(Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire have
turned Justice Mute)

 
What’s New about the Statement of the 55?

                                             A Comment by Abu Nicola Al Yunani

The signatories of the statement calling for an end to human bombs would have 
us think their arguments are novel. They claim not to be opposed to the resistance 
in general, but only to the specific tactics of "attacks on civilians" in the
specific circumstances of Palestine today. In fact, the opposite is true.
Historically speaking, there is nothing new about their arguments, and nothing
specific to the current circumstances.

Throughout the long struggle of humanity for a better life, and in every
specific circumstance where a significant section of a population was
engaging in armed struggle for its liberation, there have been arguments
similar to those advanced by the signatories of the statement of the 55.
There were always those whose lack of courage - whether this condition
stemmed from personal, or, usually, from social sources - led them to take
"middle-ground", in effect, pro-oppressor positions.

There is nothing new about pointing out that under the circumstances of
unimaginable military superiority of the oppressor (for aren't those the
circumstances of every such conflict?), use of military aims by the
oppressed could only lead to a disaster.  Instead, the same self-appointed
pundits typically propose that they take over themselves the destinies of
the oppressed, in order to lead them to victory through the use of their 
'towering intellects’.

To quote only a few cases, the same arguments were used during the
liberation struggle of Greece against the German occupation, of the
Vietnamese against US intervention, of the Algerians against French
colonialism, and, closer to home in space, time, and context, of the
Hizbullah-led Lebanese resistance against Zionist occupation. Yet in all
these cases, it was the military action of the masses, not the "hard work"
of their "enlightened leaders" that eventually led to liberation. The
arguments of the 55 are as old as the history of liberation struggles, and
although they have been disproved in practice time and time again, they
continue to surface time and time again. Thus when viewed from an historic
perspective, they are a mixture of unjustified arrogance, self-interest and
historic ignorance.  Yet they will continue to re-surface each time there
are strata in an oppressed population whose interests dictate a policy of 
preventing a radical overthrow of the status quo in favor of an opportunistic
‘coexistence’ with the oppressor.

Back to FAV Articles and Readers' Corner