arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Dear friends,

It is now more than ever clear that we are on the verge of an all-out military attack on Iraq and the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is important within this context to clarify certain points and to have a correct analysis of the situation. This war is by no means an incidental event that is isolated from the global policies of the American establishment and its plea for hegemony. War is already waged on daily basis since more than a decade with economical, societal and environmental weapons of mass destruction. This war is called globalisation. The military escalation is nothing but the crystallisation of that onslaught into a final blitz that should lead to complete victory of the US and its lackeys. Slavery will not only be re-established de facto but also de jure. We can not and we will not accept this.

The Arab Nation and the Muslim community (Umma) constitute the spearhead of the struggle against the brutal face of globalisation since 1991. We were pushed us into assuming this responsibility not by choice, but by the forces of history. First the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the disappearance of a very important counterbalance to American domination, and second the ongoing Zionist invasion on Arab land since 1948. Arabs do not have a choice but to struggle on three levels. First against American invasion, second against Zionist occupation, and third against most of the Arab regimes that are nothing but puppets in the hands of the Americans and the Zionists. It is a triple combat for freedom, unity and social justice that makes the Arab National struggle what it is: a national liberation struggle.

Our people managed to lead the battle without any relevant role of states or governments. The Arab struggle is popular in nature and in structure. The resistance in Lebanon was popular, the Intifada is popular and even the most violent and extreme expressions of the Arab struggle were carried out by popular organisations and not by states. It is precisely because the Arab resistance maintains its popular structure and method, that it is invulnerable and indestructible.

Iraq can be bombed and will be bombed. The Iraqi army might be (and very likely will be) defeated under the blows of the tremendous American war machine. The Americans will proceed to set up a puppet government that will collaborate in the looting of the oil reserves of Iraq. From its new Iraqi stronghold, the Americans will proceed to threaten Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran militarily. The Zionist state will have a free reign to lash out at the Palestinian resistance and to annex Jerusalem. The real Iraqi opposition (not the American ceremonial version of it) and the left in the west should not fall into this trap, how tempting it may seem, and should not forget that war will demand a high price in blood and treasure of common people.

Dear friends, the Arab people do not have any choice but to fight fire with fire and violence with violence. Therefore, our support to the peoples' resistance should be unconditional and outspoken despite the ethical and moral dilemmas that might face us. The difference between victory and defeat will be determined within a fraction of a second. That fraction of a second can have implications that will last for centuries, so first fight back and then philosophise about it. Strike back first and assess it morally later. We are not facing a moral enemy, so let us not be the victims of our morality. The only weapons we have sometimes are the bitter desperation and the urge of survival. In places like Palestine and Iraq this is the only logic that must prevail. Resistance in places like these should be as reckless as the onslaught it is fighting or it will be mercilessly crushed. Moreover, in this context neutrality is not an option, neutrality means supporting the aggressor. So what side are you on? What is your choice?

The AEL made a clear choice. We are a radical popular movement uniting Arabs and Muslims in Europe in the struggle against racism and exclusion and for solidarity with oppressed peoples everywhere in the world and especially in our Arab and Muslim worlds. We represent an important part of the most oppressed group in European society. We are deprived of most of our human rights, our civil rights and our right to preserve our existence. The AEL is an anti-globalist movement by definition. We are the victims of this globalisation and we are determined to bring about a new globalisation that is that of justice and welfare and not that of exploitation and oppression. As the Arab and Muslim voice in this anti-globalist movement, we feel that we have more responsibility towards our brothers and sisters in Palestine, Iraq and the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. We will make their voice heard and be the voice of the voiceless. An honest assertive voice. An independent voice, not an apologetic voice but a defiant voice.

Because of all this, the AEL is criminalised and demonised. We are persecuted, our houses are raided and our activists jailed. Democracy does not apply for us and laws are especially invented to criminalise us. The traditional political parties might disagree on everything but they agree that the AEL must be crushed.

Just as the Arab resistance is popular, AEL is also popular and invulnerable. We have no offices to close and no subsidies to stop. We have no money to confiscate. We are not dependent on these things to function, our only capital is our activists and they are people who are ready to die for the cause of justice and equality let alone go to jail. The more we are faced with oppression the more we will generate resistance and we will become stronger and more determined.

Dear friends, the anti-globalisation movement cannot be an exclusively Marxist and Anarchist club. Marxists and Anarchists certainly constitute an important faction within this movement but nonetheless we believe that non-Marxist organisations and individuals can play an important role in it. The Anti-Globalisation movement should be that of the resistance against oppression and dispossession, for equality and justice regardless of the analysis one makes to fight for these noble goals. The resistance of peoples against the empire is not an ideological choice; it is a fight for survival.

The empire is united with its States (US and their lackeys) its overt (Bush and Blair) and covert (multinationals and cartels) leaderships. It has its Ideology (hegemony and exploitation) and it is on the move. The resistance is divided, unstructured, confused, and losing ground. This must change. We have to learn from the experiences of peoples who are dealing with the empire in its most brutal form: Zionism. In Lebanon the resistance against Israel was victorious because it was a popular front, it did not bargain and no state had control over it. It was a front where Islamists, nationalists and communists fought side by side for the freedom of their people. Liberals and right-wingers either watched or collaborated with the enemy.

In Palestine the factions of the resistance agreed among each other in rejecting the merchandising of the Palestinian authority. They all know that the way towards freedom is the unity of all fighters against the common enemy and for the common good. Let that lesson be remembered. We exclude any alliance with the right-wing extremists, but we strongly call upon leftists, centrist religious revolutionaries and progressive nationalists to unite in one front. The AEL is itself an example of such a unity. Within our ranks, Arabs and Muslims from these three tendencies are building a remarkable and unprecedented movement. Our Ideology is also an expression of this unity-process between these various factions. We are no more a mere adding-sum of leftists and religious and progressive nationalists, we are now all that together and more. We are not saying that people can not differ on these issues and that they should necessarily melt into one ideological framework. We are saying that we should
not allow these differences to weaken our solidarity and by doing that strengthening our enemy. We are at war, and any democrat who is willing to fight for justice, freedom and equality everywhere should be among us.

Dear friends, Just as the aggression is globalising the resistance must also globalise.

Just like oppression and exploitation is mutating into many shapes and faces, resistance should keep up and also express itself through many faces and ways. Wherever we are attacked with force and brutality, we should hit back with equal force and brutality. At the same time when we are faced with a more subtle form of war, we should react as subtly and intelligently. We have to resist with the gun when we are attacked with the gun, and resist with words, and ideas and demonstrations and elections and strikes and civil disobedience wherever we get the chance to do so. Just like the empire, we also should have a thousand faces and strategies but without forgetting our aims. We should not only ferociously defend ourselves, we also have to outsmart our enemy.

The Anti-globalist movement is now facing a choice: either it will turn into a sort of solidarity festival organised each year under the name of "social forum". Or it will develop itself into an international peoples' resistance against all forms of oppression, exploitation and injustice using all the means necessary to achieve its goals within the rule of law wherever that rule exists, and beyond the law in lawless states or segregationist states. There is no third choice, and there is no other time to make that choice. That fraction of a second separating recuperation and independence is now, the empire is showing its teeth, the resistance must do the same or fall. Let the people who believe that history is over and that the only way-out is to swim with the stream downhill and pray that it will change course due to their lamentation, let them swim with that stream until they drown. But we know better: we know that history will never stop. We can write it our self if we chose to, but above all, if we are prepared to pay the price. We are prepared to pay that price: Islam teaches us that making a stand against an oppressor might cost you your life, but that one moment of dignity is better than a life of submission to injustice.

Beste Ael;

Mooie tekst en vrij geslaagde analyse......
en toch kan ik een gevoel van argwaan niet onderdrukken.....
wat zijn jullie alternatieven voor "The empire" ?....jullie eigen koninkrijkje?...in deze lange tekst geen woord over wat je wil verdedigen.....wat soort maatschappij willen jullie eigenlijk?.......wat gaan jullie opbouwen.....wat stel je in de plaats van "the empire" ?....
wanhopige mensen opjutten desnoods met religieuze 'motieven' om zichzelf op te blazen is even krimineel als reguliere troepen een ander land in te sturen om 'de vrijheid' te verdedigen.....In israël zijn in 2002 meer mensen omgekomen door verkeersongelukken dan door bomexplosies en ander geweld.....niettegenstaande jullie politiek ongetwijfeld schitterende tekst zijn er weinig hoopvolle pespektieven in te vinden...

tu dis : "wanhopige mensen opjutten desnoods met religieuze 'motieven' om zichzelf op te blazen is even krimineel als reguliere troepen een ander land in te sturen om 'de vrijheid' te verdedigen"

je constates donc que :

1. tu mets sur le même pied les occupants (sur-armés) et les occupés (sous-armés)

2. pour toi, tous les attentats kamikazes semblent être le fait de fondamentalistes religieux, or de nombreuses/eux kamikazes sont surtout des résistant(e)s désespéré(e)s

3. tu assimiles l'AEL a des kamikazes fondamentalistes religieux, or l'AEL c'est me semble-t-il la gauche arabe européenne

finalement, tu décris les arabes exactement comme la junte Bush les décrit, et tu parles de l'AEL exactement comme les journalistes et les politiciens belges en parlent

ta naïveté devient même exaspérante lorsque tu écris "in deze lange tekst geen woord over wat je wil verdedigen"

mais de qui te moques-tu, someone ? ignores-tu qu'en Palestine un peuple est en train d'être éradiqué par une armée suréquipée, ignores-tu les maisons détruites et les assassinats quotidiens ?

ignores-tu que malgré les quelques manifestations de soutient au peuple palestinien, les politiciens européens ferment leur gueule et se prostituent aux ordres de la junte Bush ?

ignores-tu que RIEN NE CHANGE dans la situation désespérée du peuple palestinien ?

ignores-tu que la junte Bush soutient Sharon ?

ignores-tu que les USA sont devenus une dictature aux mains du lobby militaro-pétrolier et de la droite religieuse ?

Very very strong and intelligent text. One of the first texts that really show a practical way in which antiglobalists and arab nationalists could join together in One justified battle. And a nice warning to all ignorant 'weekend-'activists, who still don't want to see the bigger (and scarier?) picture.

