+++ Post +++ Post +++ Post +++ Post +++

>Not all mail is bad - not all bad is mail!<

>Nicht alle Post ist schlecht - Schlechtes muss nicht immer Post sein!<


Public mail to the Archive

So we got mail from Marco of Italy ...


Betreff: first contact
Datum: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:57:40 +0200
Von: "Marco Sannella" <msannella@olycom.it>
Firma: Olympia Publifoto S.p.A.
An: <chfrank@arcormail.de>


Dear Chaim,
I am an Italian Communist-Zionist (problematically near to ITO) 

and I have seen your interesting Website through an e-mail from Nick Brauns. 

I'm sending you some items of discussion about Arab-Israel conflict. 

If you have time, please, send me your comments.
Many thanks,

Marco Sannella, Pavia

:-) Marco Sannella





Name: Re [ITO Talk] about palestine.eml
Re: [ITO Talk] about Palestine
Datum: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:55:11 -0800
Von: Peter Solenberger <pws@umich.edu>
Rückantwort: ito-talk@igc.topica.com
An: ito-talk@igc.topica.com


Dear Marco,

Thanks for clarifying your positive position. As I understand it:

1. You regard Jews everywhere, not just in Israel, as a nation.
2. You favor the existence of Israel as a Jewish nation-state.
3. You see the appropriate borders of this state as the 1948 UN partition 

   (not the 1948 ceasefire line), with some additional concessions from Israel ("land for peace").
4. You oppose a general right of return of Palestinians displaced from the Israeli side of the partition.


I don't agree with this position, but at least it's clear. Two points from your postscript. First, I made my analogy between Israel, on the one hand, and Italy, Germany, Britain, and the US, on the other hand, not "irrespective of the actual property/production relationship" but based on that relationship. 

Israel is an advanced capitalist country and an integral part of the imperialist system. What distinguishes it from, say Denmark, an advanced capitalist country of about the same size and level of development, is that it is a colonial settler state.
Israel is built on land seized in the last 50+ years from the indigenous population, the Palestinians, whom it continues to oppress and exploit. 
Israel's garrison character makes it less affluent, less stable, and more dependent on the major imperialist powers than Denmark. But on balance, objectively, it's an imperialist outpost in hostile territory.

Second, it's not true that those in the ITO with whom you differ "recognize and promote self-determination for anybody except the Jews."
For example, I do not recognize or promote self-determination for the US. 
I'm for its abolition. This doesn't mean that I want to see the US working class driven into the sea, much as I understand the desire of some Native Americans to do so. But I recognize that the US should not exist. It should be dissolved in a world socialist republic.
I apply the same standard to every other advanced capitalist country, except where clear national oppression requires self-determination as a way to get beyond the national question (Northern Ireland, the Basques, Quebec, etc.).



> Marco Sannella wrote:

> Dear Peter,
> Israel is not tantamount to imperialism (US, British, German, Italian, etc.).
> Nobody ever tried to liquidate the populations of major imperialist countries.
> Ignoring that powerful tendencies within the Palestinian revolt intend to merely expel (at the very last) Jews from Palestine is the actual unsavory mockery, and covering up this reality with the call for "one state" is even
> worse.
> The existence of Israel as a Jewish state was largely a product of the Shoah, witch nobody can deny (except some people with witch I would not like to compare the leftists, although misguided, never heard of the Naom Chomsky-revisionist connection?). We must reckon with the fact that the Jewish nation did realize (in part at least) its own self-determination in Palestine, although encroaching on, and on the expenses of, the then potential national Arab-Palestinian movement.
> There is of course Israeli reaction and Israeli fascism, not unlike their Arab counterparts. The Communist solution can hardly be to label these latter as "consistent national freedom fighters" etc.
> The question of borders may only result from an agreement generally based on the 1948 partition, with any further concession required (land for peace).
> However, it would be absurd to claim "return of all Palestinians or their descendents to "their homes", and "Israel reduced to greater Tel-Aviv" (that would ousting most of Jews, including the Israel-born Sabras).
> The time-honored Zionist scarecrow, is apparently still fashionable, but exceedingly tattered due to never-ending overuse (also within the "World Trotskyst Movement"). I haven't a problem for the definition "Trotskyst-Zionist", it's better than a "Trotskyst-Hezbollah".
> Communist greetings,
> Marco 

