Last comment on this. The mobilization of the general population into open combat against an occupying army, and/or its private equivalents, is fundamentally different than "terrorist" bombings. It is the eruption of the social struggle beyond the limits of both "stabilizing" and "destabilizing" forces, (as if the stabilizing forces weren't the biggest fomentors of destabilizaton).
It is not just opportunism, not just a mistaken/failure, to confuse or ignore this critical distinction, it is outright reactionary, giving credence to the "equal" legitimacy of the occupation. No democracy is possible with, through the organizations sanctioned by the occupation. To preach about democracy while participating in the occupation government is to give new and true meaning to Hegel's description of liberalism as a philosophy of the abstract that capitulates before the world of the concrete. dms ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel Wendland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Who says they are not involved in the struggle against the occupation?
