"I have a whole basket full of criticism of Palestinians leaders, especially Yaser Arafat. This is, however, an Israeli web-site. My objectives over here are different than when I debate Palestinians."

"Furthermore, we always have to remember who was responsible for more than fifty years of occupation and who was denied human rights and oppressed in brutal ways."

"Israelis have the time to study political questions (Israel is one of the countries with the highest percentage of people with BA) and they do not pay the same consequences when opposing the occupation."

"There is a difference between a national ideology of oppress and third world countries, than that of imperialist countries."

My support for the national struggle of third world countries comes exactly from the fact that national oppression is what makes these nations oppressed to begin with. National oppression can be defined by racism, economic domination, denying the right to practice one’s culture. In opposing all of that nationalism can play some progressive rule. The demand to nationalize the country resources, taking pride in ones culture, fighting racism, all of this in the context of national oppression is progressive and needed. Of course, this is not the whole picture; the emphasis of internationalism and class struggle should apply. And when nationalist movements from oppress nations do not apply internationalism or class struggle we unite with them while emphasizing the importance of class struggle. Nationalist movements of the oppressed are never, ever, ever, equal to the atrocities and racist act that are committed under the nationalist philosophy of the oppressor. According to the line that you uphold, Chaves who is leading somewhat of a nationalist revolution in Venezuela is equal to Bush since both of them proclaim love and loyalty to their country. Chaves, on the one hand, nationalizing resources that should provide the millions of poor people in Venezuela with some decant jobs and a living wages and Bush, on the other hand, is a mass murderer and a representative of a global empire that exploit millions of people. Furthermore, as Marxists we look for the principle contradiction in any phenomena, and we pay close attention to the destructive side. In today’s world the principle contradiction is between the oppress nations and the oppressed nation (first world and third world.) when an oppressed nation, the destructive side of the contradiction, starts to destroy the usual relations of exploitation, that’s a good thing, and it might take the whole process out of existence and bring a lot of opportunities to other countries to due away with imperialism.

Marxism is not a dogma, it is a guideline and more importantly it’s a living science. Marxism will have no value if it will only be uphold as holy scrip. In an ever changing reality Marxists need to apply Marxism to life. Think what would happen if psychologists today would still treat patients with the same methods that Freud used. Class societies have changed a lot since the days of Marx. While all these definition that you provided are important, what’s more important is how they come into play in any given society. The proletarian, the force that makes the change, are as Marx said the people who have nothing to lose. More then just the fact that they cannot own the means of production, their social experience is what gives them the ability to demand, fight, and put their life on the line for a change. In other words social experience is decisive. Peasants in third world countries can unite with the proletarian because of the miserable life experience that they live through every day. In Israel the proletarian, in my view, does not exist. Sure, for some Israelis life is not so easy, but they get by. Their life experience, the privileges that come with being Jewish in your country are enormous. In other words their life experience is so bad that they would want a radical change. This can be seen through the long history of Israelis supporting almost all their countries wars. When they don’t, it’s only because their soldiers, not the occupied, are killed. It took 18 fucking years for Israel to get the fuck out of Lebanon, and why? Because a movement of mothers had that Israel should “protect its sons”. The occupying soldiers are Israel sons, while the Lebanese people don’t exist. Most of the Israeli people have always aligned themselves with their government, not only that, big sections of Israelis have voted for mass murderer and butcher.
Furthermore, the definition of labor aristocracy is that in imperialist nations the flow of profit from the third world is so enormous that the bourgeoisie is willing to give some crumbs of that profit to sections of the labor class in order to align them with the state and to prevent rebellions. In Israel the billions of dollars that Israel receive annually from America provide a lot of benefits for the general population that people in third world country can only dream of. From free half-care to subsidies houses to education. All of this in my view has “bought out” the Israeli population. And what is batter example to Israelis enjoy “leisure time” than the fact that so many Israelis can acquire a degree in a university? I think that our disagreement around this subject is in the definition of what is a proletarian.

I don’t agree with your statement that people who refuse to go to the army are denied the means to live. Sure, some jobs are denied to them, but they can always use their Jewish privilege and be employed. They might not be rich, but they can definitely survive.

I’m not denying that there is a proletarian in your country, what I’m arguing is that the Israeli proletarian is very small and insignificant.

A final point,
There is no reason to get angry. I might be wrong in my observations (in some way I hope I am) and from your remarks it seems that there is a lot that I can learn from you.