> P.S. Using "analogies" for characterizing any state or social formation irrespective of the actual property/production relationship is a most unscientific procedure (somebody resorts to the same method for defining the former USSR or the present People's China as "imperialist"). Of course, any intervention of the USA in Middle East or elsewhere is imperialist, and Israel "plays in the hands" of the imperialist, though not being an imperialism itself. But this is not the point, rather the question is wheter a Jewish state is allowed to exist or should be repelled at ali, and destroyed, possibly even by reactionary Islamic fundamentalists. One may well agree that this is an unlikely perspective, but one must also wonder whether Communists should foster the reactionary and anti-Semitic section of the Palestinian movement.
> Of course, the ITO is quite irrelevant, and the Hezbollah behave as they do quite independently of any suggestions from the ITO, but this is no reason for playing with such a dubious notion as the "destruction of Israel", nor for denying the elementary truth that only the Shoah did persuade the remnants of Eastern European Jewry (Yiddish land) to lay the foundations for the Israeli state. Of course, the extreme revisionists and negationists speak of the Shoah as Israel's "founding Mythos", implying that devilish Elders of Zion did fabricate the Shoah as a pretext for exploiting Arabs as well as the poor little USA - up to ultimate delirium of the "Zionist Occupation Government" in Washington, DC; but unfortunately, such a bullshit is not peddled only by Dixie freaks, see the dismal history "La vielle Taupe" and of the previously
> quoted Noam Chomsky.
> Finally, it is rather perverse to recognize and promote self-determination for anybody except the Jews, who were indeed halved by the ultimately sole planned, industrial-imperialist genocide (unless one adopts the reactionary gossip of Hanna Arendt & co., on the parallel "totalitarianisms", for the sake of "consistent anti-Stalinism").
> :-) Marco Sannella


Name: R [ITO Talk] I palestina.eml

Betreff:  R: [ITO Talk] I: Palestine
Datum:  Thu, 01 Feb 2001 05:59:05 -0800
Von:  Marco Sannella <msannella@olycom.it>
 Rückantwort:  ito-talk@igc.topica.com
 Firma:  Fotocronache Olympia S.p.A.
An:  ito-talk@igc.topica.com
Referenzen:  1