Two things remain aching in my head however:
* I still don't see very clearly how 'leftists, centrist religious revolutionaries and progressive nationalists' will be able to collaborate peacefully once the 'empire' has been struck down. Please please how can I visualise a New Society that is built by these three perspectives together? Decentralised cooperating networks where each (sub)culture has as much freedom as possible? How can we see a system of law & order, society structure, economy and politics that combines the thoughts of those parties mentioned above?
Personally I truly believe that there is a system that combines the aspirations and dreams of a big majority of people (searching for happiness and safety for their children), but I also believe that this kind of society demands that a lot of revolutionairies should first think a little stronger about that unity. Because I don't really 'feel' this message in most of the revolutionary talks. I hear a lot of (strategic?) polarisation of opinions, I hear demonisation of people, hatred and a lot more. And I fear many many scary nights of vengeance between all these different parties once the Empire is destroyed.
Secondly, maybe it is easier to find a connection between a 'religious revolutionary' and a 'progressive natiolist', than between a rebellious Antwerp Muslim youngster and a fascist-thinking (scared) elderly woman of the same city. Isn't it necessary to promote the connection also between the people in the streets, in stead of just focusing on strategic agreements between activists of different wings? It is in that perspective that I am not really convinced yet of AEL's true aims. Sometimes I think AEL goes to far in polarisation between ethnic groups, so far that making bridges between them becomes more and more difficult. Purity-discussions between 'field' and 'house' niggers in the time of malcolm X, enlarged the distance even more. The same is happening with AEL and it's position towards immigrant bridge-builders (?)
* A second topic I just want to touch from the surface, is my fear of organisations that dwell on the use of weapons. When I read the above statement, I almost completely agree with the analysis, but the proposed 'remedy' isn't very new and original, is it? It demands to take up weapons against the oppressor from all sides. It demands that we use the same tactics as the empire, the same killing and destruction.
First, the Empire at this moment is military very powerful and revengeful, and the way this monstruous thinking behaves, should tell us that its logic of destruction will never stop as long as it is attacked by the same means of destruction and hate. The system already breeds on fear. Maybe we are just helping it by wanting to fight it with violence. We are giving it all the arguments in the world to exterminate every act of resistance against its cruel tyranny.
Secondly, who should we use the weapons on? Just like Bush hits the Iraqi soldiers (with wives, children and parents) instead of their 'real' enemy, most of the weapons that would be used in our 'holy' struggle, would cause death and misery not in the families of the evil ones, but in those of the scared servants of the evil ones (soldiers, bureaucrats, civilians).
Next to the use of violence, there are so many means of dignified and truthful resistance. Means that can truely give us hope, and strength, and that breeds solidarity between all people of good intentions. At least that's what I hope. Civil disobedience, non violent direct action, satyagraha, the use of symbols and language and truth,... have had some lasting results in the past.

As long as AEL is not VERY clear about the WHEN's and HOW's of the use of violence, its message gives me the same cold chills as that of all dark war lords. As long as AEL turns justified anger into possible blind and destructive agression, I cannot possibly see it as an ally of the true antiglobalist movement.

I believe, along with AEL, that polarisation of discussion can show where the real resistance lies, but I am always afraid when these linguistic tactics find their way into the minds of frustrated and less intelligent people. THAT is the tragedy of our history, too.

in search for a better world
Allah is great and good and mysterious
greetings
pinkje

"I think there are plenty of good people in America, but there are also plenty of bad people in America and the bad ones are the ones who seem to have all the power and be in these positions to block things that you and I need. Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't even call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence."

dear 'malcolm x',

I have the deepest respect for your analysis. I also think that your visions have brought back a great piece of dignity and self respect to the oppressed, two very important qualities in order to bring about a true new society.
But for me, as for thousands of angry young men and women, it is very important to understand the meaning of self defence. Even Gandhi said that a man who doesn't use violence in order to protect the life of his children, is not a true spiritual man. So the use of violence when it is used as self defence does not bring me into moral dilemmas.
I do have big moral and spiritual problems when the term 'self defence' is too broadly used. Personally, I see 'self defence' as a very physical situation where there is a direct link between the person you use violence against, and the immediate physical threat of this person against yourself or your closest surrounding. Any other use of violence, is maybe 'justified' or 'necessary' from certain points of view, but should not be defined as 'self defense', I think. It can also be very seducing to name every kind of violence you use, an act of 'self defense' (almost all violence in history is called by that name...).
So, dear 'malcolm x'.... can you please explain to me the way in which your definition of justified 'self defense' differs from.... say, that of George W. Bush, or Ariel Sharon.

This is a very serious question.
So please, think seriously about it.

love and respect
Steven Desanghere
also known as Pinkje

There is no doubt about it: AEL is not as consistent as it appears to be. Reading their website, a lot of contradictory texts puzzled my mind. In one of their texts, they wrote "We are against war. We are against all wars". But to "fight violence with violence" seems rather the same to me as propaganding war. I have to admit, this scares the hell out of me. As an Antwerp citizen, I can only be terribly frightened about this kind of philosophy. "Strike back first and assess it morally later", isn't this exactly what psychopaths like the murderer of Mohammad Achrak do? These ideas make AEL as bad, crazy and dangerous as Bush and the other incompetent leaders in this world. What makes you believe that handling before thinking, and thereby killing and hurting innocent people, lets you deserve a place in Allah's heaven? I cannot believe that Allah or every other God you might believe in, will reward you for a dead which you did not consider thoroughly first.

The "an-eye-for-an-eye"-policy means that you are as evil as your enemy. Who are you to decide whom you can kill or what you might destroy? I do not think Allah appreciates you playing God...

So do not go telling me that all this dreadful deads are made in the name of God. That is exactly the same as Bush does, or Saddam, or Sharon. Do not blame God or Allah for the horrible crimes against humanity some people commit. This will definitely NOT give you a ticket to heaven.

Not thinking about (re)actions is the same as not thinking at all. Reading your text makes me believe that you are a rather intelligent person, but also a man or woman who is not able to think rationally about possible consequences of his/her deads, and of other alternatives.

Sometimes you do not have to think about actions, but you have to think about them at least TWICE. Especially when you are talking about people's lives.

Pinkje, you are imposing your ideas on the movement, an did that never as clear as you are doing this today.

"As long as AEL turns justified anger into possible blind and destructive agression, I cannot possibly see it as an ally of the true antiglobalist movement. "

As if the AEL would be the only group or part in the movement who thinks that the use of violence is OK.

There have been people in this movement who disagree with the use of violence, and other people who think that the use of violence is a right.

As for me, I have always seen the AEL als a part of movement against globelisation.
I think that the txt puts us before a refelection about this movement.

The Anti-globalist movement is now facing a choice: either it will turn into a sort of solidarity festival organised each year under the name of "social forum". Or it will develop itself into an international peoples' resistance against all forms of oppression, exploitation and injustice using all the means necessary to achieve its goals within the rule of law wherever that rule exists, and beyond the law in lawless states or segregationist states. There is no third choice, and there is no other time to make that choice.
Greetings
han

I can find myself in the words of Pinkje, violence is only justified when no other options are no longer open.
If the USA says its 'War on Terrorism" is one of self-defence, you can see the difficulty of the term.
An other freedom-fighting group, the ETA, has lost all of my respect, since they attack not only the oppressors, but scare off, or kill, politicians who want peace, dialogue and humanity.
It's dangerous, when a mouvement forgets it has got to live, too, after the 'big change'.

Beste,

waar ben je toch bang voor? staat er in de tekst ook niet dat er 'met gelijke wapens' moet worden 'gevochten'?
Zolang de Belgische staat zijn leger niet inzet tegen 'allochtonen', zal het bij demonstraties en burgerlijke ongehoorzaamheid blijven! Uiteraard is dat vervelend voor 'de man in de straat' en zeker voor de politiek, maar DOE iets aan de discriminatie en het racisme, en 't wordt vanzelf weer rustig!
Zolang je natuurlijk telkens AEL 'vechten' schrijft, je daar een clicheebeeld ('moslimterroristen') bij voorstelt, kom je ook nergens...
(Denk je hetzelfde als 'Els uit Oost-Vlaanderen' schrijft: 'vecht tegen ongelijkheid!'?!? Probeer de tekst eens te lezen alsof hij door mij was ondertekend!)

"
Nous habitant(e)s des pays riches avons des raisons de nous plaindre des déficiences de la démocratie et du capitalisme, mais nous devons réaliser que la situation est bien pire en Palestine, en Colombie, dans presque toute l'Afrique, et dans beaucoup d'autres pays pauvres. Pour ces populations, la lutte armée n'a pas pour objectif de rétablir la démocratie, mais seulement de se protéger contre l'esclavage, les assassinats politiques ou les nettoyages ethniques. Il n'y a souvent pas d'autre choix possible.

Il est frappant de constater que le gouvernement Bush, ainsi que la plupart des politiciens et journalistes professionnels dans le reste du monde, ne font pas la distinction entre ces mouvements de résistance et des groupes terroristes. Pour eux, comme pour les occupants nazi pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, les résistants sont des terroristes. Cet amalgame est d'autant plus vicieux que de nombreuses organisations terroristes sont financées/manipulées par des gouvernements (US et israélien en tête).

Il importe de ne pas oublier que le droit à l'insurrection est un Droit de l'Homme reconnu dans la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme, qui décrit comme le « suprême recours » la « révolte contre la tyrannie et l'oppression » (préambule). C'est au nom de ce principe que de nombreux mouvements de résistance, tels l'ANC en Afrique du Sud, ont eu recours à la lutte armée.

La violence ne serait donc pas nécessairement injuste, ce sont les raisons pour lesquelles on y recourt qui peuvent l'être, ainsi que le choix des cibles. Ainsi les attentats palestiniens contre des civil(e)s israélien(ne)s non occupant(e)s est condamnable, et est une stratégie de défense d'autant moins efficace qu'elle retourne l'opinion publique contre la cause palestinienne. Par contre, reprocher aux palestinien(ne)s d'assassiner des militaires et colons israéliens revient à reprocher aux résistantEs français(e)S d'avoir assassiné des occupants allemands durant la seconde guerre mondiale, ce qui est absurde (même si l'on est tou(te)s d'accord qu'il est regrettable de n'avoir plus que le meurtre pour défendre ses droits légitimes). Cependant, concernant les attentats kamikazes, des observateurs étrangers qui ont constaté les conditions de vie épouvantables que subissent la population palestinienne, et l'écrasante supériorité militaire d'Israël, disent qu'il est très difficile pour les palestiniens de s'attaquer à des soldats ou des colons, et que la seule façon de ne pas être complètement oublié(e)s par l'opinion publique internationale est de commettre des attentats sur la population israélienne. En d'autres termes : mieux vaut être considérés comme des terroristes que de continuer à vivre comme des citoyen(ne)s de second rang.

