|
i wasn't questioning the validity of your position, actually: i was just curious as to why it was so.
for myself, i come out of marxism--but my work as a historian is about the implosion of marxism as a political formation--the consequence of this is that i think it impossible to still be a marxist in any way--not analytically, not conceptually, not politically. but it does influence how i understand things. my basic assumption is that the left remains caught in the vacuum created by the implosion of the older frame of reference, that a new collective elaboration of a very different type of opposition must be undertaken, but that the process has barely started.
in specific situations, this general orientation deploys differently--in the case of the question of the israeli/palestinian conflict, i tend to see the palestinian people as being crushed by a vastly superior military force, subjected to oppressive conditions every day, to be the losers in the conflict as a function of a wide range of political factors, the blame for which extends to all sides and which include arafat.
i do not question israel's right to exist, but i do think that it can and must be held to account according to the same kind of standards that would obtain for any other state.
i do not see how the occupation is justified.
i do not see how it is possible for anyone to look at the politics of theis conflict and not factor in the fact of the settlement policy as fundamental to exacerbating it at every step.
i do not understand how the brutality of the occupation squares with the ideals of the israeli state.
and i do not see why one cannot be critical of that state.
so there you are: your turn.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|