That’s an interesting summarization of both books.

Here are some of my comments on your points,

I have nothing to say about Carter, he reminds me of people like Robert McNamara who have repented and think that they, somehow, have a better idea of how to “manage” the empire. Furthermore, your evaluation of Carter and the policies of his government should be seen with relation to the people’s movements at the time. You can’t separate Carter from the late 60s and early 70s. You can’t separate Carters policies from the Black Panthers, the Feminist movement, the Weather underground, and the American Indian Movement. The real forces of history are the people, not this or that candidate. The withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, for example, did not happen thanks to Nixon, but because of the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese and the anti-war movement in America. Nixon resignation too, occurred not because of the Watergate scandal, but because of the anarchy and the political movements who spread uncertainty and doubt in the American government. Presidents before and after Nixon have committed and were caught in worse crimes than spying on rival political candidates, they, however, did not resigned. The Iran-Contra affair or the ideological buildups for the latest Iraq war (relations between Al –Qaeda and Saddam, weapons of mass destruction) constitute a deeper controversy than the Watergate scandal, these scandals, however, never required Reagan or Bush to resignation.

Rashid Khalidi book is indeed a fascinating book that describe modern history for what it is, a process that have always been affected by imperialist powers. I cannot stress enough how important this view is in understanding history. There is no way to understand history accurately without examining this fundamental point- that the world today is a world that was shaped by colonizers and imperialists powers. This is not just Khalidi subjective view about history, its THE ONLY WAY to understand current history. One cannot understand the devastating conditions in which Africans are living in today without understanding the rule of European powers in colonizing Africa and in shaping these conditions. One cannot understand the political and economic conditions of South American countries today without investigating the involvement of America in undermining democratic regimes or in enforcing distractive economic policies. And one cannot understand the Middle East without researching the acts of foreign powers, from dividing the Middle East between the colonizers to the economic support to dictators and racist governments.
Furthermore, by taking a liberal approach to Khalidi book you only leave the readers with the understanding that history is relative. That somehow, the centric-victim idealism and superstition that the Zionist beliefs is based on, is equal to a scientific approach to history. Taking this line to its conclusion would mean that the killing of 4 millions Vietnamese and Cambodians and the occupation of Vietnam might have been necessary, since after all, no one wanted the Domino Affect to Happen. Or that the current occupation of Iraq and the death of more than 600 thousands Iraqis since the American invasion, might be justified since America is trying to promote “democracy”.

I would disagree with your analysis of how “the Zionist movement has managed to talk into imperialist powers” to support the colonized occupation of Palestine. Sure, Zionists were integral in convincing imperialists to support the Zionist-racist acts in Palestine, but that does not take away the responsibility or the interests and motivation of imperialist powers in supporting the Zionist movement. This view reminds me of the idea that some people hold that, somehow, the Israeli lobby affects Washington policies and the American media (This got to a point where people today accuse Israel in convincing Washington to invade Iraq!). Washington (and other old imperialist’s powers) is interested in Israel for the imperialist acts that Israel has always fulfilled (a point that was not addressed in the article). The embargo enforced on Cuba, for example, has nothing to do with the American-Cuban lobby and has everything to do with Cuban political and economic opposition in South America (and in other places) to Washington policies. Or the support to Apartheid government in South Africa happened regardless of the opposition in the American government and the massive opposition and demonstrations against the Apartheid regime. Furthermore, when comparing between Israel and apartheid, one needs to remember that the apartheid government never built a wall that separated between whites and people of color.

I would stay away from Dershwits, a known apologizer for Israeli most hurriedness acts. I would recommend reading his book “The Case for Israel” which is a joke (and after reading Khalidi you would have no problem in understanding that), and mostly a plagiarize of John Peters book “From Time Immemorial”. Furthermore, some of Dershowits data in the book comes from Hollywood movies (Last Day in September), websites that have nothing to do with history (sony.com), or from high schools syllabus. I invite you to check this for yourself by looking at the appendix.
If you are still unconvinced in Dershowits drive to twist history, I would recommend reading “Beyond Chutzpa” by Norman Finkelstein, or to check his debate with Chomsky.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1119...

I would like to recommend you some books that would further deepen your understanding of history:
People’s History of United States, by Howard Zinn, And the Blowback Trilogy (three books), by Chalmers Johnson.

In any case, your article is good. You are using critical thinking in regard to history and I can only unite with your call for Israelis to investigate other ideas than what they are thought by the Zionist propaganda machine. I would only add that people should investigate history for what it is, not as subjective-relative phenomena. Furthermore, knowing takes responsibility, and the privilege to have the time and ability to investigate reality takes even more responsibility towards others, the ones who do not have this freedom and opportunity.