Dear Alberto,
After the Shoah, it is no more tenable to vindicate the position held by Lenin and Trotsky (and also by Stalin, whose National Question Trotsky himself quoted approvingly to the very last) against the Bund, Left Zionist etc...However, Trotsky even maintained a more open attitude once Hitler took power. Of course, both Lenin and Trotsky had the pogromist (even those in the Red Army) shot, and overall, waged a battle more against Anti-Semites 
than against Zionists---and Lenin repeatedly exposed Pan-Islamism.
Contemporary Leninists should not be primarily concerned about opposing "Stalinism" on every single point --this would be simon-pure Stalin phobia, as indeed emerges from the shameless support too many pretended revolutionists are given to the most reactionary imperialist proxies, like in Chechnya or Kosovo.
However, the dual nature of Stalinism implied that it could well side with reactionary movements under certain circumstances. This was certainly the case with the uprisings of the 30's, backed by British imperialism, and led by infamous Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin El-Husseini, subsequently the recruiter of Bosnian Muslim SS. All of this under the
pretext of Jewish "colonialism" (but there was initially no exploitation at all of Arab labor, unlike it occurs presently in Israel). Ditto for the subsequent attitudes of Stalinists to Israel, from support to the establishment of the state (perhaps another Stalinist "crime" according to some alleged revolutionists?), to shameless Anti-Semitic campaigns. Parenthetically, most of Jews who had gone to Palestine before the Shoah were themselves flying from pogroms, a circumstance no serious, non-revisionist historian can dismiss.
There is no doubt that against imperialism and in defense of workers' states (even most severely crippled) the Communists should side with the devil and his granny (and this is why Stalin phobic recurrences are so damaging)--but this does not mean adopting the slogans and perspectives of reactionary movements like the Muslim fundamentalist, or even Jew-baiting Arab nationalism.
Under the current conditions, this would mean that we most support the establishing of a Palestinian Arab state, i.e. the partition of the region, including Jordan (a Palestinian, not a Bedouin territory), obviously abrogating the post-1967 Israeli settlements, etc.: Two Peoples, Two States.
As for Nick's comments: Georges Habbash and Hawatmeh did capitulate to Hamas. Beware of TV imagery (however showing some pictures of nazi flags and swastikas exhibited by demonstrates) if one should judge from Palestinian broadcasts, the conclusion would be that even spokesmen for Al-Fatah are fascists (some declarations from imams are equally or more reactionary than those of, for instance, R. Obadiah Joseph).
Anyway, I am eager to believe that Proposta does not favor "throwing Jews into the sea", this would only be result of "smashing the Israeli state" and establishing a Palestinian state of the Islamic type, according to the desiderata of Hams, Jihad Islami, Hezbollah etc.
Moreover, it is rather shocking that some comrades, who possibly consider the Latin American guerrillas as "counterrevolutionary", and Cuba as "Stalinist" and "on the verge of dissolution", have "political relationship" with Islamic fundamentalist of the worst type, like the Hezbollah. What about "political relationship" of "consistent Trotskists" with Algerian butchers, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the "anti-Stalinist" mujaheddin in Chechnya? Or were the supporters of Izetbegovic' blamable only to the extent that they were USFI members? After all, the "left" Morenoist are pretending that the Islamic fundamentalism is anti-imperialism (not unlike R.Mantovani, who, on the other hand, denies that imperialism exists, outside the former USSR and China).
What has Luxemburg to do in this connection? Absolutely nothing, since there is no doubt that an anti-imperialist united front has to be built, and that revolutionists should learn from Lenin to distinguish between "reactionary peoples" (as he wrote in 1915), and "popular revolutions" like the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland (however at least partially led by a proletarian revolutionist, such as Connolly). On the other hand, attributing to Lenin and Trotsky a rather childish idea of "self-determination everywhere and any cost", would amount to trivializing their inherently dialectic thought, summarized in the priority of proletarian objectives over the democratic ones, and of the latter over the mere "national rights".
Anyway, the Status quo may be modified in opposite directions, not only in a revolutionary one (this should characterize Marxism vs. populism and anarchism), and moreover, nobody can ignore that another slaughter of Jews is openly claimed by the flag-bearers of the "Palestinian revolt" that should (how?) "take a turn towards socialist revolution": clearly mere pipe-dream and wishful thinking (I am afraid, a little in the Pabloite vein...) if such forces as Hamas and their associates are not ruthlessly smashed.
Communist greetings,
Marco Sannella, Pavia 


 ----- Original Message ----- 

 From: Alberto Madoglio 
 To: ito-talk@igc.topica.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:00 PM
 Subject: [ITO Talk] I:

 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: Alberto Madoglio 
 To: Francesco Ricci (CR) 
 Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 6:35 PM


Accolgo volentieri l'invito di Peter a discutere in italiano, anche perché gli interventi di Marco pongono tutta una serie di problematiche che a questo punto mi costringono a scrivere nella mia lingua per essere il più chiaro possibile. 

Per riassumere,credo che le due e mail di Marco identifichino al meglio come sulle questioni nazionali sia estremamente facile passare dalla "rivoluzione alla reazione" per citare un passo della sua e mail. 

In realtà è proprio lui che, traendo false conclusioni da sbagliate premesse, sostiene in questa materia una posizione reazionaria. 

Primo punto, continuo a non capire quali siano i passi in cui, nei miei interventi o in quelli dell'Associazione, si possa individuare una posizione antisemita. 

Marco non lo dice, ne parla genericamente come di vero significato di posizioni che si definiscono antisioniste. 

Se questo è il punto, probabilmente i primi antisemiti, mascherati da antisionisti, sono stati Lenin e Trotsky, le cui battaglie contro le posizioni sioniste o di più generica specificità ebraica, difese dal Bund del Posdr all'inizio del secolo, sono ben note. 

Non voglio con ciò chiudere il dibattito citando due "mostri sacri", ma tentare di chiarire le basi di partenza. 

Chiamare Israele stato a insediamenti coloniali è cedere allo stalinismo? 