Voici deux textes très intéressants sur le thème de la résistance armée :

http://www.ldh-france.org/docu_hommeliber3.cfm?idHomme=967&idPere=934

http://users.skynet.be/cadtm/pages/francais/baillyviolence.htm

"

Il est un peu trop facile, assis(e) bien confortablement dans son salon , d'exiger des opprimé(e)s qu'ils s'abstiennent de se défendre par les armes contre l'occupant qui assassine et détruit.

Exiger un projet de société ? Pendant combien de temps encore allons nous ressasser pour la x° fois les grands problèmes du monde dans des forum où l'on retrouve à chaque fois les même personnes, dont beaucoup sont des activistes professionnel(le)s payé(e)s par des ONG qui verront leurs subsides surprimés si elle soutiennent un mouvement de résistance armée ?

Faut-il des réunions à n'en plus finir pour dire haut et fort des choses évidentes, que tout le monde sait et raconte à la boucherie du coin ? :

- le gouvernement US est une dictature mafieuse et violente (va donc demander gentiment à un mafieux d'arrêter de te racketter, tu verras sa réponse ...)

- les riches contrôlent les politiciens par la corruption et abusent de leur pouvoir pour s'enrichir encore plus au détriment de la population.

Tout est question de rapports de force, et la force se construit par tous les moyens : armes, média-activistes, grèves, manifestations, et tout ce qu'on pourra imaginer.

Celles et ceux qui ont fondé les USA se sont battu(e)s aussi par les armes. Celles et ceux qui ont fondé Israël se sont battu(e)s aussi par les armes. Et on ne peut pas vraiment dire qu'elles/ils ont échoué.

Personne n'a jamais dit que la lutte armée était la seule solution. Personne n'a jamais dit que tous le monde était obligé de se joindre à la lutte armée. Mais qu'on arrête de critiquer celles et ceux qui seront peut-être les dernier(e)s à nous défendre quand il ne nous restera plus aucune liberté.

Ceux qui contrôlent le monde ne vont pas se laisser enlever leurs privilèges sans réagir, et ils en ont les moyens de se réagir. La seule façon de les vaincre, c'est de nous unir et de respecter la méthode de résistance que chacun(e) choisira en fonction de ses contraintes, de ses possibilités et de son vécu.

Et pour celles et ceux qui veulent un projet de société concret et sans violence, en voici un :

http://altermundus.net/autremonde.htm

(un site à visiter notamment pour les nombreux liens placés en contexte)

"The Anti-globalist movement is now facing a choice: either it will turn into a sort of solidarity festival organised each year under the name of "social forum". Or it will develop itself into an international peoples' resistance against all forms of oppression, exploitation and injustice using all the means necessary to achieve its goals within the rule of law wherever that rule exists, and beyond the law in lawless states or segregationist states. There is no third choice, and there is no other time to make that choice. "(han)

"La seule façon de les vaincre, c'est de nous unir et de respecter la méthode de résistance que chacun(e) choisira en fonction de ses contraintes, de ses possibilités et de son vécu." (Véra, Sylvie, Erik, Alex, Mathieu)

"waar ben je toch bang voor? staat er in de tekst ook niet dat er 'met gelijke wapens' moet worden 'gevochten'?" (els)

I can and will not agree with this kind of thinking.

Han's reply sounds to me a dangerous stereotype of absurd dialectic thinking ('either you are weak, or either you use violence'), and is also without a true personal opinion. But I didn't expect much more of it. Passons.

The text of Véra, Sylvie, Erik, Alex & Mathieu looks far more intelligent, but isn't totally free of some kind of mechanical thinking. While they are correctly distinguishing strategic violence against e.g. israëli soldiers from pure blind violence against jewish civilians in non occupied territories, they remain very far from condemning that last strategie. Do they realise that, once you give weapons to all kinds of people, there will be a lot of bloody abuse also?(just let me remind the escalations of all kinds of violence, maffia, etc in places where there were civil struggles - basque country, northern ireland, south africa, belgium just after WWII, etc). Do they fully realise what it means when the message is: "use violence, as long as YOU think it is justified"? I am not even talking about the fact that even colonizing jewish families also have blood running through their veins. Can we just KILL human beings that are not directly and individually attacking our lives? I am sorry, but I cannot forget this spiritual question in the perspective of intellectually looking for strategies to make a better and juster world for all.
Furthermore, it sounds to me more an intellecual-mechanical thought of saying to a pacifist to support activist 'colleagues' that use all kinds of violence, than a reflection of a deep concern for real strategies to get a better world. We shouldn't make a 'synthesis' too quickly when confronted with two opposing thoughts.

The text of Els I find very interesting, but is a little besides the point of this discussion. I just want to give her my wish: I wish that everybody who pulls the trigger to kill a class enemy does that in the fullest of love, without using its personal frustrations and withstanding all the ego-satisfying things that come along with the fact that he has a gun: narrow mindedness, vengeance, the feeling of almighty power and the illusion that he can morally decide about who stays alive and who gets killed.

Furthermore I wish to say that these are my personal feelings, and I want to say them because I am convinced that a majority of activists for a better world also think like this (no matter how they are treated on a site like this).
I want things to change, I want to make huge sacrificies for it. I don't think I am very scared. But I want to look for radical strategies that don't use the same inhuman methods as our ennemies. We shouldn't become what we fight against.

love and respect
Steven Desanghere
aka pinkje

1. La plupart des arguments que tu avances contre la résistance armée me paraissent logiques et fondés. La résistance armée, comme toute chose, a des effets négatifs dont il faut tenir compte. C'est pourquoi tes interventions enrichissent grandement ce débat. Mais tu es moins convaincant lorsqu'il s'agit de démontrer que seule la résistance pacifique fera reculer Bush, Sharon et leurs serviteurs. Gandhi, était un pacifiste, certes. Et l'Inde a gagné son indépendance à la même époque que Gandhi, certes. Mais que Ghandi ait vaincu à lui seul l'empire britannique, j'en doute. De nombreux autres facteurs expliquent cet événement historique, notamment le déclin déjà entamé de l'Empire britannique, et une géostratégie internationale nettement moins monolithique et donc beaucoup plus « concurrentielle » qu'aujourd'hui.

2. Contrairement à ce que tu sembles sous-entendre, aucun des commentaires ci-dessus ne fait l'apologie des attentats contre des innocents. L'article de Véra & co tente simplement de comprendre et d'expliquer POURQUOI des palestiniens commettent des attentats à l'aveugle contre la population israélienne. Et ils suggèrent que c'est la passivité occidentale qui les pousse à de tels actes désespérés (c'est du moins comme cela que je comprends leur texte)

3. Lorsque tu assimiles les attentats kamikazes palestiniens aux attentats à l'aveugle de l'ETA ou de l'IRA contre des populations civiles, tu commets vraiment un abus car les derniers ne sont souvent que des intellos aventuriers un peu maffieux, qui se la jouent et qui savent très bien qu'ils vont pouvoir baiser des super gonzesses que ça fait mouiller de coucher avec un méchant nationaliste armé et recherché par la police. Les palestiniens, eux, ils crèvent.

Ik heb veel respect voor je tekst en waardeer je bijdragen op deze website.

Maar dat wil nog niet zeggen dat jij het recht zou hebben om al dan niet te bepalen wie er al dan niet deel uitmaakt van deze beweging. Die pretentie schijn jij jezelf alvast te hebben.

Het recht op gebruik van geweld is een discussie is in deze beweging doe zo oud is als deze beweging zelf.
Kijk maar eens op deze website, en de andere indymedia websites. Seattle, Praag, Genua, .....

Je mag het van mij niet eens zijn met die mensen die vinden dat geweld wel een gerechtvaardigd middel is, dat wil daarom nog niet zeggen dat ze niet tot de beweging behoren

Eén de van de fouten in je denken is dat je geen onderschijd weet te maken in vorm en inhoud.
Jij maakt van de mensen die geweld willen gebruiken allemaal dezelfden. Je plaatst zelfs Sharon, Bush en de mensen van het AEL op hetzelfde niveau.
Nochthans is er in het verhaal dat ze vertellen een fundamenteel verschil. De ene wil geweld gebruiken om te onderukken, de andere vindt dat het gerechtvaardigd om zich tegen dat geweld met geweld te verdedigen om zich te bevrijden.

Zelfs al ben je tegen het gebruik van geweld, je kan toch niet ontkennen dat er een duidelijk verschil is.
Reeds van in de oudheid zijn er mensen die geweld hebben gebruikt om zich te bevrijden van hun onderdukkers. Spartacus is er een mooi voorbeeld van. Je kan toch niet zeggen dat Spartacus eigenlijk dezelfde was als de Romeinse keizers.

Geweld kan een instrument zijn om te onderdrukken, en het kan een een instrument zijn om te bevrijden.

Je snapt ook niet dat er zo iets kan zijn als een bevrijdings theologie of een onderdrukkings theologie. Allemaal godsdienst dus achterlijk. Romero (priester die werd doodsheschoten omdat hij het verzet steunde) en de Paus, allemaal even achterlijk.
Voor de Islam is dat identiek. Er bestaan Islamisten die de werled orde verdedigen, die aan kan van Bush en de zijnen staan. En er bestaan Moslims die in de Koran een instrument zien om zich te bevrijden, om de kant van het volk te kiezen.

Allemaal veel te ingewikkeld voor Pinkje.

En Pinkje is één van de mensen die het meest elitair denkt die ik ken. Hij waarschuwt ons keer op keer op de gevaren van het gepeupel.

Van hem mogen de mensen van het AEL wel een beetje polemiseren en zelfs scherp zijn in huj teksten, zo lang ze zich maar niet richten tot het gewone volk.
Of hoe moet ik volgend zinnetje begrijpen:
"I believe, along with AEL, that polarisation of discussion can show where the real resistance lies, but I am always afraid when these linguistic tactics find their way into the minds of frustrated and less intelligent people. "

Die jongeren die alle dagen gediskrimneerd worden, die mogen de waarheid niet weten van Pinkje : veel te gevaarlijk.
De uitgeslotenen, uitgebuitenen, .... U weet wel al die mensen die gefrusteerd zijn omd dat ze hun dromen niet kunnen waarmaken.
Die mogen de waarheid niet weten : veel te gevaarlijk.

Het is alsof je een kolniale priester hoort spreken over Lumumba & Mulele, ....

Maar pinkje er zijn mensen die een andere wereld willen bouwen samen met die gefrusteerde mensen, voor die gefrusteerde mensen, door die gefrusteerde mensen. En er zijn zelfs mensen die denken dat die gefrustreerde mensen in staat zijn om zelf die wereld te bouwen. Die gefrusteerde mensen hebben niet de één of andere verlichte geest (al dan niet pink) nodig om hun denken in banen te leiden.