Good luck and I will look forward to your next article.

p.s.
When criticizing Carter for his inability to identify terrorism, you should be the first to define what it is. It is not enough to just point out some logical fallacy of carter, you should describe who is a terrorist, who is a civilian, and who is a military personal of the state. Your government executed Eichmann, not for killing Jews himself, but for obeying the Nazi government orders and making sure that the Nazi killing machine operate smoothly (yes, I’m making this comparison).

Ai, Ai, Ai, comrade, you have failed me again. At least you did not force me to painfully, read, your, elementary, ridiculous, poetry (attach a paunch line). As usual with you, you accuse me of things that you can’t prove and employ the most stupid arguments to reclaim some kind of dignity. If my observation in regard to history are untrue why don’t you disproof me? Why don’t you do some research (as you did with my point about Dershowits) to destroy my other claims?

So, you have found out of a two page writing, out of four accusations of Dershowits inability to prove his claims, one argument which you had some ability to backup? Damn, quiet an intellectual you are (and a poet too.)

My argument, which you have managed to reply to, does not stop in Dershowits reliance on movies make his point, it is the fact that a Harvard law professor employ as a source, in book that supposed to be academic, a Hollywood movie (and a book that was written about this movie). This, in any university, would enough to dismiss ones essay or project. One can never respond to this accusation, as Dershowits did, by stating that “I’m happy that I don’t have to cite inaccessible sources”.
Furthermore, Dershowits argument does not stop there, in regard to the Black September Movement, dershowits claims that the relice of three terrorist Palestinians was done do a secret deal between Chancellor Brandt and Palestinian terrorist to hijack an airplane with German civilians and to demand the realise of the three captured Palestinian terrorists. This way, the Brandt could give up to the “demands” to relice the three Palestinians. Dershovits resource for this conspiracy theory? A book based on the movie One Day in September. Not only that, in an interview the author of the book Urlich Wagener have affirmed that his statement “can’t be interdependent as evidence for an alleged secret deal between the federal government and terrorists”.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of Dershowits drive to twist history. I only replied to the one point that you managed to somewhat answer.
And what about my claim that Dershiwits have plagiarized his book, Hmmm? As usual, no comment. You only deal with argumants that you can backup by quickly surfing the net, you probably found it in victimmantality.com

What do you do when you write all your pseudo-poetry and ridicules comments? Do you put some violin in the background? Do you masturbate in front of your country flag, or an IDF symbols?

No, we cant have a discussion in a communist country since there are no cominist countries that still exist today. To call those oppressive regimes communist would be the same as calling your country “democratic” just because your government claims to be one.

But I enjoy this game, comrade. You’re doing half my job by exposing what Zionism stands for, uncritical thinking. Let’s keep it going, you answer me with ridicules Zionist- brainwash comments. And I will expose your stupidity in millions ways.

Bring it on, Zionist-zombie.

No, what I wrote is that you’re not even intelligent enough to check your own claims. But with your level of stupidity I should have known that you won’t understand the answer. God, what a mentality, you will sell your self-respect, expose your dumb way of thinking, and establish yourself as a dogmatic brainwashed schizophrenic, and all to “defend the motherland”, all to “rescue Israel” from the “evil forces” that are trying to “destroy your beloved country”. With such a pig mentality you could have made a career in the police or your army. People reading you might think that a change in your society is easy, since all we need to deal with is dumb people like you.

But since I have promised to expose you, ill do it again (and as usual I don’t expect you to understand the answer.)
I doubt that you even read the book, but in one of Dershowits chapters called “why terrorism work” Dershowits claims that the U.N. assembly encourage terrorism against Israel when in 1979 it approved an exception to the international convention against the taking of hostages. According to Dershowits, the amendment reads that people under colonial occupation have the right to hijack civilians. This is another way in which your Zionist friend is claiming that the world is encouraging terrorist acts against Israelis. Here Dershowits not only ignoring facts, namely that Israel have been kidnapping civilians for years, he distort the U.N. protocol. The Husted Convention is actually EXTANDING the probations against hostage taking, beyond the contest of arm conflicts. The article that Dershowits mentions already notes that probations against hostage taking already exist, the intent of the protocol was to only extend, while opposing hostage taking, the definitions of armed conflicts to conflict that involve the right of people to self determination. Not only that, BUT ISRAEL HAVE VOTED TO APPROVE THE HUSTED CUNVENTION.

Now, since I don’t think that Dershowits is as dumb as you, I do get the feeling that Dershowits knowingly distorted a fact only so it could support his twisted ideology. Twisting facts would be expected out of a Zionist think-tank it becomes more of a controversy, however, when the writer Herverd law professor. If Dershowits would have written the same historical twisted “facts” to support the Palestinians struggle he would have been fired in a second.
Again, another example out of many to Dershowits drive to twist history.

