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