Nog iets Pinkje
Om de kloven te dichten heb je geen bruggen bouwers nodig.
Bruggenbouwers die maken het mischien voor een paar mensen mogelijk om van de ene kant van de kloof naar de andere kant te gaan.
Maar wat we willen is dat de kloof verwijnt.

Wij willen niet dat er een paar bruggen over het racisme heen gespannen worden.
We willen het racisme de wereld uit, en dat zal voor zeer veel mensen zeer confronterend zijn.
We willen geen brugje tussen Noorden en het Zuiden we willen dat de kloof verwijnt.

In solidariteit

han

PS : ik begrijp dat je vandaag niet tekende met je klassieke Love & respect, want uit de bijdragen spreekt bijzonder weinig respect.
(heb je de tekst gelezen??? Je hebt niet eens door dat je niet mij maar AEL citeert blijkbaar)

ik weet dat dit de meest absurde uitspraak is die hier al is verkondigd, maar ik zeg niet dat AEL een rechtse organisatie is, maar in de brief voel ik een ondertoon die iets zegt zoals: "als iets slecht is, mag je slechte dingen doen om dat slechte weg te doen..." maw, het doel heiligt de middelen...
welle, is dat niet wat franco, hitler en nog andere "extreem-rechtsen" verklaarden??
take a minute to think about it, zou ik zeggen...

laten we dus een vooral pacifistische beweging blijven
stan,

Op deze manier geraakt de eerste vraag van van 'pinkje' natuurlijk helemaal ondergesneeuwd. Ik vind dit een goede vraag.
Ik herhaal even:

* I still don't see very clearly how 'leftists, centrist religious revolutionaries and progressive nationalists' will be able to collaborate peacefully once the 'empire' has been struck down. Please please how can I visualise a New Society that is built by these three perspectives together? Decentralised cooperating networks where each (sub)culture has as much freedom as possible? How can we see a system of law & order, society structure, economy and politics that combines the thoughts of those parties mentioned above?
Personally I truly believe that there is a system that combines the aspirations and dreams of a big majority of people (searching for happiness and safety for their children), but I also believe that this kind of society demands that a lot of revolutionairies should first think a little stronger about that unity. Because I don't really 'feel' this message in most of the revolutionary talks. I hear a lot of (strategic?) polarisation of opinions, I hear demonisation of people, hatred and a lot more. And I fear many many scary nights of vengeance between all these different parties once the Empire is destroyed.
Secondly, maybe it is easier to find a connection between a 'religious revolutionary' and a 'progressive natiolist', than between a rebellious Antwerp Muslim youngster and a fascist-thinking (scared) elderly woman of the same city. Isn't it necessary to promote the connection also between the people in the streets, in stead of just focusing on strategic agreements between activists of different wings? It is in that perspective that I am not really convinced yet of AEL's true aims. Sometimes I think AEL goes to far in polarisation between ethnic groups, so far that making bridges between them becomes more and more difficult. Purity-discussions between 'field' and 'house' niggers in the time of malcolm X, enlarged the distance even more. The same is happening with AEL and it's position towards immigrant bridge-builders (?)

Waar heb jij dat gelezen, dat er opgeroepen wordt om slechte dingen te doen? Dat is wel je persoonlijke interpretatie, ik heb dat niet gelezen.

Ik lees dit nergens in deze verklaring, wel in de rhetoriek van Bush en zijn handlangers.

Pacifisme is een schitterende mannier van actievoeren, hier bij ons, voor bevolkingsgroepen die sterk genoeg staan om de overheid de wet te laten respecteren, het was bv. geen optie onder de nazi-bezetting, activisten die het bij geweldloos verzet hielden (sluikpers, diefstal van voedselbonnen om ondergedokenen te kunnen in leven houden, naar veiligheid smokkelen van joden en verraden verzetslieden) werden evengoed onthoofd, opgehangen of langzaam vermoord in een concentratiekamp. Toen ze gezocht werden namen den nazi's evengoed gijzelaars die ze doodschoten als zij naar de veiligheid gesmokkeld waren. Kan je dan zij die achterbleven en daardop radicaliseerden door sabottages te gaan plegen en Nazi's die niks goeds van plan waren uit de weg ruimden fascisten noemen. Geloof je echt dat wie zich verzet tegen onderdrukking een facist is?

Laat je afslachten of je bent een facist, is het dat wat je bedoeld?

Om in de sfeer van de afgelopen week te blijven, een uitsmijtertje uit "The guns of Brixton"
When they knock on your front door, how are you gonna come, with your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun ...

a bubble, a bubble, a bubble
we 're a bubble
we ain't looking for no trouble
but if you trouble trouble
we give it to you double

(ik vind de eerste vraag van 'pinkje' nog steeds relevanter)

Sorry, but this is a electiontric.

Who's gonna answer?

11-11-11? ATTAC? PVDA? GRASSROOTS? OXFAM?

This anti-globalist movement has no face or head. So how you can exept an answer?

And also, I thought for a long time that this AEL was a big organisation because of it's name. I was problaly not the only one. And they did get lot of media-attention by Dyab Abou Jahjah, who put a finger on a wound in this country and did get a discussion started about migrants and their rights and the racism in our society.

But they are not the only organization. Their are other organizations and we must not forget them or treat them like "send by the government">>> like some of the Berbers who did get in the media.
But they are not all like that.

And some things in this letter, hm, I don't see the AEL as THE voice os moslims but they say they do:

"As the Arab and Muslim voice in this anti-globalist movement, we feel that we have more responsibility towards our brothers and sisters in Palestine, Iraq and the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. We will make their voice heard and be the voice of the voiceless. An honest assertive voice. An independent voice, not an apologetic voice but a defiant voice. "

Sorry, but as organization writing a letter to " a movement" and in it's letter writing that the organization is the voice of... in "the movement", I don't know.

And also this:

"The Anti-globalist movement is now facing a choice: either it will turn into a sort of solidarity festival organised each year under the name of "social forum". Or it will develop itself into an international peoples' resistance against all forms of oppression, exploitation and injustice using all the means necessary to achieve its goals within the rule of law wherever that rule exists, and beyond the law in lawless states or segregationist states. There is no third choice, and there is no other time to make that choice."

Sorry, this "anti-globalist movement" is not the "Social Forum" like Davos is not The Economy.

The other choice is already happening.

The AEL is already a part of the "anti-globalist movement", but just not aware of it.

To see coöperation between the "anti-globalist movement" and muslims see:

http://indymedia.org/archive/features/current#6530
http://la.indymedia.org/

I you scroll a little bit down, sou will see features like on this site in where their are articles about people protesting against the arrestation of hunderds of moslims...

If I go to the page of the AEL , I find one little article about this with a link to the article of Reuters:
AEL: "http://electronicintifada.net/v2/humanrightswire.shtml#994"

"We are prepared to pay that price: Islam teaches us that making a stand against an oppressor might cost you your life, but that one moment of dignity is better than a life of submission to injustice."

Does this justifies the death of others, the dignity of one?

And who says this religious teaching is the right one? Their are 3-4 religions who are big and next to this, their are lot of other things where people can in believe. It's only a religion.

So don't believe everything you read. It caused already lots of harm.

And what positive things did the suicide-explosions made?

They show the revolt of the Palestine people but how many lives they saved? Did children get a better education because of it?

But sure they were good for some moments of dignity for some people.

"our support to the peoples' resistance should be UNCONDITIONAL"

Onvoorwaardelijk? Zet er uw handtekening onder, het contract schrijven we later wel. Zoiets?

"As the Arab and Muslim voice in this anti-globalist movement (...)"

tenzij je als arabische toevallig lesbisch bent natuurlijk, want dan valt de ael terug op het standpunt van het vlaams blok (zie de zevende dag/debat: Dyab-Philip),

.

han:
het is sectair,
niet sectariër, tenzij je onderhuids pinkje wil verwijten dat hij ariër is

met vriendelijke groet

"Mais tu es moins convaincant lorsqu'il s'agit de démontrer que seule la résistance pacifique fera reculer Bush, Sharon et leurs serviteurs. Gandhi, était un pacifiste, certes. Et l'Inde a gagné son indépendance à la même époque que Gandhi, certes. (...) Contrairement à ce que tu sembles sous-entendre, aucun des commentaires ci-dessus ne fait l'apologie des attentats contre des innocents. (...) . Les palestiniens, eux, ils crèvent. " (Sergio)

Dear Sergio, you have written some very good arguments. Let me say that I am not trying to prove that Gandhi's way is the ultimate way in our antiglobalist struggle (he was indeed helped by a variety of historical coincidences), but neither can the followers of physical violence prove this. So we need to ask ourselves deep questions, and look at the subject from all possible angles.
What I still think is that a lot of writers do speak out for the use of violence against innocents. At least they don't condemn it. Of course I understand the motivation of e.g. suicide bombers, of course I respect their despair and their struggle. But I have to ask myself: what can we learn from their violent actions for our common, global future struggle? A very important questions (that nobody seems to dare to answer): when is a person not innocent enough and ready to be killed? Should he be a collaborator (economic? political? military? betrayal? - the 4 variables in Belgium's repression law after WWII), a civil servant, an educator, a president, a lieutenant, a spy?
Secondly, the statement of AEL was not a statement about the middle east, but about the global Empire ( inspired by Hardt and Negri?). So what I ask myself is this: which strategies should we use in order to destroy the Empire, knowing that the Empire possesses every thinkable mode of weapon (nuclear, chemical, biological, conventional). Is it wise to start defeating the Empire with a military strategy, or does the Antiglobalist Movement have a recent history of original ideas that all search for ways of destroying the system from within without the use of open and bloody violence against persons?

"Pacifisme is een schitterende manier van actievoeren, hier bij ons, voor bevolkingsgroepen die sterk genoeg staan om de overheid de wet te laten respecteren, het was bv. geen optie onder de nazi-bezetting, activisten die het bij geweldloos verzet hielden (sluikpers, diefstal van voedselbonnen om ondergedokenen te kunnen in leven houden, naar veiligheid smokkelen van joden en verraden verzetslieden) werden evengoed onthoofd, opgehangen of langzaam vermoord in een concentratiekamp." (libby)
Dear libby, if you study the history of european resistance during wwII, it is very interesting to see that the use of open violence by the resistance was mostly only effective when the german army was already destabilised by the outside military threat (italy 1943, belgium autumn 1944, russia 1942), or when the land was very hard to occupy (yugoslavia, in combination with the original charism of tito). When you killed a German soldier in 1943, you knew at least five innocent civilians would be killed in answer (everybody knew this). The most effective thing the Belgian resistance did was preparing the way for the allied forces (by means of spying, sabotaging transport lines, using illegal press, etc) and hiding refugees. It was NOT effective to just go kill bad Germans. That was, at that time, counter-effective, and a good argument for the Germans to even be more repressive.
We have to ask ourselves: is it, at this moment in time and space, effective to use weapons against the global Empire?