Do you really think that people are stupid? Do you think that people will read our comments and won’t see your inability to support your claims? Your dogmatic approach to history?

It’s your turn, zombie.

I apologies, I’m trying to make the adjustments to write in Hebrew in the future. Let me knew if there is any point that you would like me to elaborate on.

In my writing I never intended to hurt your feelings, defiantly not to disrespect your father. I’m attacking Zionism as an ideology, which in my view paved the way to horrendous acts against the Palestinians.
We are the ones who make meaning out of our life, and our action defines us the most. It is not a secret that 20% of the population of world exploits 80% of the world resources. It is not a secret that half of the populations of the world lives on 2 dollars a day, or that in third world countries thousands of kids are dieing from hunger and preventable daisies. Only by employing a real investigating of history one can fully understand the reasons behind this conditions and the way to change them.

I did not just scream “it’s the only way”, I did give some examples. History does not exist in the abstract. Again, if one looks at Africa today with out considering the past, one would come into some very problematic observations. Observations such as saying that something wrong with black people in Africa, or that Africans just need to stop playing the victims and get out of poverty. Looking at history from that point would only leave us with theories that fundamentally will enforce racism or blame the sufferers. And this is why it is so important to look at history correctly. It is in a lot of ways the philosophy behind the actions. I’m sure you can think on some instances where in your country history is twisted to justify actions.

I would disregard your low training in the study of history as a proof for your inability to deal with history. I can write books about how history is abused in schools and universities and how the teaching of history is disconnected from reality and life. In my line of work, I meet people who have been trained for years in different areas of studies and can’t find their own ass with map and flash light.

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. I can criticize Palestinian tactics, but I can never criticize their ability to fight for their rights against one of the most powerful armies, that in itself is heroic. That is very different with Israelis who enjoy privileges and benefit from the occupation of Palestine. 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. Israelis who oppose the occupation will in the worse case be put in jail for a couple of years, while Palestinians who are opposing the occupation (even peacefully) have been subjected to long arrests and torture. There is no justification to the fact that there is no real left in Israel. Their definitely no justification to the passive resistance of the Israeli left to the atrocious acts they are “forced” to participate it. Their are so many books in your country who were written by Israelis who write about orders that they received to bomb villages and to kill and torture civilians, and how hard is was FOR THEM to fulfill this order and how THEY ARE in such a trauma for the rest of THEIR LIFE. There is a whole genre of books about the occupation of South Lebanon that are on the border of the absurd. Soldiers who write about how hard it was to sit in an army bases while the Hisbala is shooting missiles at them, forgetting to mention that from these army bases Israeli soldiers would kidnapped civilians, or that these bases provided a protection to South Lebanon Army who under the supervision of Israeli soldiers have tutored hundreds of civilians. Little Eichmann’s, technocrats of the Shin Bet who write about how difficult it was for them to arrest civilians or to pressure people to turn in family members or about fallow officers who tortured people. Take for example Bofore, a movie dedicated to the experience of the occupation of Lebanon from the view point of the occupying soldiers. The only mention of Lebanese in the movie is through the Hisbala missiles who hit the base.
Think how ridicules it would be if you read a book by a Nazi soldier who writes who hard it was to occupy Paris, how hard it was to arrest civilians and bomb villages, and how he is in such a trauma from it for the rest of his life. Its time for the Israeli left to grew up and stop wining after hand about horrendous acts that soldiers and technocrats are “forced” to do. To stop view wars and occupation only by how they affect the Jewish-Israeli side of the conflict. Israelis have choices, more choices then the Palestinians, and they should refuse order and put their privileges on the line to avoid committing crimes.

There is a difference between a national ideology of oppress and third world countries, than that of imperialist countries. The Palestinian right for self determination is very different than the Zionist ideology that uphold special privileges based on religious affiliation and deny rights to people who were burn and raised in your country.

My point in studying history deeply was that behind every action that we do there is an ideology. From what you eat to whom you date and to your political belief; there are all motivated by some kind of philosophy. Twisted and untrue history is in a lot of ways the philosophy of oppression. People in America would never support their government invasion to Iraq if they were actually educated about their country warm relation with Saddam for years, and why these relations changed. A correct understanding of history can only lead to actions. And by actions I mean to start organizing politically and to refuse to serve in the IDF.

I would like to send my deepest support for your father who seems from what you write to have experience a very hard life. I can only hope that the rest of his life was somewhat better, and that as a survivor he managed to experience some happiness in his life. I would disagree with his conclusion that the only way to stop the oppression of Jews were by establishing a state for Jews only. If oppression was a parameter to the right to establish a country women should have gain that right a long time ago, definitely Palestinians. The facts is that there is a community of Israelis in Israel, no one should tall them to leave just as no one should force Palestinians to transfer.

"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.