Take care,

"I’m not denying that there is a proletarian in your country, what I’m arguing is that the Israeli proletarian is very small and insignificant."

Yea, I’m very busy at this time of year, so I write quickly and jump from issue to issue. I will try to elaborate on my earliest points, while answering your latest comment. I don’t know, however, for how long I can keep this debate going.

As I wrote, one of the ways to define if a nation is oppress, is to examine whether the people from this nation are subjected to, among other things, to racism, economic control, and blocked on the right of those people to exercise their own culture. Nationalist ideology can answer some of this oppression. Demands by nationalists movements to nationalize resources, to practice ones culture, and to have pride in ones origins, can be very progressive. We should unite with these movements while criticizing elements that are not progressive and trying to push the struggle towards a real emancipation of the nation.

Your criticism of Chaves is out of context. Unlike poppet government before him, Chaves have provided his people with education, half care, and means to live. He should be supported in his struggle against imperialism. Your line will only force you to criticize the oppressed and to unite with the small group of people who agree with you. And, unlike what you wrote, the ruling classes in Venezuela are actually terrified by Chaves.

Can this struggle by the Venezuela be drained and will only create another ruling elite? It might. That, however, is no excuse to not supporting movements who oppose imperialism. It’s up to communists in Venezuela to push the struggle beyond the limited scope of nationalism, while uniting with the just cause of opposing imperialism. Nelson Mandela and Gandy led nationalist movements. Did these movements have some incorrect line? Sure. But the struggle of the South African people and the Indian people against imperialism was just.

Your criticism seems to come from the Anarchistic philosophy that claims that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This have not only been proven to be historically untrue, leaders of peoples movements have gave their lives to the people, but problematic in a class society. The divisions in class society are not only defined by property, but by intellectual privilege. After a revolution in order to provide the masses with real democracy it’s up to the leadership of the communist party to exercise dictatorship over the old capitalists, and to provide the masses with answers to political questions. As was seen in the Cultural Revolution the masses make history while the leaders provide leadership. This process of the dictatorship over the bourgeois has been proven historically to be the only way to radically advance the rights and living conditions of the proletarian.

Dialectical materialism is a subject for a couple of books; I doubt that a sound bite of information can be enough to provide with a clear understanding of this philosophy. Never the lass, it is important for you to get some understanding of the correct way to view the world.
Any object in the universe is driven by contradiction. For example, the concept of “life” is defined by “death”. Life would not be “life” without “death” and “death” is what gives “life” its meaning. “Death” is the destructive side of the contradiction. When death wins over the contradiction (the individual man is dead) the whole process of the contradiction between life and death comes to an end. Furthermore, the contradiction between life and death is what pushes the whole process into its natural end---death, There are a lot of contradictions in phenomena, but it is important to notice what is the principal (the most affective) contradiction that drive the whole process forward. In the world today, in regard to what define imperialism, the principle contradiction is between the imperialist countries and the oppressed countries. The phenomena of imperialism could not be possible if it was not for the exploitation (contradiction) of the oppress nation/countries. The destructive side if this contradiction, the side that wants to do away and to destroy the process are the oppress countries. When an oppress country stand for imperialism, there is a chance that the whole phenomena of “imperialism” can go out of existence.
Imperialism (and capitalism) because of the endless need of exploitation, creates its own “grave diggers” (destructive side). America today, the leading imperialist country owes trillions of dollars to foreign countries and is stock in Afghanistan-trying to build a gas line, and Iraq-trying to control the oil world market. On top of this, Iran is refusing to accept Washington demand for any country to open its market for foreign (American) investors. This is the some of the difficulties that America is dealing with today. So, when Venezuela comes along and brings even more anarchy into the system, it’s a good thing, and might take the whole process of American imperialism out of existence.
Think of the benefits and great opportunities that will happen if a country like the U.S. goes out of existence. Think what would happen when (among other things) corrupt government and dictators will stop receiving money and weapons, what a great day that would be!!!

