these positions, at least to some degree?
>Having gone already so far at Camp David, can he not simply get out of
>the occupied territories?
>
>One can only hope and do what can be done, to protest and pressure. At
>the initiative of Gush Shalom, a venerable peace sticker, first
>published in 1982 with the slogan "Bring the Soldiers Back from
>Lebanon" and subsequently published again and again, was given a new
>lease of life. Now bearing the caption "Bring Them Back from the
>Territories", it should soon become a  frequent sight in the streets
>of Tel-Aviv.
>
>Adam Keller
>Beate Zilversmidt
>
>
>
>P.S. We pass on the request for instant financial help to the Makassad
>Hospital in East Jerusalem where the wounded have been streaming in.
>Because the situation is so desperate, and the need so immediate,
>please send donations  by wire transfer (USD preferably) directly into
>their bank account. The account is at the Mercantile Discount Bank
>Ltd., Jerusalem, Salah al-Din Branch. The Swift Code is BARDiLit The
>Branch number is 638. Their account number is 400335.
>
>Alternatively, you can send cash donations by mail to:
>Makassed Hospital
>P.O. Box 19482
>Jerusalem
>
>Or, if you, or anyone you know, is in a position to send surgical or
>pharmaceutical supplies, please contact the hospital directly at
>telephone number +972 2 627-0222. Ask to speak to Dr. Khalid, Director
>of the hospital.
>
>- ------------------ schnapp --------------------------------
>Lueko Willms                                     http://www.mlwerke.de
>/--------- L.WILLMS at LINK-F.frankfurt.org -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
>
>"Ohne Pressefreiheit, Vereins- und Versammlungsrecht ist keine
>Arbeiterbewegung moeglich"        - Friedrich Engels      (Februar 1865)
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of marxism-digest V1 #2693
>******************************





More information about the Marxism mailing list