Io penso che si tratti solo di chiamare le cose come stanno, partendo dal fatto chepicchi di immigrazione ebraica in Palestina si verificarono molto prima dell' Olocausto, tra gli anni 20 e 30, tant'è che fu alla metà degli anni che scoppiò una rivolta araba contro l'occupazione ebraica, occupazione che avveniva scacciando le popolazioni arabe li presenti dalla loro terra e dalle loro proprietà. 

D'altro canto non fu altro che l'applicazione di ciò che i dirigenti sionisti, Ben Gurion, in testa volevano. 

Ritiene il compagno Marco che nei territori occupati e negli Stati confinanti vi sia qualche milione di profughi della Palestina, o crede alla favola giustificazionista che dice "una terra senza popolo per un popolo senza terra" e crede quindi che i citati profughi siano scesi sulla Terra da Marte? 

Ritenere che siccome gli stalinisti avevano una posizione contraria a Israele, ciò avrebbe dovuto metterci in allarme, è una posizione umorale, non dovuta al tempo, ma alla scarsa comprensione dei meccanismi e delle forme in cui la lotta di classe si sviluppa. 

Anche perché, almeno formalmente gli stalinisti sostenevanovarimovimenti di liberazione nazionale nelle colonie africane e asiatiche, e delle due l'una: o noi avremmo dovuto rifiutare di sostenere questa lotta, non affiancandoci allo stalinismo, ma forse avendo come alleato l'imperialismo, oppure denunciare il modo truffaldino e senza reale prospettiva di liberazione, di come gli stalinisti utilizzavano queste lotte, per smorzarne le spinte più radicali, e utilizzandole come merce di scambio per la politica di pacifica coesistenza. 

Non ho mai affermato, né lo posso assicurare nessuno in Proposta lo ha mai sostenuto, che dopo una ipotetica vittoria della rivolta palestinese, gli ebrei debbano essere buttati in mare. 

E' però evidente che ci dovrà essere una radicale ridefinizione dei confini, dove i Palestinesi riappropriatesi di tutti i loro territori precedenti l'inizio della massiccia colonizzazione ebraica a( a ciò mi riferivo parlando di palestina storica), riconoscano il diritto agli ebrei di costruirsi un loro Stato, non perché sia un sostenitore della purezza etnica, ma perché è molto probabile che per un certo periodo le due popolazioni vorranno vivere in entità statali separate. Ciò può essere disdicevole per dei rivoluzionari come noi, ma con da ciò non possiamo prescindere. E' comunque del tutto evidente che più la rivolta palestinese prenderà una svolta verso la rivoluzione socialista, e prima le incomprensioni etniche saranno risolte ma non immediatamente sanate, a meno che non si pensi che i bolscevichi dopo il 1917 fossero sostenitori di una forma " comunista" di aparthied riconoscendo alle decine di minoranze etniche in Russia il diritto alla indipendenza nazionale (en passant, negata poi dopo la vittoria del termidoro stalinista). 

Non ho nessun problema a riconoscere l'esistenza di forze fasciste o semi fasciste arabe. Riguardo a Hezbollah, riportavo il giudizio di alcuni compagni non italiani che avevano avuto occasione di confrontarsi con loro. Ritengo una cosa positiva non cedere alla fobia antiaraba della stampa occidentale borghese, pur non avendo nessuna fiducia che possa essere Hezbollah il liberatore delle masse palestinesi, nè che una volta venuto maggiormente a conoscenza delle sue posizioni, possa ritenere assolutamente sbagliato intrattenere qualsiasi rapporto politico con loro. 

Per finire è, come dicevo all'inizio, tutta la posizione di Marco sulla lotta di liberazione nazionale ad essere totalmente errata e da combattere politicamente. 

Negare come fa Marco, se ho ben tradotto il suo inglese, il sostegno alla lotta di liberazione Cecena o Kossovara, solo perché è diretta da forze reazionarie, impedisce a dei rivoluzionari di poter utilizzare per il loro fine, ciò la rivoluzione socialista, una delle più grandi contraddizioni che il capitalismo oggi crea e che non è in grado di risolvere minimamante. Oggi come nel 1917 la questione nazionale è una questione centrale, e il nostro compito non è quello di bypassarla con posizioni luxemburghiane, o come fa Marco con un atteggiamento di superiorità verso le forme barbare in cui questa lotta si sviluppa nei paesi sottosviluppati: 

Se essa ha queste caratteristiche ampiamente reazionarie è dovuto alla mancanza di una direzione rivoluzionaria internazionale del proletariato, che possa mettersi alla testa di queste rivolte. 

Non affrontare questo problema, significare accettare lo status quo, e scandalizzarsi se poi gli oppressi hanno anche la "pretesa" di ribellarsi. 

Saluti rivoluzionari Alberto



Name: R [ITO Talk] palestina (2).eml
Betreff:  R: [ITO Talk] palestina
Datum:  Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:09:30 -0800
Von:  Alberto Madoglio <a.madoglio@tin.it>
 Rückantwort:  ito-talk@igc.topica.com
An:  ito-talk@igc.topica.com
Referenzen:  1 , 2

Dear Marco, 

yes I think that what Lenin said it's no always valid. I think that if Lenin live in this period, he fight for the victory of the Palestinian revolt, and for the right for the Jews people to have an own state after the destruction of Israel! But I know that the we can make history with, as in Italian language say, "if or but" Abound Lenin affirmation of reactionary people and national oppression, please note what Lenin says in his book "National Self Determination" (Editori Riuniti 1976): Sul diritto di autodecisione delle Nazioni(febbraio maggio 1914) paragrafo: L'utopista Karl Marx e La pratica Rosa Luxemburg pagg102 111 then: La rivoluzione socialista e il diritto delle nazioni all'autodecisione. Tesi (gennaio marzo 1916) Tesi 5: marxismo e proudhonismo nella questione nazionale pagg134 136 in particolare la nota n. 3 pag 136.

Yes the Georgian and Ukrainian question was a strument of the imperialism during the civil war. But in the Civil War! When the young Soviet State was under the invasion and attack of 14 foreign armies, when the Russian white armies created a big danger for the life of the October Revolution. 

But after the victory of the Red Army, Lenin and Trotsky recognize the right of the Georgian national question in 1922 (last battle of Lenin against Stalin) and Trotsky recognize the right of Ukrain nation to secede in 1939!
I hope the you don't want to compare the soviet government with the imperialism guardian of middle east like Israel, or say that the rule of Palestinian revolt was the same who the Hoenzholler army had against the worker state before the peace treating of Brest Litvosk in February March 1918!( action who put the spartakist to called the German proletariat "reactionary", and if we use your method, they don't had to work for the revolution in Germany!) See you soon, and sorry again for bad (not bed!) English

 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: Marco Sannella 
 To: ito-talk@igc.topica.com 
 Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:54 PM
 Subject: R: [ITO Talk] palestina


 Dear Alberto, 

before my departure one question. The "peoples without history" and the "reactionary peoples" are of course distinct. Peoples may well play a reactionary role (not due to genetics!), also as instruments of imperialism, cf. the Georgian and Ukrainian during the Civil War. As a matter of fact, Lenin did vindicate in 1915 (when he was writing the Imperialism booklet!!) the concept of "reactionary peoples", although of course nobody can say that all he wrote, e.g. on the Jewish question, was absolutely and perpetually valid. 

E-mail me soon, Communist greetings
 Marco Sannella, Pavia


 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: Alberto Madoglio 
 To: ito-talk@igc.topica.com 
 Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:46 PM
 Subject: [ITO Talk] palestina


 Caro Marco, continuo a ritenere sempre più preoccupante la tua posizione sulla rivolta palestinese e sulla rivendicazione di "indipendenza nazionale" più in genere. 

Nella tua ultima e mail sono poi contenute delle inesattezze rispetto a posizioni storiche prese dal movimento rivoluzionario internazionale, che non possono che falsare il dibattito. 

Cercherò di essere il più schematico possibile. La Shoah non crea, ma semmai rende maggiormente comprensibile, la leggitma richiesta della popolazione ebraica ad aver un proprio Stato, tant'è che Trotsky sul finire della propria vita riconosceva questo esigenza di indipendenza nazionale. 

Quello che però la Shoah non può giustificare, è la sistematica repressione ed espulsione dal territorio palestinese di milioni di suoi abitanti, cosa che si è verificata in maniera massiccia dopo la fine della II guerra mondiale, ma che aveva avuto inizio già molto tempo prima. 

Sostenere che all'inizio la colonizzazione ebraica fu una sorta di pacifica e incruenta divisione del territorio palestinese, e affermare il falso: le terre occupate non erano solo quelle libera ma anche quelle già abitate dai palestinesi, sostenere il contrario significa, come ho già detto, accettare la favola di una terra senza un popolo, e forse avvalorare l'idea che la rivolta araba del 36 fu causata da una forte antipatia contro gli ebrei, e non dal fatto che di immigrazione coloniale vera e propria si trattava, combattuta dai trotskisti arabi e ebrei presenti nel territorio. 

Sostenere che in caso di vittoria della rivolta araba, gi ebrei sarebbero automaticamenterigettati in mare, è un sillogismo tutto da dimostrare, primo perché non e una richiesta delle masse arabe in rivolta, secondo perché da per scontato che il movimento sarà guidata fino alla vittoria dalle formazioni islamiche. Pensare che prima si dovrebbe sconfiggere Hamas , e poi iniziare la rivolta popolare, è una concezione piuttosto bizzarra della lotta di classe, come se questa potesse prima essere preparata in un ambiente chimicamente, in questo caso politicamente puro. Il problema è che solo con la partecipazione di forza rivoluzionaria nel vivo della lotta si può più facilmente sconfiggere la nefanda influenza delle forze religiose.Fu nel momento della rivolta contro lo scià nel 1979 che i rivoluzionari furono vicini alla sconfitta delle posizioni khomeniste, oggi in un momento di riflusso e stagnazione, ciò è infinitamente più complicato, perché è in questi momenti che le idee più reazionarie hanno maggior presa. 

Tu, per non correre il rischio ipotetico di una espulsione degli ebrei, accetti oggi l'espulsione concreta e reale di milioni di palestinesi. 

Scopro anche che, alla fin fine, visto che tu ritieni che si debba ritornare ai confini del 1967, che il nocciolo della questione sono quel 5% di colonie ebraiche in Cisgiordania che Israelenon vuole cedere!. Quindi la soluzione sarebbe uno Stato palestinese senza contiguità territoriale, soggetto nei fatti alla potestà di Israele, cioè in parole povere un bantustan. 

E' chiaro che il problema riguarda anche la Giordania, ma non si può usare questa puerile scappatoia per negare che ciò che le masse vogliono oggi e ritornare nelle loro case da dove sono state scacciate, e che queste si trovano in Israele e non prevalentemente nei territori occupati. 

Cosa c'entra il luxemburghismo?, c'entra dal momento che tu, nella sostanza, disconosci che laquestione nazionale ha, nell'epoca imperialista una valenza rivoluzionaria. 

A tal proposito Lenin parlava di popoli reazionari quando citava una affermazione di Marx riguardo a quei popoli che avendo ancora nell'800 una struttura feudale, non avevano visto il nascere di una classe operaia vera e propria, e che quindi nel complesso svolgevano un ruolo reazionario contro quei paesi che più si erano incamminati sulla strada di uno sviluppo capitalistico (ad es: i primi erano i Polacchi, i secondi gli ungheresi), ma che nell'epoca dell'imperialismo quella nozione non era più valida. 

Sulla Cecenia e il Kosovo: i fatti dimostrano quanto l'imperialismo difenda il loro diritto all'autodeterminazione: nel primo caso appoggiando, tranne le condanne di facciata, la repressione Russa in quanto temono la destabilizzazione di un'area strategica per i loro interessi, nel secondo creando un protettorato per chissà quanto tempo, in cui le aspettative di liberazione nazionale sono tenute a bada da migliaia di soldati e divise in 5 parti tra Italia Francia USA GB e Germania!
 Per ultimo una citazione da Trotsky che si confà molto bene al dibattito attuale:"Le grandi masse del popolo ucraino non sono soddisfatte della propria sorte come nazione e vogliono cambiarla.Il politico rivoluzionario, a differenza [...] del settario, deve prendere questo fatto come punto di partenza.... I settari, come spesso succede, si trovano dalla parte della polizia, mentre proteggono lo status quo, ossia la violenza poliziesca, attraverso una sterile speculazione riguardo i vantaggi dell'unificazione[...]. 