Again, Marxism is not a dogma. All these people that you call “proletarian” are not proletarian just because their relationship to production. Again, the proletarian are the people who have nothing to loss. The people those because of their social experience are willing to put everything on the line for a better future. The people that you mention not only work for companies who pay somewhat of a living wages, they enjoy “Jewish privilege”. Class is not the only way do determine ones class. In America, for example, among some of the things that being white can provide one with, is the opportunity to receive a decant job, to not get arrested, get a decant education, or to get good treatment in any government facility. In other words, being white get you “white privilege”. In Israel being Jewish can get you “Jewish privilege”, and I feel that we both can think on a hundreds of things that one can receive in Israel from being Jewish. Sure, classes exist even in the Israeli society, but they do not constitute such different as to create a proletarian class of Israelis Jews. Furthermore, as I said before, Israel through the billions of dollars received from America can provide its citizens with living conditions that people in third world countries can only dream about.
Again, social experience is what determines your class. A worker, such in your country, can be dependent on imperialism and racism and to not be a proletarian. And in third world countries a peasant although owning a peace of land, because of the hard social conditions that he is living through, can unite with the proletarian.
Your definition of the proletarian seems to be consistence with some of Marx writings. A lot of changes in reality, however, have happened since than. And Marxism is a living science, not a dogma.

It was hard for me to understand your writing, but I hope that you are not implying that the blue pigs are part of the proletarian.

Strikes do not define the proletarian. There are strikes and demonstrations in your country by government workers and students. That does not mean that all these people are the proletarian.

I did not understand your last statement about the support of Israelis to their government.

Take care,

For example, the concept of “life” is defined by “death”.

the contradiction between life and death is what pushes the whole process into its natural end---death

Can you elaborate on the second part of your question? It’s been a while since I took philosophy classes, and the words that you use are kind of hard for me.

I don’t know if relates to the second part of your comment, but its important to notice that it’s Dialectical MATERIALISM. We relate to the things that can manifest themselves in the material world. The question of whether a tree that falls in a forest makes any noise if there is no one to hear it has no meaning to us Marxist. Life and death manifest themselves in the real life, in the material world.

Ill answer you in a couple of days.

So ill try to answer your both of your questions here (although you did not provide me with a deeper understanding of your question).

When a process comes to an end, the new process that fallows takes a “leap”. When a chick comes out of an egg, it is a chicken not an egg. When a human is burn, it is not a dependable human embryo anymore; it is a full living and breathing human. It’s very important to notice the “leaps”. A process never ends and become something new by gradually developing into the new process/phenomena. When a person dies he does not die in stages. The whole body at curtain moment becomes dead, and a new process, the contradiction that move the process of the dead body takes place.
Unlike the metaphysic and the religious philosophies that uphold that things do not change (a man is man a woman is a woman, god created the world and nothing changed, “human nature”). Marxism understands that in reality everything changes and that matter cannot exist without its own contradiction.

China has been a long time an imperialist country. Through a military coup China has become a social-imperialist state. The contradiction between America and China are different then the contradiction between America, as the leading imperialist country at the moment, and third world countries. I only mention the economic relations between China and America to describe the hard economic realities that Washington is facing today. If, for example, Saudi Arabia stop treading with Dollars and instead switch to Euros, America will go bankruptcy the next day. This economic necessity is one of the things that led Washington to invade Iraq. The Iraq war needs to be seen not just as a war for oil, but a war to control the world oil economy.
In Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson (one of the books that I recommended you) Johnson argues that America as a country that do not manufacture goods (it relies mostly on imported goods from third world countries) and owes so much in foreign debt will only lead to America going bankruptcy in a couple of years.

I urge you to try and stay focused.

If life & death are dialectical contradictions, and at death the dialectical process comes to an end, why can't you posit that at the moment of birth (or conception) that process terminates as well? Hence, either the dialectical process as defined by its two opposing poles of life & death is either a metaphisycal conjecture, or unsubstantiated wishful thinking, or in short, a dogma?

You were deriding the capitalistic and imperialistic nature of the USA, while ignoring the fact that a largest portion of her debt is held by China. That sheer fact indicates the latter's egregiously capitalistic nature as well, thus voiding your argument which had targete the uniqueness of the USA.

Your last remark did not deal with my questions directly, or I had totally misunderstood it.

I would urge you to understand that I’m here to politically agitate. Israelis need to be confronted with an all around conception of political questions. The false unity here and in Israel between people who are objectively represent racism, genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and people who only “nicely” and passively oppose them, is ridicules. I’m not here to “focus”, I’m here to get Israelis off their asses and in to streets, off this website with its endless relative debate of “truth”, and into actively opposing their government. That would never happen if we keep a nonchalant liberal attitude, and only “focus” on theory as if it exists in the abstract with no relationship to action, to reality.

