On 1/17/07, Marvin Gandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoshie wrote:
> On 1/16/07, Marvin Gandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't know what's being disputed here. I'm not championing Fatah as a
>> party of the left any more than I would the contemporary ANC or the
>> Sandinistas
>
> To my knowledge, the ANC before the fall of Apartheid and the
> Sandinistas while their revolution lasted never went down to the low
> of Fatah. Can an organization that is supposed to be opposed to the
> Israeli occupation take Tel Aviv's and Washington's support and
> subvert the elected leadership of their own people and be still
> considered "the left"? If so, what does "the left" mean? It really
> means nothing, and we might as well give up meaningless terms like
> that.
=========================
What was qualitatively "lower" about the armed struggle waged by
Fatah and
the PLO against the Israeli occupation as opposed to the armed struggle
waged by the ANC against the apartheid regime and the Sandinistas against
Somoza? Wasn't the role played by Arafat and the other underground Fatah
leaders an honourable one prior to their assumption of "government"
responsibilities under the Oslo accords?
Fatah is no longer fighting Tel Aviv but is siding with and getting
material support -- money and weapons -- from it and Washington in its
war against Hamas. By doing so, Fatah essentially ceased to be an
organ of a national liberation movement. The ANC and the Sandinistas
never sided with and took support from Pretoria and Washington
respectively to attack those who are opposed to Apartheid and
imperialism respectively.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