Concerning Han's comments... well... I don't think I have to bother to much to write arguments against a text with no real arguments. Please Han: people are trying to have a discussion here. Most of your comments really don't ad much to the quality of the discussion. On the contrary. I wonder if it's a good thing for you (or your image) to write all these things down. They must make sense in your head, and of course, I understand that they come from an extreme polarized thinking, along with some hidden political motives, but please, try to read once in a while what people are trying to say, instead of immediately using your standard boring dialectic tricks (anti-rhetoric, anti-logical, and anti-reality) on each possible theme. Most of the time I already know what your comments will look like: it's kind of funny, in a tragical way.

thanks to all who try to think with a free mind
love to all
respect to all who try to love

steven aka pinkje

The Anti-globalist movement is now facing a choice: either it will turn into a sort of solidarity festival organised each year under the name of "social forum". Or it will develop itself into an international peoples' resistance against all forms of oppression, exploitation and injustice using all the means necessary to achieve its goals within the rule of law wherever that rule exists, and beyond the law in lawless states or segregationist states. There is no third choice, and there is no other time to make that choice. That fraction of a second separating recuperation and independence is now, the empire is showing its teeth, the resistance must do the same or fall. Let the people who believe that history is over and that the only way-out is to swim with the stream downhill and pray that it will change course due to their lamentation, let them swim with that stream until they drown. But we know better: we know that history will never stop. We can write it our self if we chose to, but above all, if we are prepared to pay the price. We are prepared to pay that price: Islam teaches us that making a stand against an oppressor might cost you your life, but that one moment of dignity is better than a life of submission to injustice.

What is you possition to this??

What are youre remarks on my comment?

""We are prepared to pay that price: Islam teaches us that making a stand against an oppressor might cost you your life, but that one moment of dignity is better than a life of submission to injustice."

Does this justifies the death of others, the dignity of one?

And who says this religious teaching is the right one? Their are 3-4 religions who are big and next to this, their are lot of other things where people can in believe. It's only a religion.

So don't believe everything you read. It caused already lots of harm.

And what positive things did the suicide-explosions made?

They show the revolt of the Palestine people but how many lives they saved? Did children get a better education because of it?

But sure they were good for some moments of dignity for some people."

And this: "To see coöperation between the "anti-globalist movement" and muslims see:

http://indymedia.org/archive/features/current#6530
http://la.indymedia.org/

I you scroll a little bit down, sou will see features like on this site in where their are articles about people protesting against the arrestation of hunderds of moslims...

If I go to the page of the AEL , I find one little article about this with a link to the article of Reuters:
AEL: "http://electronicintifada.net/v2/humanrightswire.shtml#994"

?????

My turn now, and guess who I am going to defend.

The topic here is about violence, and polarisation.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but who do you think is 'an enemy'? Like it is written here, it seems like every American is an enemy to you. This is ridiculous. You divide everything nicely between good and evil, and so you make the mistake that is responsible for a lot of terrible deeds in history. Crusades, inquisition, holocaust... You forget the huge grey zone of people who are not evil but who do things out of a lack of knowledge or vision on the consequences of their actions. By polarising them to join one camp or another in your minds, you misjudge them in a way I can only describe as being racist itself. This is the primary reason I have said goodbye to Indymedia, Han. Remember it. Not only are people who speak for violence part of the antiglobalisation movement, but also people like Pinkje or me who speak for violence only when there is NO other option. Tolerance can be a weapon too.

And when is violence justified? I believe that every human being has a right to violence in only one situation: when his life is at stake, he may defend himself. I believe that offensive action should be illegal, without agressors you have no wars - when every being can only defend himself no one attacks.

Is the situation in Belgium truly as far gone that you call social fora talking groups and advertise open war? I live in the Brugse Poort in Gent, and there are a lot of Turks there. I never have any problems with them. Pinkje lives there too. These people are nice. But if you start building a war in Antwerp, the chances on living together peacefully will grow slimmer. And you may get your war then.

But why all this war mongering? What good can come out of this good and evil stuff? You are building your own enemies. I hope there is a possibility that our movement is run by the force of wisdom instead of the power of hate.

And what about Gandhi, by the way? Tell me what is the stronger force: fighting a war for hundreds of years, like in Ireland, or the non-violent public resistance of Gandhi that got India independent in a matter of years???

I have got zero respect for this kind of talk, and know that I am not the only one at all.

Oei .... ik moet op één of andere lange teen van Pinkje hebben getrapt want hij slaat aan het schelden.
Neen Pinkje vind het niet nodig om op de aangedragen argumenten in te gaan, want ik heb de meest vreemde gedachten
" I understand that they come from an extreme polarized thinking, along with some hidden political motives" die bovendien " standard boring dialectic tricks (anti-rhetoric, anti-logical, and anti-reality) on each possible theme"

Polarizerend denken, dat mag dus niet van Pinkje.
In een wereld waar de 400 rijksten evenveel hebben als de 2.000.000.000 armsten, mag je niet polarizerend denken.
Neen je mag niet aanklagen dat die 400 rijksten er alles aan doen om die rijkdom te behouden en daarvoor dagelijks minstens 30.000 mensen vermoorden (of laten sterven van honger en ziektes).

Natuurlijk Pinkje denk ik polarizerend, ik wil de onrechtvaardigheden in de deze wereld aanklagen, ik wil ze onthullen, tonen, .... omdat men ze beter zou kunnen bestrijden.

Maar deze samenleving is nu eenmaal zeer gepolariseerd. Dat de tegenstellingen steeds groter worden, daar ben ik niet voor verantwoordelijk, dat is gewoon de aard van deze samenleving.
Steeds meer mensen komen in de armoede terecht, steeds minder mensen hebben een toekomst en een steeds kleinere groep eigent zich alle rijdommen toe.

Lees daarover een de broshure : De kloof tussen arme en rijk, van 11.11.11

Maar als de argumenten van pinkje op zijn, dat gaat hij gewoon over naar de klassiek truuk van verdachtmakingen : "hidden political motives." Kom op Pinkje, voor de dag ermee, wat is de verborgen politike agenda van Han? Wat zijn die verborgen politike motieven??
Een andere wereld?
Het verzet steunen?
De uitbuiting & uitsluiting aanklagen?
Mobiliseren tegen de oorlog?

Ik moet zeggen dat je vandaag laag valt Pinkje, dat zijn we van jou niet gewoon.

In soldariteit

.

You guys just don't get it do you? who is talking about a war in Antwerp? The Vlaams Blok is wating a war in Antwerp and talking about Moslim invasion and about deportation of People like me who were born and raised in this country. What do you call ethic cleansing? I call it an act of war. and if whoever will be on my door oneday to deportate me i am gonna try todeportate him/her from this earth.
Now I think Pinkje and guido and the rest of the a priori anti-AEL demagogues did not read the text. Or o purpose did not read some key parts of it. I will try to help them because I do understand that not everybody is as talented, please show me where we are calling for anything but self-defence: "Arabs do not have a choice but to struggle on three levels. First against American invasion, second against Zionist occupation, and third against most of the Arab regimes that are nothing but puppets in the hands of the Americans and the Zionists. It is a triple combat for freedom, unity and social justice that makes the Arab National struggle what it is: a national liberation struggle."...... " so first fight back and then philosophise about it. Strike back first and assess it morally later" Strike back and fight back implies that someone is striking you first and fihting you first. the term resistance is only used when you are agressed first. Maybe someone should think of writing a handbook called "resistance for dummies" I think it is needed.
"Just as the aggression is globalising the resistance must also globalise" once again for less gifted among you RESISTANCE IS AGAINST AGRESSION AND NOYT AGRESSION.

"Wherever we are attacked with force and brutality, we should hit back with equal force and brutality. At the same time when we are faced with a more subtle form of war, we should react as subtly and intelligently. We have to resist with the gun when we are attacked with the gun, and resist with words, and ideas and demonstrations and elections and strikes and civil disobedience wherever we get the chance to do so. " Isn't oit very clear herte that resistance with the gun applies only when we are attacked with the gun? where did you miss the point? it surely beats me?????
"Just like oppression and exploitation is mutating into many shapes and faces, resistance should keep up and also express itself through many faces and ways. " where did you read that violene is THE ONLY WAY? we are clearly stating that we have to use ALL ways to resist!
"The Anti-globalist movement is now facing a choice: either it will turn into a sort of solidarity festival organised each year under the name of "social forum". Or it will develop itself into an international peoples' resistance against all forms of oppression, exploitation and injustice using all the means necessary to achieve its goals within the rule of law wherever that rule exists, and beyond the law in lawless states or segregationist states." Can't you read this one and think about it? you liked to forget the last nuance of this paragraph? why did you react as if we did not clarify it? maybe you have another reason not to see this ? or maybe you already made your choice and you are a fesitivity anti-globalist just in the movement for the sake of the male and female bounding in a happy sunny shiny demonstration after a very enriching meeting of the social forum.... that's you choice, but we indeed are calling for polarisation, either you are with Bush-Blair-Sahron either you are against them. You can not stand somewhere in the middel... or can you?

Wel, ik heb de tekst wel gelezen ...en ik vind het een vlijmscherpe analyse van voor welke keuze de `beweging` nu staat.

Mara

"Now I think Pinkje and guido and the rest of the a priori anti-AEL demagogues"

deeply sorry but I defended the AEL on this site.

"did not read the text. Or o purpose did not read some key parts of it."

I did and I asked questions but because of asking this questions I'm already an anti-AEL demagogue, nice way of communicating.

Who's the demagogue here?

"or maybe you already made your choice and you are a fesitivity anti-globalist just in the movement for the sake of the male and female bounding in a happy sunny shiny demonstration after a very enriching meeting of the social forum"

Sorry, this is generalising of everybody who makes critics about AEL.

"either you are with Bush-Blair-Sahron either you are against them." Forgotten, Saddam.

Bovenstaande pipo (niet Guido) vraagt in een 'open brief' aansluiting tot het andersglobalisme en begint dan verontwaardigt te vloeken op ons traag begrip als we het niet met alles eens zijn.

