At 8:46 PM -0500 1/4/02, David Griffin wrote:

> No, sir, the brutal repression
>is not relegated to the 15th century or "backward societies" but is, as
>Malcolm X said, "as American as apple pie."

The point I'm trying to make David is that what is happening in the middle east is nothing whatsoever to do with the class war. It is not a clash between the working class and the employing class.

> > And they can't aspire to citizenships rights, simply because they are not
> > Jewish.
>
>Neither can most Mexicans who enter the United States.... what's your point?

My impression is that many of them do aspire to US citizenship. When you say "most" cannot, what are you implying? Does the US have a policy of discriminating against applicants for citizenship on the basis of religion, race or ethnic background?

Australia used to have such a policy, the White Australia Policy, but this eventually became politically untenable and was quite irrelevant to the issue of class. In fact the ruling capitalist class are strenuously opposed to the suggestion of any return to similar public policy. Bad for profits you see. The point is that Israel appears to still maintain such discrimination, in the form of a Jewish Israel policy. I assume it isn't because they are a capitalist society that they favour discrimination. But if you are suggesting otherwise, then please explain your reasoning, don't merely make vague assertions.

>No oppression or brutality that takes place in the 21st
>century, in the context of the nation-state (which is what Israel IS, not a
>fiefdom), is absent of a class character. All oppression has a class purpose.

This is somewhat sweeping. And of course I didn't say Israel was a feifdom, it is obviously a capitalist economy. But some of its social policy seems to be informed by backward ideas. Reactionary ideas.

>I suppose all those Palestinians in the Knesset were forced to convert to
>Judaism? Again, please to not speak with authority on the matter if you do
>not comprehend the basics of what we are talking about.

I was not speaking with authority, I have continually said that I'm not well informed. But just because some Palestinians have Israeli citizenship does not prove that all Palestinians have equal opportunity to migrate to Israel, take up citizenship, and enjoy full citizenship rights. Clearly, even many of those who were born there aren't entitled to citizenship, or even residency.

> The condition of
>Palestinians is identical to that of working class Blacks and Latinos in the
>U.S., period.

Don't be ridiculous.

>"Primarily by economic coercion" indeed! Please describe a capitalist society
>you are aware of that does not discriminate on any other basis-- domestically
>or internationally-- besides an economic one. By your definition, then, there
>is no such thing as capitalism! I guess we are all living in feudalism. The
>point is that capitalism uses ANY means necessary, be they political,
>military, physical, economic, or otherwise, in order to increase the profit
>margin.

Since all profit is derived from the surplus value of workers, there is only one way to increase the profit margin - pay a smaller percentage of the value created by workers back to them as wages. A capitalist economy is one where economic coercion is the virtually universal method by which the working class are coerced to labour for the ruling class. Rather than at the point of a gun, or a whip.

> This is about the ends, not the means: read Macchiavelli.

What does that mean?

> And now you
>wish to single out military oppression as separate from economic?

Yes. Its a different thing entirely. It the difference between being told "work for me or I'll shoot you," and "work for me or you won't be able to pay the rent." Most people acknowledge there's a difference and that the gun at one's head is the greater evil. And the ends are clearly quite different, else why do people prefer to live in a society where economic coercion is used and flee those societies where more brutal forms of coercion are used?

> Well, are
>you aware of where Israel's weapons come from? They come from private
>contractors in the United States, who lobby 74% of congress ("soft money" or
>not!)! Ever heard the term "military industrial complex?" Is it real? What do
>you think it means?

Now I'm SURE that was a rhetorical question.

>And must we continually parrot Dan Rather and CNN in framing the entire
>matter as a "religious conflict?"

I can assure You I was doing no such thing. I've heard of them of course, but I don't think your Dan rather gets aired here. So I've never seen his show and wouldn't know him from a bar of soap. Not having ever heard him speak, I can't parrot him, now can I?

> Is this the Spanish Inquisition? Does the
>United States have a geopolitical hold on Israel because of its interest in
>Jews and Judaism? Or is it money?

The US has a hold on Israel because of its huge industrial and military capacity and the fact that it props up Israel economically and military with a small part of its huge surplus value. If the US says "jump", Israel has no option but to ask "How high?"

But that isn't the issue, Israel isn't exactly being goaded on in the middle east conflict. Perhaps they would come to their senses more quickly if the US wasn't there to prop Israel up. The issue surely is when will the bloodbath end. Or perhaps, when is the bloodbath going to really get started? It is rapidly approaching the stage where not even the US will be able to control the situation.

>You probably also maintain that the United States got involved in WWII
>because it was morally opposed to racial and religious bigotry against Jews,
>no? How morally upright it was of the U.S. to liberate the concentration
>camps (forget the fact that the Soviets did most of the dirtywork), and then,
>in order to take their just compensation, create a satellite settler colony
>in the Middle East to lock itself in as world superpower, provide a
>counterweight against Stalin, and have a stake in the control of oil
>resources to boot!

You'll have to wait and see. I tire of your ridiculous assertions.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas