Hi group 170,
I write this mail after I the proposal for the speech to 13.12. 've read. I understand him as a semi-open letter, which goes to the Covenant House and to you. On the House last Tuesday, I announced after was that your group would like to give a speech, pleading for it to be very open, even though you are not alliance group, but which could be If you had no problems from our side. My main reasons were, of course, on the one hand, [... Alliance deleted internal reasons ...].
The other is for me politically more important reason I have mentioned at the meeting, which would I think in the discussions about anti-Semitism a development to progress, resulting in different positions and options in the fight against anti-Semitism and no discussion about should be made as to whether there actually a Problem with it. Of course there would be under such a situation, positions from which some decisions that the Alliance has taken explicitly or implicitly, are not acceptable. Just as naturally, I would advertise in this situation for my view of things and support those political actions that I believe to be the correct conclusion of my analysis. What I would like, that anti-Semitism in the future, like any other unacceptable social condition also becomes the subject of dispute and conflict. The ability to explain, contradictions and conflicts to work through and due to their abschaffbaren causes, including if the abolition not just practice may be the essential requirement for any social criticism, and which was to acquire the left in the case of anti-Semitism.
to plead So much for my motivation for the requested of you speech without knowing its contents. With knowledge of the content, the situation is unfortunately different for me dar. for under the said of me I think those passages are seeking "a certain rational analysis of the state of Israel." If there were passages in a discussion about this, I would sure point that I can agree with, but would raise the question of what external circumstances, because in this world is dependent upon the reason. For my guess is that you let this in mind, I would attach about the following: "This means that criticism of the aggressive interests of the Israeli policy of the State of Israel not to respond reflexively to the stereotype accusation of anti-Semitism. Unquestioning devotion knows no discussion, the State of Israel is not serious and fall apart fall short positions of the Israeli left. "
The vote sets, only those who actually criticized anti-Semitism, without the prior actually anti-Zionist / anti-Semitic stereotype would have been submitted? Of course, it belongs to the "interests of the Israeli aggressive policy" and is not purely defensive, as when leaders of Hamas are being attacked and killed. The Israeli army is on the preventive options such as weakening of the opponent, the answer to the question of what actions to achieve this objective and which has not had a secret to discuss, etc., then, is determined by the conditions that reason and we would certainly a conflict, but in a context of what is said.
For the immediate Alliance situation arises again m. E. a slightly different question. Even if we would come to the conclusion that such a knee-jerk reactions somewhere: If you respond in the alliance on the way to her criticism? And if any: these groups are so decisive that it is impossible for you to bring your position? Which statements do you do set it?
your under let such an argument largely - the only relevant passage for the Barmbeker demo - and generally speaking, instead of the "theory and practice of anti-German groups." The passage to me is also the Barmbeker Demo cryptic of your text. To my knowledge there is no doubt that those against whom the demonstration is directed, participated in the beating out of the flag bearers of the demo was. How can you say that they are "not of a mind with anti-Semites" were "because of which we are here today on the street"? Certainly, were in Barmbek still involved more people that "no national flags" justification was the central, but the minimum level of admission in such a situation, but surely that can obscure the obvious on that basis one anti-Semitism, which includes their one "radical and complete rejection" want to give. Why are you so sure you want this to those who have not delivered on 25.10 the new proof for the correctness of the former criticism, not even true?
Instead, there are those passages to anti-German theory and practice, in which I wonder even more what you practice these Moors. At the point where you will ask yourself what could have been the motive for the performance, you simply forget that the decision to show even the b-movie was involved. Certainly no anti-German group that could have kept this movie is an interesting item on the program. Or you find that this automatically to the "political and neurotic fed Extreme" to the need to use one of you as irreconcilably conflicting sides into consideration, because they share the toilets and have the same landlord?
At the points of anti-German theory and practice, I find it again only barely justified expectations. Let me be clear: no small part of the anti-German alliance are those groups of which you claim to speak. If you have something on their / our theory have to complain about, it refers to passages that have you / we have written. Who said when and where attacks on us were generally anti-Semitic? We know certainly other Terms and explanations for the events in this world, you probably, and if you believe that our assumed explanation (anti-Semitism) oppose one another to have to do, but this is easy. And that groups are enemies, is not an explanation for something, but the thing to be explained itself when it otherwise claims to give her not statements of Alliance groups again, but the views expressed on the fake blog fantasies that the name of the Alliance and that of criticism maximization were posted on the Internet and which are probably to be a kind of post-front-defense. If you do not know them, I can send you the links you.
your been repeatedly prevented it, and with the assertion that the film is not because of the film, "but because of the implacable hostility between the groups involved," the central defense of B5, Sol and TAN. I think it will not surprise you that my motives, speak out for the post, so have become obsolete. And I hope the others who have spoken out for this tendency to see it the same way.
AND PRACTICE: This demo where you want it so obviously involved, though not viewed as a run, is our practice. And if you do it because, it will be yours. If this practice and its consequences to a split of the "autonomous movement" will (or has already done?), It is the result of a necessary clarification of content, and was not due to be our rhetoric. It is also your "radical and complete rejection", which can lead to such a split. Such a result then you should also be attributed to your political mind. And if such a schism in the destruction of the "autonomous movement" leads, or whether the destruction is not likely would be to be able to develop a central expression of the existing power relations no radical criticism To answer this I leave to you.
Because the basis for this - I think it is beyond dispute - that there are any anti-Semitism dispute within the Left, is surely the emergence of anti-German left. With whom would you together because you demonstrate your "radical and complete rejection", if not together with those who make themselves unpopular for years so that they talk about anti-Semitism? Which alliance you would have established an alternative?
With regards, for which I do not know a word
jm
0 comments:
Post a Comment