(Pubblicato su Socialist Appeal 15 18 settembre 39) 

E sul presunto sostanziale accordo di Trotsky con Stalin sulla questione nazionale:"...l'attitudine del Cremlino è oggi la stessa che ha verso le nazionalità oppresse...:esse sono gli spiccioli da spendere nei trattati coi governi imperialisti.
 (Apparso su Socialist Appeal 9 maggio 39)


Saluti comunisti Alberto.

T O P I C A-- Learn More. Surf Less. 
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.

Name: R [ITO Talk] about statements on Palestine.eml
Betreff:  R: [ITO Talk] about statements on Palestine
Datum:  Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:47:14 -0800
Von:  Marco Sannella <msannella@olycom.it>
 Rückantwort:  ito-talk@igc.topica.com
 Firma:  Fotocronache Olympia S.p.A.
An:  ito-talk@igc.topica.com
Referenzen:  1 , 2 , 3

Dear Alberto,

If such a position as emerges from your e-mail (jan.30th) had been rated as pro-Zionist by "Proposta", this only indicates that someone in "Proposta" has gone farther over the pathway from strange anti-imperialism (as otherwise shown by their highly dubious attitude in favor of self determination of Kosovo as well as of the Chechenian Vendee) to "hysterical anti-Zionism" (interestingly in the vein of our favorite bugaboo, A. Moscato), that is not merely a "humoral reaction" due to bad temper, but the cover name for the "left Anti-Semitism".
As for "Israel, a colonial settler state", this is the title of an old book by the muddleheaded Maxime Rodinson (the father of André Frys of Lutte Ouvrière), former Stalinist, and then third-worldist; on the other hand, it is unfortunately true that, generally speaking, Trotskysts and Stalinists, after 1948, engaged in a despicable competition over "who is most Israel-hating" (it was a pity that on both sides, self-hating Jews were especially abundant). 

"Creating an Arab state in the historical Palestine" amounts to simply "throwing Jews in the sea" (parenthetically, what is "historical Palestine", and what has it to do with Arabs? identifying Palestinian Arabs with Philistines is like identifying the Lebanese with Phoenicians).
It is also exceedingly questionable to reserve a, however purely "hypothetical" Jewish state (post-Muslim slaughter?) to the sabras, pretending to ignore that the actual Israeli State was founded, not by a minority of observant, but by an overwhelming majority of nonbelievers and leftists escaping from Shoah and from the subsequent pogroms, notably in Poland (Kieice etc.).
The fundamentalist Muslims are obviously leading the so-called New Intifadah, and they are not wanting self-determination of the oppressed Arabs in the region, but an Islamic state with all known features (we are not speaking about the Moors in Spain or Egypt at the times of Maimonides...).
They are not confronted with imperialism or USA, but with Israel, which is not the same thing, indeed they are more than willing to cooperate with the USA in undermining and smashing any regimen unsympathetic to themselves and to the USA, as in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algeria, etc. Are Hamas and Hezbollah different from Talebani?
may be, to the extent that even the KKK is not exactly identical to the neo-Nazis or to Le Pen, and so on... But basically, all of them are reactionary, racist forces, as well as cutthroat killers whose identification with "religion" as such is tantamount equating the late "Rabbi" Kahane to some pious student of the Cabbala, or the right-wing settlers supporting the Likud (or worse parties) with Yeshiva bocherim, i.e. peaceful Talmudists. If Communist are bound to recognize that there are Fascist Jews, why should they deny the existence of Fascist Arabs? (of course both of those will fiercely deny Anti-Semitism as the former will pretend to be merely "Israeli defenders", and the latter "Anti-Zionist).
The crucial issue is that too many "revolutionists" are unable to distinguish counterrevolution and reaction (even extreme) from revolution. As concerns "Trotskysts", this become crystal-clear from 1989 on (but it is noteworthy that even the most Pablo phobic Trotskysts tended to ignore the USFI's idealization of the Palestinians, and shared, or even exacerbated, the "Pabloist" diabolization of Israel, whereupon one cannot help wondering about "self-hate", a sad phenomenon unfortunately more than common in the revolutionary workers' movement, and from which the descendent of Trier Rabbis was himself scarcely exempt).
Communist greetings,
Marco Sannella, Pavia


 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: Alberto Madoglio 
 To: ito-talk@igc.topica.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 5:57 PM
 Subject: R: [ITO Talk] about statements on Palestine


 Dear Marco, 

after received your answer, I read again my article, and I'm very surprised that you say that my position under an anti-Zionist mask, are in reality anti-Semitism.  I don't understand were you can see it in my statement.  