“If life & death are dialectical contradictions”, life and death are dialectical contradiction at a certain process.

“and at life and death this process comes to an end” all processes are driven by contradictions and therefore are dialectical by the very nature of what constitute a “process”. As Hegel, Engels & Lenin have repeatedly emphasized, even mechanical motion involves a contradiction, the most primitive form. This is even more true in an even more complex motions.

"...why can't you posit that at the moment of birth (or conception) that process terminates as well?"--This is playing word games & is totally meritless. Certainly, at the moment of birth (or conception), certain processes terminate & others begin. Where the statement goes off is in its casual, sloppy use of the words concerning contradiction without delving into what is actually contained in the concept.

" Hence, either the dialectical process as defined by its two opposing poles of life & death is either a metaphysical conjecture, or unsubstantiated wishful thinking, or in short, a dogma?"==This is simply more word games without any solid conceptual foundation. If only dialectics could be treated in such a simplistic mindless way, it would be so easy to become trained in its method of thought.

"You were deriding the capitalistic and imperialistic nature of the USA, while ignoring the fact that a largest portion of her debt is held by China. That sheer fact indicates the latter's egregiously capitalistic nature as well, thus voiding your argument which had targete the uniqueness of the USA."---- The uniqueness of American imperialism can be seen through hundreds of military bases deployed around the world, control of exploitative organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF, and the support through weapons and money to corrupt and racist regimes around the world.
People in China should fight and go against their oppressive government, and people in Israel should oppose their colonial government and American imperialism which is aiding and sustaining the corrupt and racist state of Israel.

My last comment, indeed, did not deal directly with your question. I was trying to give some more background to economic realities that Washington is facing.

Take care,

For one aiming at agitating, you come out pretty agitated.
What's this business with bottoms? perhaps you should try the recipe consisting of "Celery! Apples! Walnuts! Grapes! In a mayonnaise sauce!"

In any event, casually dismissing my arguments as "playing with words" is a double edges sword, with limited contribution. Your out of focus reply to my question regarding China, doesn't add much either.

ATB

“What's this business with bottoms?”
You’re the psychologist, you tell me….

Take a moment (or two) and construct your argument, again. Make sure to include how I ignored your questions and some concrete examples.

Your right, I might not have the sufficient knowledge to answer this.

Its also can be my obscure and weird writings that enable us to understand each other. I will think about your question, and maybe in the future I will find a better answer.

Take care,

Eizik, Eizik, Eizik, we have been flirting for years anonymously, and this is where you choose to address me and to expose our secret relations? What would people think of you, a respectable leftist man with a good-for-nothing-Maoist? If I was a man and we were to live in Russia 70 years ago, this would be very problematic. Ill answer your comment body, but you owe me a date.

Life and death are general contradiction in life. When one is dyeing (I’m dyeing over here) these contradictions come into their fullest expression. Death can be symbolize in a lot of ways, car accident, a daises, the Israeli army shooting one for living while being Palestinian etc. etc. (focus, focus). Its not either life or death. My friend, we are all going to die (hopefully after the revolution, comrade) and at that moment, death will take over the contradiction, and our bodies will become something else, not human.

According to what you’re saying, an egg is either an egg or either a chicken (or an omelet).

I can’t have at this moment a productive debate; I hope I answered your question.

Are you a woman?

And how would you define a “woman”?

female human being

You are confusing sex and gender.

I'm not.
You asked for my definition, I gave you my definition. If you have another definition, don't be shy. give your definition, and please give my an answer (to any definition you like).

You can write to me in Hebrew. I would actually prefer it.

And why would you like to know my gender? You should read my writing and analysis for what they are, not based on who I am. The law of gravity is true not because a man discovered it, but because it is scientifically correct.

You are confusing science and art.

To say “women live in a patriarchal society” is very different than saying “I like to read Tolstoy”; the first statement should be studied and applied to reality and if incorrect is untrue. The second statement can be true subjectively.

Virginia Woolf’s “in a room of ones own” is in my view is beautifully written. Her feminist’s statements in the book about the society at that time are scientifically true.

Well, I urge you to relate to all my statements as if they are a scientific. You should take all my statements and apply them to reality, experiment with them. For me this is more important than if you just agree with me. How would I know if I’m wrong if you would not tell me? How would we find the best scientific way to liberate humanity, if only one person would discus and think about that?

What’s important to me should be important to you, it our future.

I’m not going to answer that question; I do, however, request that you ask yourself if it would make a difference in how you relate to my writings if I was man or woman.

Take care,

I think that this is an excellent question that I and any other leftist person have been wondering about. Why do Israelis ignore any critics or different outlook’s that contradict what they are taught by the Zionist propaganda machine?

Indeed, what’s up with Israelis?
How can most of Israelis support the racist acts of their government against Palestinians for years and then be surprised when Palestinians terrorist group emerge? Why is it that most Israelis have supported the occupation of Palestine and governments of the right and the left have built more and more settlements? Why is it that Israel have pulled out of Lebanon, not because of the hundreds of civilians that were tortured and killed because of this occupation, but because of a movement of mothers who have convinced Israelis that its not wisely to sacrificing Israelis soldiers? Why do Israelis don’t lift a finger against the millions of dollars received from evangelical Christian who describe Jews as the killers of Christ and as people who will need to be converted or killed, while describing anyone who oppose the occupation of Palestine as Anti-Semitic? Why is it that Israelis have never demonstrated against the selling of weapons by the state of Israel to dictators who killed thousands of people in South America? Why is it that Israelis have never opposed the support of their government to the Apartheid government in South Africa? Why do most Israelis support the building of an apartheid wall that is built on the land of thousands of Palestinian and in direct valuation of the green line?

Even in America, the leading imperialist country, millions of people have demonstrated against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq even before it was known that there were no weapons of mass-destruction and right after 9/11. But in Israel, 97% of Israelis have supported the invasion of Lebanon, against an organization that would not exist if it wasn’t for the Israeli brutal occupation of Lebanon, and have withdrawn their support to the war only after Israeli soldiers (not the death of more then a thousands civilians) have died. And even now, the political debate in the Israeli society is not about how to avoid more occupation and wars, but who is a good candidate to win the war against the Palestinians, who can manage and win the war against the Hisbala.

You don’t need to be a communist to oppose all of this.

I’m proud to stand against everything that people here, or in Israel support.

You keep nitpicking and relating to the superficial.

The question was “why do most people here don’t take you seriously?”
To which I have answered, that Israelis in general don’t listen to other views or act against oppression.

You have no right to demand from others to reply to me when you, who according to your own answer agree with me, but still relate to the superficial. Take some responsibility and deal with my comments maturely, instead of immediately accusing me of “disrespecting Israelis”.

The question was not "why do most people here don’t take you seriously?"

The question was "why do most people here don’t take you scientifically?"

You keep nitpicking. There is no way that you have meant something other than how I interpret you.
Deal with my comment, or stop wasting my time.

"How can most of Israelis support the racist acts of their government against Palestinians for years and then be surprised when Palestinians terrorist group emerge? Why is it that most Israelis have supported the occupation of Palestine and governments of the right and the left have built more and more settlements?"

"Why is it that Israel have pulled out of Lebanon, not because of the hundreds of civilians that were tortured and killed because of this occupation, but because of a movement of mothers who have convinced Israelis that its not wisely to sacrificing Israelis soldiers?"

"Why do Israelis don’t lift a finger against the millions of dollars received from evangelical Christian who describe Jews as the killers of Christ and as people who will need to be converted or killed, while describing anyone who oppose the occupation of Palestine as Anti-Semitic?"

"Why is it that Israelis have never demonstrated against the selling of weapons by the state of Israel to dictators who killed thousands of people in South America?"

"Why do most Israelis support the building of an apartheid wall that is built on the land of thousands of Palestinian and in direct valuation of the green line?"

"Even in America, the leading imperialist country, millions of people have demonstrated against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq even before it was known that there were no weapons of mass-destruction and right after 9/11."

"But in Israel, 97% of Israelis have supported the invasion of Lebanon, against an organization that would not exist if it wasn’t for the Israeli brutal occupation of Lebanon..."

"...and have withdrawn their support to the war only after Israeli soldiers (not the death of more then a thousands civilians) have died. And even now, the political debate in the Israeli society is not about how to avoid more occupation and wars, but who is a good candidate to win the war against the Palestinians, who can manage and win the war against the Hisbala."

"You don’t need to be a communist to oppose all of this."

It's the old "bait-and-switch", my friend.