Denk je nu wérkelijk dat dit een eerlijkere wereld zal zijn als iedereen oog om oog en tand om tand zou reageren? Wie is dan de onderdrukker en wie de onderdrukte?

Eén ding vertelt de geschiedenis duidelijk: in dergelijke burgeroorlogen zijn het altijd de armen die het onderspit delven. Denk éérst na wat je wilt!

Maar dit:

'Wherever we are attacked with force and brutality, we should hit back with equal force and brutality. At the same time when we are faced with a more subtle form of war, we should react as subtly and intelligently.'

Dit slaagt werkelijk op niks. Als dat is waar je 'rechtvaardige wereld' voor moet staan, dan heb ik je liever niet in mijn buurt hoor. Je hebt me een 'dummie' genoemd en het dan opnieuw geplakt als zijnde een heilig mantra. En je noemt Pinkje ook vanalles, maar heb jij ooit toeschouwers van je acties van ontroering doen huilen? Noem maar iemand anders een imbeciel.

Jongens. Geef mij maar Tarek Fraihi. Met deze demagogie kan je verdorie zijn verstandige woorden over integratie niet meer horen. Ooit trouwens 'Van blok tot bouwsteen' van Jan Blommaert gelezen?

't Is hier verloren moeite Pinkje. See ya.

WITH ael, pinkje, sp-a, germany, the pope, pvda, zweistein, maarten, agalev, yves desmet, guido, cardinal danneels, han and many,many others
AGAINST the policy of sharon, bush and blair,

make love, not war

in 2003.

I read the tecxt also and it's the first time I have problems with a text of the AEL.

And when I ask questions, I'm a demagogue and anti-AEL.

I'm noy gonna generalise the whole AEL because of an aggressive comment of somebody who names himself AELer.

I post this letter to indymedia.org because posting a letter to a whole movement on one website is not really asking it to the whole movement.

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=226004

Hopefully the AEL wil get positive responses from in the States by email.

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=226004

Arabs and muslims have not spearheaded antiglobalization. If they did, they would realize that it is not about antiglobalization, it's about just and equitable globalization. The only roles I see them leading are more oppression and religious bigotry. They seek to replace the current trend of oppression with their own religious, political and economic elitism and oppression. If they are so popular, then why do islamic nations institute repressive rules? There are choices other than fighting fire with fire. Stating that this is the only choice clearly indicates that they do not represent the mindset of many people struggling for just and equitable globalization. The arabs and muslims have a choice, either they can humbly join in solidarity witht their sisters and brothers seeking just and equitable globalization, or they can fight a death match with the elites in a war for economic control.

Wat? hebben jullie onze tekst als een soort solitatie brief begrepen of wa? mannekes toch...; The Arab and Mulsim peoples ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ANTI GLOBALISATION MOVEMENT IN THIS WORLD!!!!! de anti-glovalisation movement moet aansluiting zoeken tot deze verzetvoerende volkeren ja........ En Maarten jongen, jammer genoeg voor jou maar je bent niet in staat om te kiezen wie names ons migranten jongeren spreekt. Tuurlijk heb je liever een communist zoals gij als spreekbuis maar onze gemeenschap is eerst en vooral Muslmi whether ypou like it or not, en daarom kan een Marxist zoals onze vriend Fraihi en zijn radiks niet veel binnen onze gemeenschap vertegenwoordigen. Dus wat ga jij doen? ons verbannen omdat we de heilige woorden van Marx niet volgen?
miljardnondjedeeeeeeeeeeu
PS: Ik ben geen pipo maar een pipa als dat bestaan.....

Hèhè. Ik ben een marxist. Weer iets wat ik op mijn CV kan schrijven.

Ol raidi - tijd om te gaan feesten in 't stad. Gelukkig nieuwjaar, aan iedereen in deze discussie en aan alle mensen van goede wil (zonder dat godsdienst daarbij een rol speelt)

Een beetje begrip voor elkaar a.u.b.

Ik offer mijn nieuwjaar op om dit jaar niet op zo'n manier te moeten afsluiten. Ik begrijp in deze alle standpunten die hier werden vertolkt.

De palestijnen zijn er het hart van in dat hun landgenoten strategisch worden uitgemoord, door de regering Sharon, geback-uped door de Verenigde Staten van Amerika. Dit is reeds decennialang aan de gang, sinds eind de jaren '60, zo ongeveer toen ik geboren werd. Ik heb enkele mensen van AEL geruime tijd geleden één keer ontmoet, toen de eerste protesten in België uitbraken na wat o.a. door de V.N. werd omschreven als genocide in Jenin. Ik heb met hen meegebruld dat Bush en Sharon "Assassins" waren. Tot zover sta ik hier nog steeds achter.

Ik heb sindsdien deze site archive.indymedia.be leren kennen, en heb er af en toe zelf op gepubliceerd, en af en toe comments op gepost. Een van die artikels is "Ecologie en de lijm tussen culturen." Oorspronkelijk gepost rond 9 juli 2002, op aanvraag geherpubliceerd op 30 december 2002.

Ook ik ben kind van mijn tijd, en ik was er niet echt happig op om in zo'n heet hangijzer als het middenoosten de held te gaan spelen. Nu zie ik echter dat de boel in 't slop geraakt. Ik ben absoluut geen voorstander van geweld. Ik kan echter wel begrijpen, net zoals ALLE voorgaande commentatoren, dat er geweld werd en wordt gebruikt.

Van de voorgeschiedenis ben ik niet helemaal op de hoogte, maar wel voldoende om te weten dat de voorgaande regeringen Netanyahu en Barak mijn maag al deden keren. Zij waren met hun nederzettingenpolitiek en disrespect t.o.v. Palestijnen in de vluchtelingenkampen bezig de hele regio te destabiliseren, wat van hen voor mij slechte leiders maakt. Dat Sharon werd herverkozen nadat hij de genocide van Shabra en Shatila had veroorzaakt, was alleen maar olie op het vuur.

Na de frauduleuze verkiezingen in 2000 in de V.S. grepen Bush en Cheney de macht, de eerste ‘zoon van'en almachtige oliebaron, de tweede ‘koning van de wapenindustrie'. Toen deze links vlak na de verkiezingen aan het oppervlak kwamen, was het kwaad al geschied.
De rest liet zich alleen maar raden, de wereld zou verzinken in vervuiling en geweld, zoals deze korte geschiedenis nu al heeft aangetoond.

Na de unilaterale opzegging van heel wat gemeenschappelijke akkoorden waaronder het milieuverdrag van Kyoto, werd de wereld steeds meer door de V.S. gegijzeld. Hun wil werd wet, omdat geld nooit als voorheen het énige beslissingscriterium werd. Hoewel ik niks met Al Qaeda te maken heb en me altijd verre van terrorisme gehouden heb, verwonderden de aanslagen op het World Trade Centre en het Pentagon me geenszins. Het stond er alleen maar "aan te komen". Wie de wil van de meerderheid van de wereldbevolking (Kyoto-milieuverdrag) negeert en op gelijk welk ander vlak enkel "business as usual" wil, kan die daar zomaar mee wegkomen? Want niet voor 't een of 't ander, maar milieuproblemen hebben al meer mensenlevens geëist dan in enige officiële statistiek is terug te vinden. Dat dat de kersverse regering Bush volledig is ontgaan, is volledig voor hun rekening. Zij dragen de volledige verantwoordelijkheid voor het onrecht dat de wereld vandaag wordt aangedaan door de polarisering van het geweld (Either you're with us, OR you're with the enemy). Dit staat geen enkele eerlijke en democratische discussie toe, en in het geval Afghanistan liet de wereld de V.S. nog begaan, uit angst voor represailles (en deels uit begrip) maar verder kan ècht niet meer. Verder gaan dan dat zou gewoon onmenselijk zijn. Dat snappen de meeste mensen, zelfs al zou het "terrorisme" nog niet uitgeroeid zijn, zij richten nu hun pijlen op democratische landen als Venezuela, waarvan de armere bevolking hun president Chavez op handen draagt voor zijn sociale verwezenlijkingen. Nog geen half jaar geleden werd daarom –op initiatief van de V.S.- een (mislukte) staatsgreep gepleegd, omwille van olie. Nu ook Irak (de tweede olieleverancier ter wereld) geen nieuwe fouten maakt proberen ze het opnieuw in Venezuela (de vierde olieleverancier), omdat aan de "American Way of Life" niet geraakt mag worden, inclusief vervuiling en verspilling. Dat de meerderheid van de burgers het daarmee totaal oneens zijn laat de leiders steenkoud. Vergis u niet: ook in Amerika zijn vele dissidente stemmen, alleen staat hun corrupte overheid hen geen spreekrecht toe. Remember: Al Gore haalde meer stemmen dan Bush, die met zijn frauduleuze overwinning wereldwijd kritiek oogstte. Gore schreef ook een boek over hoe de industrie moest worden aangepast om aan minimale ecologische criteria te voldoen. Hij hàd gewonnen, maar Bush heeft hem die zege ontnomen. Al dit om u te zeggen dat er ook onder Amerikanen gewone mensen zijn die maar wàt graag zouden hebben dat het met dit horror-toneel spoedig gedaan zou zijn.

Wat ik nu eigenlijk wil zeggen, spaar gewone mensen zoals u en ik, zij willen alleen maar vrede, sommige zijn misschien niet goed bezig, maar toch voor rede vatbaar. Schiet uw pijlen alleen op diegenen die duidelijk tonen dat ze niet zinnens zijn anderen te respecteren.

Ik heb hier een boekje in mijn bibliotheek, het is de Koran, en ik moet het zeggen als het is, daarin staat dat je geen enkele Christen, Jood of ongelovige mag vertrouwen, en dat de enige ware godsdienst de Islam is. Mag ik even vragen om een redelijk antwoord waarin ik vertrouwen kan hebben?

En nu ga ook ik mijn neus buiten steken, Gelukkig nieuwjaar aan iedereen!

Let these first hours of 2003 be a time to sit back and relax. Look around and smile, look ahead and make wishes.
In these hard times, it might seem at certain moment that danger, the enemy is lurking everywhere. It's hard to trust people these days. So hard to recognize good intentions when almost everybody speaks with other words and meanings and images in their head. People are afraid, and misunderstand each other constantly. Hope seems to fail. Uglyness, cruelty and injustice are all around us.