In the debate in the Cn and National Direction of Proposta, my position was considerate a type of pro Israel position, and I wrote an article for the last number of Proposta in which i repeat what i write yesterday. It is difficult to me to think that the Proposta redaction accept without question an anti-Semitism attitude. 

But I want to say something else. 

At the moment the Slogan: two people two state, is the position of which accept the status quo. As revolutionary we can't forget that the present situation is that the Palestinian people are oppressed, and Israel is, in some terms, a settler state, created by expelling Arab masses. 

At the moment our task is to fight to create an Arab state in the historical Palestine. 

After this, only after this, there is the right to the Jews people to create an independent state. This is the right for the million of people that are born in Israel not only for thousands of religious.! 

I don't know what is the situation in Palestine at the moment, but one of the most interesting fact was that at the beginning of the new Intifada, the fundamentalist don't have a primary influence in the strugle. So the problem for us isn't to refuse to fight for Palestinian self determination because in some way it is the position of fundamentalist. It is what the bourgeoisie says in USA and Europe! 

Our task is to gains the political direction of the masses against the Islamic fundamentalist because they don't give an answer to the political social and national answer of the Arab masses.( many comrades tell that the Hezbollah isn't the same of the talebani's regime, it is an simplification of the imperialist propaganda, but i recognize that our task is to destroy every religious influence on the masses) I think that your reply is in some terms an humoral (??) reaction, but I am sure that when we can discuss i "Italian", we can resolve our difference. 

Communist greetings 

Alberto Madoglio 

 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: Marco Sannella 
 To: ito-talk@igc.topica.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:54 PM
 Subject: R: [ITO Talk] about statements on Palestine


 Dear Alberto,
 I feel that the slogan, "two Peoples, Two States" (actually not a new one in the Communist movement), still retains its validity. In addition, let me pose a few questions with reference to your statements, that be frank, under their Anti-Zionist cover, do translate into Anti-Semitism. 

Is it not obvious that the leading forces of the New Intifadah are the reactionary ones of Islamic fundamentalism, ultimately tail-ended by Al-Fatah and Yasser Arafat? 

Does it make any sense to speak of anti-imperialist struggle when referring to Hamas and Hezbollah, whose slogan "A Palestinian State from Jordan river to the sea" merely means ousting the Jews, and establishing clerical-fascist-type regimens modeled on that Taleban in Afghanistan? Accordingly, entrusting the Palestinians cause on such forces would not imply definitively dissolving any prospect for an Arab or Middle-Eastern revolution in the reactionary crusade of jihad? In this context, your position in favor of self-determination for Jews within a Palestinian state (I am afraid, with highest risk for the same Jews being slaughtered), will ultimately amount to the mere concession of a few religious, instead of national, right (i.e. the well-know status of dhimmi). 

Any further expansion of such a debate should examine in-depth these matter-of-fact considerations, 

Communist greetings
 Marco Sannella, Pavia


 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: Alberto Madoglio 
 To: ito-talk@igc.topica.com 
 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 9:25 PM
 Subject: [ITO Talk] about statements on Palestine


Dear Peter, 

I read only today your reply to Nick of the 4 December about the debate on Palestine. I agree with you for the 99% of you reply. I agree that our task for the moment is the victory of the intifada an the distruction of the Zionist State of Israel.
 But the problem is: after the victory of the Palestinian revolte the building of a new Palestinian State ( non in the boundaries of the 1967 and probably not yet in those of 1948), there is the possibility that the Jews, masses don't wont live in a state with the Arab masses. 

Well, in this situation, and I repeat after the collapse of the Zionist State, I think that the Jews masses have the right to self determination. It is about this point that I disagree with Franco in the debate in Proposta. I think that this position may broke the actually union sacréé with the Jews workers and their ruling classes. 

I want to excuse myself for the bed English, is possible that some sentences will be misunderstanding, and in this case a
 will try to be more clear.


ITO Internal Discussion List
To send a message to the list, reply to an existing message
or send a new message to ito-talk@igc.topica.com
To unsubscribe from the list, send a blank message to
To ask to be resubscribed, send a blank message to

T O P I C A-- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.