You’re the one who is actually blinded by his own ideology.
It’s an election year, and the democrats are trying to appeal to the people that they have dissertated for last six years. The Democrats not only wont pull out of Iraq, on some level they can’t. You’re the one, who is ignoring history, the war in Vietnam was ended by a conservative republican not by all the other democratic candidates who promised to stop the war (and only escalated it). This happened through a large movement of people in the streets (and the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese) who forced the ruling class to retreat and to appear “democratic”.
Stop ignoring the economic base of the capitalist system, and face reality and history for what it is, a contradiction between classes.

Once again I am dismayed by and exhibition of cant slogans. It seems as if an egregious miscomprehension is coupled with uncopasetic reading of current events.

The bill is not going to end the war. Leading democrats have said that it does not matter if bush veto the bill, the democrats would still found the war. Under the logic of “support our troops” and “we love America” the democrats are not going to be seen as the people who will stop the founding of the war. The democrats have promised that they would change things when they have a majority, now they have it and they are still not doing anything. Most of them have supported the war numerous times, of have not done anything in the last four years. And both Democrats and republican uphold the idea of the U.S. domination over the rest of the world.

The war is not the only horrific acts of the bush administration. Torture, women’s rights, theocracy, war on Iran, and to all of that the democrats have no answer.

Woman would never the gain the rights, or the right to vote if they would put their face in the electoral politics. The Black nation would never gain their rights if it wasn’t for massive movements out of the electoral politics. And the Vietnam War would have never been stopped if it wasn’t for people in the streets.

But don’t let all this facts ruined your liberal-utopian view of the world.

Please don’t respond to me with some half-ass comments composed of sloppy words.

P.S.
What’s the difference between saying “I support the troops, not the war” and “I support the rapist not the rape”?

Hmm, that "bottom" is here again.

Somehow it looks like petulence leads you to gnaw this exchange down into degenerated tone and content.

As for your P.S., I may be wrong but aren't you the one more adroit in drawing comparecement with such despicable obcenity.

“I may be wrong but aren't you the one more adroit in drawing comparecement with such despicable obcenity.”
That depends how you define the occupation of Iraq. If for you the bombing of hundred of thousand of Iraqis, torture of Iraqis civilians (some of it sexual) and results that have led to more then 600.000 civilians dead (all based on lies and to control the oil market) is not on the scale of rape, than yes, I am the one who making obscene accusation.

It is sad that you have chosen to ignore the rest of my comment.

Oddly enough, you have elected to pontificate absolute truths under an article based on a premise of openness to alternative points of view, in what seems like a blunt attempt to hammer people into lock step march hailing your very own peculiar myopic, albeit not completely devoid of merit, view.

So, there are two things that you are doing here.

A. You are ignoring the subject, the question of “democracy” in the U.S., and pushing this discussion to become something else.

B. You are trying to scull me into your very limited definition of “openness”. Real democracy is not a debate between the extreme right and the centered right, between the very passive “left” and the very active and vigorous right.
I think that the situation in Palestine is horrendous, and its time for Israelis who don’t know what’s going on in Palestine, to be “open” to the understanding that they are responsible on some level to the horrendous acts committed by their government, and the Israelis who do know what’s going on, to do something.

I really don’t understand what you want from me. If I were to call my self “Sharon more then ever” and talk about how Palestinians should be treated as a second class citizens and expelled, I would be considered as a legitimate debater on this web-site. But when I come and uphold Marxism and try to awaken Israelis in the direction of some activism and responsibility towards the rest of the world, or god forbid towards Palestinians, it’s unacceptable.

The condition that most of humanity is living under, require action by people. This is not just my truth, but objectively true. We can always debate on how to improve and help humanity, but we need to start some meaningful discussion.

All of this does not negates the very appreciated afford by you to expose Israelis to a better understanding of history.

That’s true, the real fundamental subject is why do Israelis are not doing enough against oppression committed by their own government. They do not need to do exactly “what I want them to do”, but they need to do something. Again, I do feel that Israelis pusses enough privilege to act. There is no reason that hundred of university students can pure into the streets and protest, and not do the same thing against the occupation.

It’s very easy for me to answer questions about history and democracy. But when it comes to Marxism, to debating you, I found my self opening books, searching the web, and writing very long and necessary answers that requires a lot of time, something that I don’t have much of at the moment.

On a personal level, this might sound somewhat liberal and in direct contradiction to the spirit of Marxism, but I don’t have a lot of problems with your political orientation. I think its incorrect (I’m not fully liberal…) but I do think that you embody what a lot of Israelis should do. I’d rather at the moment, with my limited time, expose more and more liberals who are caught in a very problematic world view, to deep political questions and into the streets. Out of the whole “my truth your truth, we can all live in harmony” and into a direct struggle against oppression.