I am still convinced that we share a lot of those feelings. You put your hope on a future where everybody thinks along the same lines, speaks with the same metaphors. I put my hope on a world where people can still misunderstand each other from time to time, but without the possibility that it can always end in bloodshed. That is my idea about a (the only?) way of achieving a collaborating, peaceful, hopeful, beautiful world society in the future. Catholics might call it The Kingdom of Heaven, maybe some Buddhists call it Nirvana, some Muslims might also have some dream about a earthly paradise.I have my vision, and that doesn't have to be in opposition with your visions. Let everybody dream its dreams and live in peace with or without each other. But without hurting each hother. Because Allah speaks to us in a thousand tongs, a million images, a billion souls. A society based on the Golden Rule: Never do anything to another what you don't want that others do unto you.
I find this divine thought back in ninety five percent of the AEL-text. My only remarks, as mentioned above were concerning two possible physical manifestations that could be a result when I follow this ael-vision. Because I have the deepest respect for the author of the text, I don't want to be hypocritical uncritical, but show him my respect by asking to explain in further detail what he tried to tell the readers of the text. The two topics mentioned above are about true and deeply felt concerns on my part about the future of the, our, Movement. I think it is worth to think about.

Salem Aleikum
Steven aka Pinkje

"...ik vind het een vlijmscherpe analyse van voor welke keuze de `beweging` nu staat." (Mara)

Ik heb helaas nog niet begrepen om welke keuze het hier gaat. Dat solidariteit allerbelangrijkst is, daar ben ik van overtuigd. Maar is solidariteit hetzelfde als het onvoorwaardelijk meeheulen met de oorlogsretoriek tegen een gemeenschappelijke vijand? Ofwel oorlogsheld ofwel lafaard?
Is dat die keuze? Ik heb het niet zo goed begrepen.

(Ja. De mens is gedoemd om keuzes te maken. Niet om God aan zijn zijde te krijgen. Maar omdat hij God niet is.)

but then really read it, okay.........

Ik heb de tekst 10 keer gelezen. Ze is krijgshaftig van toon en er staan veel militaire termen in. Ik blijf het moeilijk hebben met militaire terminologie, zeker wanneer die binnen de zelfde tekst de ene keer metaforisch moet worden gelezen en de andere keer niet. Dat is nogal verwarrend.
"Liever vijf minuten laf dan een leven lang dood", luidt een soldatengezegde. Bang zijn om te vechten kan ook een kwaliteit zijn. Het doet ons nadenken over mogelijke alternatieven.

There was a lot of response on the open letter written by AEL a few days ago. What surprises me though, is the harsh reaction of the person who posted this letter, on the people who responded to it.

Let me put it straight: not all people who have moral problems with AEL, are racists, fascists, zionists or Americans. They are just people who have their own opinion about it - which is already a huge step further than most people here. But it is wrong to verbally attack people who do not agree with you! AEL is a rather small movement with a radical point of view on some political (and also racial!) questions. Saying that all Americans are bad, is as racist as stating that all Muslims are extremists and terrorists.

Following statements are copied from the AEL website. They are - according to my humble opinion - very acceptable. Unfortunately, in the text written by 'AEL' on this website a few days ago, AEL shows its real face by saying 'violence against violence' and 'acting before philosophing':

"There is something in our Arab-Islamic culture that can not sink that low, that rejects to become as barbaric as our enemy. (...) But at the same time, we have a very deeply rooted value, both religious and cultural, that a "soul" is sacred and should never be killed unless in self-defense or when executing a criminal murderer."

"How violence will breed violence that will breed more violence. It is really terrible that criminals keep on killing civilians in name of avenging the civilians that other criminals killed."

"But please, stop causing "collateral damage" it is like the pest, if you start it, it will definitely come back to your home."

If these were the true values of AEL, together with other peaceful points of view, I might have supported this movement. I totally agree with their 'integration without assimilation' policy, and I believe for 100% in an independent, free and peaceful Palestinian state. But I also believe in democracy, and this is only possible when dialogues are held and radicalism (whether right, left, Catholic, Muslim, white, black,...) is not around.

May 2003 bring us all a happy, fresh and above all a peaceful year without ethnic, religious and racial conflicts and a crushing defeat for Vlaams Blok and Front National in the upcoming elections!

Een verdere bijdrage aan deze discussie kan je vinden op http://www.gebladerte.nl/10881f56.htm "Arabisch nationalisme helpt migranten niet vooruit". Dit artikel gaat over de AEL in het algemeen, en niet zozeer over deze brief.

Niet dat ik de hele analyse deel. Neen. Ik vind dat Krebbers veel te veel de AEL-beweging ophangt aan een persoon en het ontgaat hem dat er sprake is van diversiteit en dat binnen de AEL ook progressieve elementen bestaan die voorbij gaan aan het Arabisch-nationalistische vertoog van de frontman van AEL (tenminste, dat hoop ik). Ook ontgaat het de auteur van dit stuk dat veel moslima's zich juist verzetten tegen de dominantie van een mannen-cultuur. Daarnaast heeft de auteur een omlijnd kader van wat bevrijdingsstrijd in moet houden. Een ieder die daar niet aan voldoedt, is fout. Toch denk ik dat dit stuk een aantal kanttekeningen plaatst.

Verder is ook op indymedia.nl een discussie gestart over de AEL en hun open brief.
"Steun aan arabische nationalisten?" http://indymedia.nl/nl/2002/12/8242.shtml

Daarnaast wil ik als bijdrage aan de discussie op deze site zeggen dat ik het dom vindt van de AEL dat zij op zijn minst de suggestie wekken en af en toe ook expliciet uitroepen dat

1) heel veel problemen in de wereld gerelateerd zijn aan het zionisme (alsof dit de bron van kwaad in de wereld is - dat is het niet, want dat zijn onderliggende sociale relaties). (En mocht je van oordeel zijn dat zionisme dan manifestatie is van de onderliggende onderdrukkende sociale relaties, dan kan ik je zeggen dat ik veel meer manifestaties ken die net zo belangrijk en onderdrukkend zijn, zoals het alledaagse racisme in Belgie, maar ook de dieren die in onze landen via massamoord en bio-industrie op ons bord terechtkomen)

2) je pas na de strijd moet debateren en moreel moet oordelen. Dat is dus, om een voorbeeld uit de revolutionaire geschiedenis te geven, een wezenlijk kenmerk van het zo genoemde "democratisch centralisme" dat communes in Rusland in 1917 ten gronde heeft gericht en massamoord en zuivering vanaf de leiding (Lenin, Stalin, enz) mogelijk maakte.

3) de oorlog tegen Saddam niets te maken heeft met het feit dat die man Arabier of moslim is. "It is now more than ever clear that we are on the verge of an all-out military attack on Iraq and the Arab and Muslim worlds." Waarom is de oorlog tegen Irak nu ook weer meteen een oorlog tegen Arabische en moslimwereld. Wat een gelul zeg. Houd je retoriek achter je, wil je? Straks gaan we Saddam nog zitten verdedigen ook, en dan is het nog maar een kleine stap om ook nog te zeggen dat hij frontman van de Arabieren is.

Tot slot: de strijd vind dagelijks plaats. Er is niet een gegeven moment dat die "klaar" of "gestart" is. De 'revolutie' is een dagelijks proces die ik voer als ik in de bus zit en met mensen praat, als ik naar de groenteboer op de hoek ga, die ik ervaar als ik aan directe actie ( = nieuwe vorm van politiek) doe, als ik een discussie voer met een politicus, enz. Die revolutie is dus geen revolutie van geweld jegens andere personen of dieren (soms wel tegen bezittingen, zoals wapentuig...) Doel en middelen moeten wel in overeenstemming zijn. En je moet andere mensen in hun waarde laten (iets wat hier op indy.be weinig gedaan wordt).

Tip aan allen die zich druk maken op Indymedia : in (een tak van ) de psychologie wordt woede, kwaadheid, gezien als een verdringingsmechanisme om oudere trauma's en pijnen buiten het bewuste te houden. Ik geef een voorbeeld in concreto : Je kon nooit op begrip rekenen van je ouders, nooit sloegen je argumenten aan, eigenlijk luisterden ze niet, wat wijst op het feit dat je op dat vlak niet gerespecteerd werd en eigenlijk niet bemind werd wat een diepe pijn in je heeft achtergelaten--> op discussies op Indymedia probeer je regelmatig uit te leggen dat het kapitalisme weg moet en dat de geschiedenis en de actualiteit (zie Venezuela) aantonen dat je dat niet kan zonder geweld. Maar steeds weer dezelfde personen geven kritiek of maken je af met argumenten die voor jou geen steek houden. Deze situatie is een symbool in het heden die de oude pijn van het niet begrepen en bemind worden door je ouders naar boven haalt. Als kind heb je je beschermd door diverse verdringingsmechanismen waarvan woede er één is. Die mechanismen gebruiken we nog steeds in ons leven als volwassenen zo beginnen we te schelden in de discussie of op de man te spelen op een emotionele wijze. (Zie Alice Miller, het drama van het begaafde kind. Jean Jenson : De ontdekking van het ware Zelf).

We hebben de neiging altijd te denken dat we gelijk hebben om kwaad te zijn maar dat is niet zo. En dat kan je zien aan het feit dat verschillende mensen heel anders reageren op eenzelfde prikkel. Sommigen reageren woest op bepaalde stompzinnige reacties, anderen zijn daar heel verdrietig om,
enz. Vaak begin ik ook een reactie vanuit mijn kwaadheid te schrijven, terwijl ik weet dat dit geen sereen debat mogelijk maakt. De andere gaat meteen ook de persoonlijke toer opgaan en het inhoudelijke verdwijnt op de achtergrond.
Daarom, als ik mijn bijdrage herlees laat ik er alle venijnige woorden en zinnen uit om mij te concentreren op de inhoud (ten minste ik probeer). Woede afreageren geeft een kort goed gevoel maar uiteindelijk verliest iedereen op Indymedia.

Let wel dit is geen pacifistische preek : woede is perfect legitiem (als biologisch overlevingsmechanisme) telkens wanneer we in onze fysische integriteit bedreigd worden of dat van onze dierbaren. Het zorgt voor een soms levensreddende vlucht of fight back reactie. De woede van de onderdrukte volkeren
is uiteraard geen psychisch verdringingsmechanisme. En by the way je kan vanuit een diepe droefheid om zoveel miserie de revolutie doen (ja,ja,...gewapend).

Petra

Ik ben niet zo'n goede lezer van Engelse teksten, dus het kan daaraan liggen, maar ik lees in de open brief van AEL vooral een rechtvaardiging van geweld. AEL gaat ervan uit dat de oorlog al begonnen is en dat we dus als brave anti-globalistische soldaten geen andere keus hebben dan ons naar de Arabische loopgraven te spoeden, en vlug wat (elke seconde tijdverlies moet vermeden worden).