When I have the time to delve into deep questions of Marxism, you’ll be the first to know.

This is going to be my last comment on this website for this time period. If you write me an answer, I will happily read it.

"That’s true, the real fundamental subject is why do Israelis are not doing enough against oppression committed by their own government."

" They do not need to do exactly “what I want them to do”, but they need to do something. Again, I do feel that Israelis pusses enough privilege to act."

" There is no reason that hundred of university students can pure into the streets and protest, and not do the same thing against the occupation."

"It’s very easy for me to answer questions about history and democracy. But when it comes to Marxism, to debating you, I found my self opening books, searching the web, and writing very long and necessary answers that requires a lot of time, something that I don’t have much of at the moment."

"On a personal level, this might sound somewhat liberal and in direct contradiction to the spirit of Marxism, but I don’t have a lot of problems with your political orientation. I think its incorrect (I’m not fully liberal…) but I do think that you embody what a lot of Israelis should do. I’d rather at the moment, with my limited time, expose more and more liberals who are caught in a very problematic world view, to deep political questions and into the streets. Out of the whole “my truth your truth, we can all live in harmony” and into a direct struggle against oppression."

"When I have the time to delve into deep questions of Marxism, you’ll be the first to know."

I disagree with your statement that I just quote from Marxist books, I reviewed all my comments here and they all materialist, they all consist of examples from reality.

Marx, although brilliantly analyzing reality, have lived a long time ago, and had some false understandings. His theory, for example, that the third world countries should wait for the technologically “advance” European countries to make a socialist revolution suffers from Eurocentrism. That should lead us all Marxist to a couple of observations: 1. Marx had some limitation in understanding reality. 2. Truth exists regardless of who says it 3. Marxism is a living science and need to be applied to reality and not be based on books. 4. Its extremely important to study Lenin’s and Mao’s writings so we can elevated and applied Marxism to our days. (By the way, Marx was a strong advocate of the idea of the “dictatorship of the proletarian”).

Marxism is a very difficult science. Not only its needs to be correct by other fields of sciences, its need to be applied to reality. It would be very easy for me to come here and write “capitalism is bad”. That, however, would not salve a thing. To explain just this statement like that I would need to delve into “Capital” and “Imperialism the highest stage of Capitalism”, show how capitalism and imperialism affects the world and Israel in particular, and how capitalism gives rise and affect the occupation of Palestine. In short, reality is complex.
The questions that you arise, again, are complex. They involve an analysis of what makes a proletarian, labor aristocracy, historical investigation of revolutionary political movements and revolts by Israelis (to prove that sections of the Israeli society do have an interest in a change) how imperialism affects Israelis (to determine how many Israelis are depended on the exploitation of the third world) what conditions have changed from the times of Marx, and probably more questions that I cant think about right now. I don’t have time for all of this at the moment.

Ai, my friend, you keep dragging me into a debate that I have no time for. Your spirit of finding answers and searching for truth is admirable, but if you have some patience, we might be able to conduct this discussion in Hebrew, something that would allow us both to understand each other better.

Respect me, let me go.

B. You are trying to scull me into your very limited definition of “openness”. Real democracy is not a debate between the extreme right and the centered right, between the very passive “left” and the very active and vigorous right.

I would be considered as a legitimate debater on this web-site

I wish that what you are saying is true. I would love to debate this with you one day, and again, hopefully I’m wrong.

I disagree that demonstrations are irrelevant. The state can be exposed and people can be educated in a lot of ways through demonstrations.

Your point about the Democrats is true, there are not very different from the republicans. While the republicans never deny who they are, the democrats try to appear as something else. Its another example to how democracy can never be achieved in a class society (which is another subject for weeks and weeks of debates).

Happy May 1

P.S.
Here is how the Maoists in India are choosing to oppose the state. Hopefully their struggle will be connected to the Maoists in Nepal.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IC20Df01.htm...

"A Room of One's Own"

Cut the bullshit, and, with all respect, don't tell people what they should do or shouldn't do. And there's no need to repeat Clichés we've heard a thousand times before. If you want to answer the question, answer it, and if you don't - don't. That's all there's to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman

Are you a woman?

"You can write to me in Hebrew. I would actually prefer it."