Ook zie ik dat AEL pleit voor het bestrijden van geweld met gelijke wapens ("oog om oog" in de dodelijkste militaire betekenis).

ik heb ook de discussie op de Nederlandse site gelezen en heb er 2 citaten gevonden die ik zelf 100% wil onderschrijven:

"Dit is het ene imperialisme vervangen door de andere.
Ni Bush, ni Allah!"

en

"AEL, ik vertrouw jullie niet en daarmee spreken jullie noch voor mij, noch voor de vele arabische en islamitische vrienden wier meningen en bedoelingen ik ken.
Ik raad met name ook mijn atheistische, anarchistische, marxistische, heidense, hippe, suffe, jonge, oude, homoseksuele, feministische, ja hier en daar zelfs christelijke en ach jee, joodse VRIENDEN af deze club te vertrouwen.

Een palestijn"

Ik weiger bovendien ten stelligste te handelen (al of niet in loopgrachten) zonder eerst de morele consequenties af te wegen. En ik hoop dat de meerderheid van de anti-globalisten zich nooit zullen laten meeslepen door de immorele oorlogslogica die in de vorige eeuw tientallen miljoenen onschuldige mensen de dood heeft ingejaagd.

Zelf ben ik geen palestijn, maar een atheïstische sympathisant van de palestijnse strijd tegen het fascistische Sharon-regime en tevens ben ik een gezworen vijand van elk racisme en van elke poging om allochtonen te criminaliseren.

(Maar ik vrees -- neen ik weet zeker -- dat de onverdraagzamen die deze discussie aan het vervuilen zijn snel klaar zullen staan met hun veroordeling van mijn standpunt.)

Laten we kost wat kost proberen de USA te stoppen en niet te doen alsof we eindelijk zelf het recht hebben om oorlogszuchtige taal te spuien.

these are some remarks that came to my mind reading the text of the AEL. reactions are welcome

Dear friends,

I've read the open letter, and now it's my turn to write to you, my writing is, however, not really an answer, more a demand for clarifications, in asking these questions, and giving my opinion on some aspects, I hope to get to a better understanding of what the AEL is proposing, and I hope that you'll appreciate these remarks.

As I see it the red line in the text is the statement that arabs and muslims are under attack by the empire, and that the real anti-globalisation movement is the resistance by arabs and muslims in Iraq and Palestine, and that therefore the ones who call themselves anti-globalists in the West must support the resistance, a resistance which must use all means necessary to overthrow that evil empire.
You are urging the anti-globalists to make a choice, and you urge us to make it fast:
"The difference between victory and defeat will be determined within a fraction of a second. That fraction of a second can have implications that will last for centuries, so first fight back and then philosophise about it.".

I do follow your analysis on the first part of the open letter:
Arabs and muslims are indeed (but not them alone!!) under attack by ‘the empire' headed by the American establishment and have to fight of "first against American invasion, second against Zionist occupation, and third against most of the Arab regimes that are nothing but puppets in the hands of the Americans and the Zionists".
But I have to raise some questions concerning the methods and the goal of this struggle. You could say that I do want to philosophise about it first.

"If you're fighting monsters, see to it that you don't become a monster yourself"

This is one part of the text that I do have problems with:
"Dear friends, the Arab people do not have any choice but to fight fire with fire and violence with violence. Therefore, our support to the peoples' resistance should be unconditional and outspoken despite the ethical and moral dilemmas that might face us. The difference between victory and defeat will be determined within a fraction of a second. That fraction of a second can have implications that will last for centuries, so first fight back and then philosophise about it. Strike back first and assess it morally later. We are not facing a moral enemy, so let us not be the victims of our morality.
The only weapons we have sometimes are the bitter desperation and the urge of survival. In places like Palestine and Iraq this is the only logic that must prevail. Resistance in places like these should be as reckless as the onslaught it is fighting or it will be mercilessly crushed. Moreover, in this context neutrality is not an option, neutrality means supporting the aggressor. So what side are you on? What is your choice? "

As I have read much about the psychology of nazism I will use this example to elaborate on this statement, (with this example I do not mean to call the AEL nazi's or something like that). In my opinion the elements responsible for the holocaust were not personal psychological traits, but a system of scapegoating and shifting of moral assessment. For example: killing a seven year old jewish boy was possible under the nazi's as a result of blaming jews for the moral and physical decline of the arian race, and by making a system where you did not have to concider the ethical consequences of an act: a soldier arresting the jewish boy thought: I'm only following my orders, a clerck signing the decision to transport this jewish boy to an extermination camp might think: I'm not personally murdering this boy, I'm just doing my desk-job. In this manner ethical assessing was considered as anti-autoritarian and not loyal.
This postponing of morally assessing the act was supported by a feeling of urgency: we must secure the future of the white race before it's to late

By using this example I do want to urge you to make a moral assessment, because if you use the same means as the oppressors, you become an oppressor.
Especially the phrase ‘we are not facing a moral enemy' is striking, because that would be what Israeli hawks or George Bush would use to defend an attack on iraq
Now I (sitting in my comfortable chair in Belgium, I know) would like to make that moral assessment: flying an aeroplane into the wtc was certainly spectacular but if you think of the innocent people who died in the building, including several hundreds of muslims it is hard to say that it is morally justified.
Bombing and boycotting a country when its people are on the verge of famine is not morally justified either.
Bombing a seven year old girl in an Israeli bus is not justified either: this girl has not reached the age to make a decision or to be aware that she is supporting a colonist regime, so the only reason why someone would want to blow up this child is because she is jewish (or am I wrong??)
Because of this moral assessment I would for example not support the afghan taliban regime against the American aggression, but I would support for example the RAWA in their struggle against the American intervention and the oppressive taliban regime.

After all making decisions have to be well considered and assessed, and I refuse to believe that there are only two sides to choose between, after all dualisms (this is one for HAN SOETE) leads to generalisations and mistakes:: would we support the usa or the nazi's during the second world war, as a matter of fact America was already then starting it's empire, which side would you be on??

Does this mean that I am against the use of violence?
No: I do think that violence is justified in some cases, but it has to be carefully assessed if the use of violence is justified, and for violence to be justified I think it would be violence directed directly against an aggressor (in the Israelian example: the Israeli soldier shooting at stonethrowing boys) and not against civilians.
But, As a personal opinion I would say: there are other non-violent manners to resist also, and these have to be explored also.

Does this mean that I do not support the palistinian and arab resistance:
No: I try to do my best in supporting the AEL and to defend them in discussions against prejudices, I wrote to the justice department explaining my objections against the detention of Mr Abou Jahjah, I participated in several meeting and demonstrations against the war and against the colonisation of Palestine, what more can I do? Go and join Hezbollah????

And what will we do afterwards?

"The AEL is an anti-globalist movement by definition. We are the victims of this globalisation and we are determined to bring about a new globalisation that is that of justice and welfare and not that of exploitation and oppression. As the Arab and Muslim voice in this anti-globalist movement, we feel that we have more responsibility towards our brothers and sisters in Palestine, Iraq and the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. We will make their voice heard and be the voice of the voiceless. An honest assertive voice. An independent voice, not an apologetic voice but a defiant voice."

"The Anti-Globalisation movement should be that of the resistance against oppression and dispossession, for equality and justice regardless of the analysis one makes to fight for these noble goals."

In this part I would like to raise some questions concerning what makes an movement anti-globalist, and what the alternatives are that the AEL raises.
As I understand your text an anti-globalist movement should be "the resistance against oppression and dispossession, for equality and justice."

What about supporting movements that do not share the second part of this definition: for example: should we support Sadam Houssein, because he fights American oppression, or should we choose not to support him because he has driven hundreds of Kurds into death??
Should we support The taliban because they oppose the empire, or should we support the RAWA because they oppose the empire and the oppressive taliban regime????
Should we support Hamas if their alternative is the extermination of jews, and the installation of an Islamic regime.
(on the stopUSA manifestation, the AEL had a banner removed because it had ‘ni bush ni saddam' erop, why was it removed??)
I have met several refugees from iran and afghanistan, all were muslims, and all were against a war with Afghanistan, but they were opposed to certain Islamic regimes, like in Iran , because they wanted the liberty to dance.

I would like to state also that for me an anti-globalist movement should also be an anti-national movement: states, in whatever form are oppressing
In my vision after the victory against the empire a world is possible where people are nog longer jugged by their nationality or origin, and so it would have to be possible for jewish people to live alongside Palestinians because the both are human beings, and their origins do not matter anymore.
On a manifestation in Ghent in support of the second intifada last year a friend of mine translated one of the slogans in Arabic as following "force the jews back into the sea", this is not really an idea about the future in Palestine that I had in thought or that I endorse.

So my question: please do elaborate on your alternatives, on your visions for an ideal civilisation.

On the issue of religious nationalists

I would really like to learn more about the views of religious nationalists: can someone give me an some details on their views according to society??
What I see in the media are people who do hold conservative visions on society, but I sure hope that there are non-conservative religious voices.

And for now

I come to the end of my remarks (this text is already to long) and now it is my turn to make my position clear:
You wrote "Just like oppression and exploitation is mutating into many shapes and faces, resistance should keep up and also express itself through many faces and ways. Wherever we are attacked with force and brutality, we should hit back with equal force and brutality."
I am wholeheartly supporting the first part of this claim: I do think that there must be many faces to the resistance, but I am wholeheartly rejecting the second part: you can not justify using anti-democratic means to defends yourselves against the anti-democratic empire, because then you'll turn anti-democratics yourselves
I can only hope that people everywhere in the world will come to their senses and in the meanwhile:
In a world of hate, love is a revolution

(on the stopUSA manifestation, the AEL had a banner removed because it had ‘ni bush ni saddam' erop, why was it removed??) >>>question by Manu.

From one of the people that made/carried the banner:

"The slogan was in my opinion not at all calling to kill Bush and Saddam 'in the name of Islam'. I hadn't read that into that statement, although thanks to your contribution I understand the reaction of the security people better."

" Dear Guido,

indeed the banner can be read differently and it's more likely most will read it the way you read it as what I read behind it."

the rest on: http://archive.indymedia.be/front.php3?article_id=37928

'ni bush ni saddam' is not just, is was:

"Dead to Bush and Saddam - Islam is our path" http://archive.indymedia.be/front.php3?article_id=37928

Nobody ever said it was an AEL banner ...
Check for yourselves.